improving standards alone does not guarantee
safer construction. There are some important
differences between building housing in developed
and developing countries which would have to
be considered when deciding how to make post-
disaster reconstruction safer. These differences are
summarised on page 3.
When there is a lack of capacity in a developing
country to devise standards in specialist areas,
such as disaster resistant structures, it becomes
tempting to adopt the standards of developed
countries that have proven to withstand disasters.
Thus, several Latin American countries have
adopted standards for earthquake resistance
from the USA, and Asian countries have derived
standards from Japan or New Zealand. This often
only had a limited positive impact, because:
• The standards are set at a very high level which
makes them unaffordable to a majority in
developing countries.
• The standards over-emphasize engineering
solutions, encouraging the use of modern
materials and techniques by building
contractors, rather than allowing for informal
construction. They overlook vernacular
construction and its own disaster-resistant
elements.
• The capacity for adequate implementation and
inspection is often lacking.
The adoption of such ‘ideal’ standards may
have worked for some buildings, but generally has
helped make low-income housing less vulnerable to
disasters. That is not to say that having standards
is wrong, just that they need to be fit for purpose.
Having the best standards may only protect a small
proportion of the population. Instead, moderate
standards with simple processes of compliance
might be able to protect a majority from all but the
highest magnitude disasters.
Finally, some consideration needs to be given to
retro-fitting as an option for strengthening existing
dwellings, some of which may have suffered
repairable damage. Rather than replacing such
dwellings with entirely new ones of a high standard,
retro-fitting is a much more cost-efficient solution
for providing disaster resistance. Standards for
reconstruction should therefore not just cover new
buildings, but also the retro-fitting of existing ones.
A People-Centred view of standards
Historically, building regulations, codes and
standards were developed to ensure protection of
people from illness, injury and accidental death
when they live, work-in or visit a building. However,
this system of building control developed largely
for the public good has often failed to deliver
an adequate level of protection against natural
disasters in developing countries. Past experience
shows that regulatory frameworks derived from
developed countries are often inappropriate for
developing countries (see e.g. Yahya et al., 2001).
Reform of regulations can take several decades
because of the need to pay attention also to the
processes of applying, decision making, appealing,
communicating with applicants, record keeping and
dealing with non-compliance. If those processes
are too complex and costly, few property owners will
bother to comply (see e.g. de Soto, 1989: chapter
2). It is important for reform to have a group of
champions who manage to overcome the obstacles
thrown in their way by stakeholders who have
something to gain from maintaining the status quo.
In People-Centred Reconstruction, people are
what matters most. In other Tools and a Position
Paper on PCR, we have argued that the ultimate
aim of PCR is more than just achieving safer
housing; it is to make the people themselves more
resilient. In the reconstruction process itself, this
means empowering them by involving them much
more in decision making. The process should not
just aim to rebuild houses, but also livelihoods,
local markets and social networks, as these all are
crucial in generating resilience.
If people are what matters most, then standards
should protect people first and foremost, and aim to
substantially reduce the number of casualties that
natural disasters cause. Lives cannot be replaced,
but buildings and other assets can, and often
are with the aid that is given following disasters.
Applying this principle to building practice, means
that a certain amount of damage to buildings could
be acceptable, but their collapse on people inside
should be prevented.
This thought can be translated into regulations
and standards to define the weight and integrity
of roofs and intermediate floors, the strength and
technologies for supporting structures, and their
connections. However, if for example walls have
no structural contribution, they could be allowed
to be relatively flimsy. For certain types of high-
The inhabitants of this house in Moquegua, Peru had a narrow
escape, because the failing roof slid sideways rather than falling
in on them.
4