Shailesh KATARIA1, Cassidy JOHNSON2, Douglas MURRAY-JONES1 1Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Disaster Mangement Commission, United Kingdom; 2Development Planning Unit, University College London

1. PRO-POOR BUILDING CODES FOR DRR
By Cassidy Johnson, UCL DPU & Shailesh Kataria, RICS

2. Workshop outline
1h 30m
• Presentation
• Context
• Main problems
• Small Group Discussion
• Feedback
• Case Studies

3. What is RICS?
• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
• Non-profit professional organisation – with a „public
interest‟ mandate
• Sets standards & promotes best practices for all
aspects of land, property and construction
• Started in England, but is now global - 100,000
members in 150 countries

4. RICS Disaster Management Commission
Mission
• To bring the skills of RICS and other built environment
professionals to strengthen capacity of vulnerable
communities to reduce disaster risks and improve
disaster recovery
 18 Commissioners/staff
 250 volunteers (professionals and their firms)
www.rics.org/disastermanagement

5. Earthquakes don’t kill, buildings do!
Haiti – over 200,000 deaths New Zealand – 0 deaths

6. HFA Priority 4:
‘…incorporate DRR, including enforcement of building codes’
Resilient Cities Campaign Checklist 6:
‘…enforce realistic risk compliant building regulations…’

7. RICS DMC Project with UNESCO/GTFBC:
‘Global Building Codes Mapping’
2011 HFA Progress Report:
 63 countries mention building codes
 3 countries report they have no building codes
Most poor/vulnerable people build informally –
beyond scope of building codes

8. Why ineffective action on BC?
Cost of complying with building codes –
perceived to be a key constraint.
Is that a myth?

9. Why ineffective action on BC?
Research by Saad Yahya/Practical
Action, RICS, Unesco, UNISDR, IFRC/SKAT,
UNCRD, etc:
1. Political motivation
2. ‘Technical’ issues
3. Enforcement issues

10. 1. Political Motivation
• Long-term project: Results of safe building, in
terms of lives saved, is not immediately visible
• Can require large changes in land
management systems, technical capacity
• Insurmountable problem
• Political hurdles to make changes, many
vested interests

11. Political hurdles in the application of building codes:
Turkey after the 1999 earthquake
❖Prior to 1999 earthquake, municipal engineers were not able to
check design calculations thoroughly because of their heavy workload
or their professional qualification. This has always been identified as
one of the core reasons for failure of code enforcement
Gülkan, 2010
Düzce town centre before 1999 earthquakes Düzce after 1999 earthquakes

12. Political hurdles in the application of building codes:
Turkey after the 1999 earthquake
❖After earthquake strong political motivation to improve building
construction supervision „Decree with Power of Law,‟ No. D595 “Building Construction Supervision”
❖New system whereby construction supervision firm assumed
functions of municipality - supervisory role in checking design calculations
and actual construction activity at building site. Public agent ensuring
materials, workmanship, detailing requirements fulfilled. Needed to have ten-
year duration liability insurance coverage for each job.
❖Opposition campaign by professional groups, lack of ability for
supervision firms to attain insurance, changes needed to be made in
civil law, commercial law and insurance law
❖Decree was rescinded in 2001 and replaced by law L4708, 19 provinces.
2010 was extended to all provinces. However, still places responsibility on
municipality.
Gülkan, 2010

13. 2. Technical issues
• Lack of technical expertise to implement, especially
in smaller towns
• Overly complicated standards, especially for simple
construction
• High proportion of informal building, non-
engineered structures
• Rigid/unrealistic codes – for ex. allowing
incremental building

14. Standards are not appropriate for the way
people can build
Bangladesh National Building Code
✤ Minimum standard housing density 75
units/hectare, average 5
persons/dwelling.
✤ The minimum plot size between 30 sq.
m to 25 sq. m. Minimum width of
walkways 3 m.
✤ Individual plot max. of 75% land
coverage, 1.5 m open space at the
front. Minimum size of the 1st habitable
room is 9 sq. m and the 2nd, 6 sq. m; 15
sq.m total.
✤ No option of incremental development
✤ No considerations about addressing
climate and other risks varying in
different locations.
(from Jabeen and Mallick, 2009)

15. 3. Enforcement Issues
• Lack of capacity to enforce compliance with
standards, to make checks and issue permits
• Overly complicated procedures for obtaining legal
permits

16. PROCEDIMIENTOS Y
INVERSIONISTA REGISTROS
PLAZOS DEPENDENCIAS DE LA MML MUNICIPALIDAD
O PROMOTOR PÚBLICOS
QUE INTERVIENEN
Overly complicated procedures for
INFORMACIÓN
INICIA GESTIÓN
PRELIMINAR
1.-CONSULTA PRELIMINAR SE INFORMA
ORIENTACIÓN
ADQUISICIÓN DE CARPETA DE
VARIABLE TRÁMITE
CANCELA DERECHOS
EN CONDICIONES ÓPTIMAS DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN:
- OF. TRAMITE CARPETA DE
1 DÍA HÁBIL DOCUMENTARIO TRÁMITE
building approvals
- DIV. DE EDIFICACIONES
- CAJA MUNICIPAL
2.- CERTIFICADO DE PARAMETROS
URBANISTICOS Y EDIFICATORIOS CANCELA DERECHOS Y CERTIFICADO DE
SEGÚN REGLAMENTO PRESENTA SOLICITUD ADMISIÓN A TRÁMITE DE PARÁMETROS URBANÍSTICOS
DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN: FOM EXPEDIENTE EDIFICATORIOS
- OF. TRAMITE
5 DÍAS HÁBILES DOCUMENTARIO
- OPDM
5 DIAS
- CAJA MUNICIPAL
•
4 Días
Of all regulatory constraints, research
EVALUACIÓN PRELIMINAR
INSPECCIÓN OCULAR
PRESENTA EXPEDIENTE PRECALIFICACIÓN 2 Día
3. ANTEPROYECTO EN CONSULTA FOM
ELABORACIÓN DE PLANOS ADMISIÓN A TRÁMITE DE DICTAMEN DE C. TÉCNICA
DE ANTEPROYECTO CANCELA DERECHOS EXPEDIENTE ACTA DE CALIFICACIÓN
DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN:
Se estima 30 días hábiles RESOLUCIÓN 4Días
- OF. TRAMITE
Para planos de arquitectura NOTIFICACIÓN
DOCUMENTARIO
más
shows that administrative
- DIV. DE 1 Día 1 Día
EDIFICACIONES
GESTIÓN - COMISIÓN TÉCNICA
15 DIAS HABILES - CAJA MUNICIPAL 10 DIAS
NOTIFICACIÓN
procedures are invariably the greatest
3 DIAS
4. CALIFICACIÓN DE PROYECTO Y
LICENCIA AUTOMÁTICA PRESENTA
OPCIÓN B AUTOLIQUIDACIÓN
barrier to conformity.
ELABORACIÓN DE ADMISIÓN A TRÁMITE DE
FUO 1 ANEXO D EXPEDIENTE DE
EXPEDIENTE TÉCNICO
DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN: CANCELA DERECHOS PROYECTO
DEFINITIVO 1 Día
- OF. TRAMITE
DOCUMENTARIO
03 DÍAS HABILES - DIV. DE
EDIFICACIONES LICENCIA
- CAJA MUNICIPAL AUTOMÁTICA DE
OBRA
2 DÍAS
PRECALIFICACIÓN DE
INICIO DE OBRAS DE
PROYECTO,
CONSTRUCCIÓN
DICTAMEN DE C. TÉCNICA
ACTA DE CALIFICACIÓN
RESOLUCIÓN
NOTIFICACIÓN
•
5.- LICENCIA DE OBRA Y CERTIFICADO
In the historical centre of Lima
DE NUMERACION
OPCIONAL: PREDECLARATORIA DE
45 DIAS
FÁBRICA PARA INSCRIPCIÓN
PREVENTIVA EN REGISTROS
PÚBLICOS NO
SI PLANOS
CORRECCIÓN DE
OBSERVADOS
DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN: PLANOS Y OBRA
(Peru), to obtain an Automatic Building
¿?
- DIV. DE EDIFICACIONES
- COMISIÓN TÉCNICA
- DIV. DE LIQUIDACIÓN DE
55 DIAS HABILES NOMENCALTURA Y APROBACIÓN DE
DERECHOS DE
NUMERACIÓN CORRECCIONES
LICENCIA DE OBRA
- CAJA MUNICIPAL
License requires an average of 222
- DIV. DECLARATORIA 2 Día
DE FABRICA Y
- OF. DE TRÁMITE NOTIFICACIÓN
DOCUMENTARIO
(SÓLO PARA PRE 3 DIAS
DEC. DE FÁBRICA) CANCELA
DERECHOS
working days (311 calendar days) under
CERTIFICACIÓN DE
LICENCIA DE OBRA Y
GESTIONA CONEXIONES PREDECLARATORIA INSCRIPCIÓN
AUTENTICACIÓN CERTIFICADO DE
DOMICILIARIAS DE FABRICA PREVENTIVA DE DEC. DE
DE PLANOS NUMERACIÓN
PARA LA OBRA FUO 1 ANEXO.C FABRICA
1 DIA 5 DIAS
optimum conditions. VARIABLE
DEPENDE DEL
INVERSIONISTA Y DEL TIPO 6.- EJECUCION DE OBRA
DE OBRA
DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN:
- DIV. DE CONTROL DE
OBRAS
VENTA EN
PLANOS
ANOTACIONES
PREVENTIVAS DE
SE ESTIMA 7 MESES INDEPENDIZACIÓN Y
(OPCIONAL EN COMPRA VENTA
OPCIÓN B)
LA SUPERVISION
CULMINACIÓN DE OBRAS DE OBRA
DE CONSTRUCCIÓN OPCIONAL EN LA
MODALIDAD B
• Standards are so high and regulations VARIACIONES
SEGÚN PLANOS
APROBADOS
¿?
NO
DECLARACIÓN DE
FINALIZACION DE
OBRA Y SOLICITUD DE
CERTIFICACIÓN
ADMISIÓN A TRÁMITE
INSPECCIÓN OCULAR
so rigid that owners prefer to let
INFORME
SI
CANCELA
DERECHOS 1 DIA 18 DIAS
PLANOS DE REPLANTEO DE
CONSTRUCCIÓN LIQUIDACIÓN DE DERECHOS CERTIFICADO DE
ADICIONALES
buildings collapse
FINALIZACIÓN DE OBRA Y
7.- CERTIFICADO DE FINALIZACIÓN DE
ZONIFICACION
OBRA Y ZONIFICACIÓN
EN CONDICIONES ÓPTIMAS 8.- DECLARATORIA DE FABRICA
(SIN VARIACIONES 1 DÍAS
RESPECTO A LOS PLANOS DEPENDENCIAS QUE INTERVIENEN: APROBACIÓN DE PLANOS DE
APROBADOS) - DIV. DE CONTROL DE REPLANTEO
EDIFICACIONES FOM
25 DÍAS HÁBILES - DIV. DE
DECLARATORIA DE
RECEPCIÓN
FABRICA
- OF. TRAMITE
DOCUMENTARIO
- CAJA MUNICIPAL
Arq. Manuel de la Barra TRAMITA
DECLARATORIRICA DE
FAB
FUO 2
CANCELA
DERECHOS
ADMISIÓN A TRÁMITE
EVALUACIÓN
INFORME
DECLARATORIA DE
FABRICA
EN FUO 2
In Geoff Payne, 2010
2 DIA 2DIAS
1 DIA
RECEPCIÓN

17. These are the problems…
1. Political motivation
2. Technical issues
3. Enforcement issues
What are the solutions?

18. Questions for the workshop participants
1. Political Will: How do we make the issue of building standards a priority within national
and local governments? How do we get over the hurdles of political inertia?
2. Implementation: How can we improve the implementation of building standards? What
are different approaches to increase compliance, or improve building practices?
3. Informal construction: How do we increase safety of non-engineered structures? How to
improve building practices in the informal sector?
4. Participation: How can community-based processes for developing building standards
offer solutions? How can these scaled up or replicated?
5. Responsibility: Where should the locus of responsibility lie for safe building? Who
should be responsible for safety of buildings?
30 minutes for discussion
Please prepare 1 minute feedback to plenary

19. Principles to guide code revision efforts
Practical Action (ITDG) offers some principles to guide code revision efforts:
• Relevance: revisions should be relevant to environmental and economic
circumstances and deeply rooted in local cultures and living habits
• Cost reduction: changes must result in cost reductions so that adequate and
affordable shelter is attainable for all
• Focus: focus on improving conditions for poor in informal settlements
• Participation of all sectors of housing delivery process
• Flexible to allow for interpretations, variety of materials and technical
solutions, innovations
• Access: legislation should be easily accessible and widely disseminated
• Incremental improvement of dwelling and surroundings can happen
• Procedures: plan approval fast, free from corruption and inexpensive for builder.
Yahya, Saad, Elijah Agevi, Lucky Lowe, Alex Mugova, Oscar Musandu-Nyamayaro and Theo Schilderman
(2001), „Double Standards, Single Purpose: Reforming Housing Regulations to Reduce poverty‟, ITDG
Publishing, London

20. Innovations in Building Regulations
Modified from B. Levy, Innovations in Global Regulations, World Bank Working Paper 4851, 2011
Loop #1 – Change social norms: multistakeholder participation and credibility
Loop #2 – Increase compliance: social norms, engagement and credibility

21. New Paradigm:
Culture of Safety/Compliance
• Multistakeholder engagement
• Increased ownership/use through participation
• More accessible/simpler rules by involvement of
local private sector, masons/builders, etc
• BE professionals – training for DRR/safety
• Target guidance for informal construction – annex
• Increased awareness through use of mass media

22. New Paradigm:
increasing the evidence of positive experiences
• Kenya • Malawi
• Indonesia • Gujarat/India
• Vietnam • Namibia
• El Salvador • Thailand

23. RICS DMC Experiences
Providing free technical assistance to governments – and
working with civil society to create multistakeholder
platforms
• Three examples:
1. Kenya
2. Haiti
3. Malawi

24. Kenya
Professor Saad Yahya, RICS DM Commissioner, worked with
Practical Action: to make Kenyan building codes more relevant
• Creation of a multistakeholder platform – including built
environment professionals, private sector builders, local
masons, civil society, government officials, etc
• Lobbied parliament and city authorities – to improve
Kenyan building code
• Key lesson: changing codes does not change building
culture/compliance. Need to improve education and
awareness – incentives for building safely

25. Malawi
With Govt. of Malawi and Red Cross/UN-Habitat
• Malawi - no building codes. Following 2010
earthquake, created guidelines for safer construction of non-
engineered rural homes – with a multistakeholder platform (BE
professional institutions, private sector builders, local
masons, civil society, government officials, etc)
• Key success: guidelines used in all government and WB funded
projects, Malawi RC, NGOs, vocational training colleges and
communities. Provides platform for development of locally
appropriate building codes. Key lesson – again, about
communication and education

26. Haiti – key initiatives
Creating a culture of safety/compliance by:
1. Participative development of codes with all stakeholders –
increase ownership, raise awareness and ensure greater
simplicity for non-engineered structures.
2. Accessible/simple to benefit the poor - 90% of homes self-
built or by local masons
3. Use mass media for awareness raising
4. Invest in training – especially at community level
5. Improve training of local professionals
6. Improve capacity of government officials

27. Haiti
With Govt. of Haiti and local civil society platform
• Technical assistance for government ministries/officials
• Key initiatives: local civil society platform (coordinated by
Plan Haiti and Habitat Haiti), masonry skills training at
community level and increasing their engagement with
building codes development, partnership with local
universities to develop module on building codes for
engineers/architects/surveyors, retrofitting pilot project
• Key success: World Bank provided funding for codes
development, WB consultant: ‘since RICS DMC
initiative….different initiatives have moved ahead….more
important is the institutional framework and political
sensibility that increased’

28. Participatory development of standards that work for the
poor: Windhoek, Namibia
•Population 223,000 (2001)
• 26% of people living in informal •Recognition that housing policies were not
working for very poor; making health conditions
settlements worse for them
•Shack Dwellers International, local government,
NGO professionals develop progressive
regulations for land and housing policies
•Makes propositions for types of tenure based on
affordability. Only seeking cost recovery for
infrastructure
•Changes to laws:
•More than one family sharing ownership of a plot
•Reducing plot sizes
•Allowing incremental building
(Mitlin and Muller, 2004)
•Flexible on types of materials used

29. Negotiating building standards that work for the poor: The experience of National Union
of Low Income Community Organisations (NULICO) in Thailand
Baan Mankong ‘secure housing’ programme, is an innovative slum upgrading programme
administered by the national government’s Community Organisations Development
Institute (CODI), which fosters cooperation between low-income
communities, government authorities (from municipalities to public land owners), and
architects.
Offers subsidies, financing and technical advice for low-income settlements lacking
security of tenure.
The programme is based around the principal of communities forming savings groups
and organising themselves to manage the process.
As of November 2011, the programme had built over 90,813 houses in 1,546
communities across 277 cities and towns in Thailand
(http://www.codi.or.th)

30. In early 2011 a new national building standard was approved for use in the Baan
Mankong programme
This new standard has been developed by National Union of Low Income Community
Organisations (NULICO) together with various communities nationwide
The standards have been designed to respond to how people actually build their homes
given constraints of space and affordability.
Five-year process of negotiation. Ten national-level demonstrations about need for new
codes
Reduced setback to 1m, reduced distance between houses, reduced minimum width of
plot/house
Fire wall, tanks in each house (people now follow this with the new codes)
Can only be applied to a community (collective) housing project developed through the
government. Not available in individuals or private developers

31. Benefits of the new codes
- People have developed it, so they
realise the importance
-Risk reduction (especially for fires)
-conforming to codes is required
for good cooperation between
Baan Mankong communities and
local authorities. Need to have
projects approved to have support
from local authorities.
-used to get around this paying
bribes, etc
-For Bangkok Municipal
Authority, they can now support
these projects because they are
legal

32. Improving Building Safety – Lessons from other
countries
Next Steps – two specific requests:
• Keen to explore more initiatives with central/local governments to review
existing codes and provide free support for revision/creation of improved
codes
• Increasing partnership with academic institutions with expertise in
earthquake engineering for evaluation of codes for RICS/Unesco Global
Building Codes Mapping project
skataria@rics.org
www.rics.org/disastermanagement
cassidy.johnson@ucl.ac.uk
University College London, Development Planning Unit