Adopting International standards
The Sphere project (2011) has developed a
Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for
water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion;
food security and nutrition; shelter, settlement
and non-food items; and health action. These
standards, however, tend to focus more on
emergency and transitional shelter than on
reconstruction. Sphere standards may need revision
where they are applied to permanent housing, for
example, a minimum space of 3.5 m² per person
may be sufficient for a temporary shelter but not for
the long term. They could be applied to permanent
core housing designed to grow over time.
The International Standards Organisation, ISO,
has developed around 18,000 internationally
agreed standards on a wide range of products
and processes. It does so through over 200
international Technical Committees. The standards
produced by these committees can be purchased
on-line via the ISO web site: http://www.iso.org/iso/
iso_catalogue. The table indicates where the ISO
may have standards relevant to reconstruction.
Adopting a national regulatory framework
already in place
All countries have regulatory regimes in place
that determine the quality of construction;
these frameworks and their components can
vary considerably between countries, according
to whether they are embedded in Roman Law,
Napoleonic Law or other types of law. Their
components may go under names such as
laws, bylaws, regulations, codes, standards or
specifications. For more detailed information,
see Yahya et al. (2001), and the section on
Definitions. In many countries these regimes
include regulations and standards to make
buildings disaster-resistant. In these cases, it
would be possible to simply impose this regulatory
framework on reconstruction after disasters. One
should check, however, whether the regime does
apply everywhere in the disaster area, and whether
it is suitable for the poorest and most vulnerable
population groups.
Establishing tailor-made regulation after
individual disasters
Applying an existing regulatory framework to
reconstruction after a disaster can sometimes
be inappropriate. For example, if the framework
does not cover all reconstruction, where it does
not adequately cover disaster-resistance, or where
it would be unaffordable to many. In such cases,
agencies could establish their own regulations and
standards based on experience they may have from
elsewhere. Also, after large-scale disasters, it is
often common for the national authorities to impose
ISO technical committees of relevance
• TC 59: Building Construction
• TC 71: Concrete, Reinforced Concrete and
Pre-stressed Concrete
• TC 74: Cement and Lime
• TC 162: Doors and Windows
• TC 165: Timber Structures
• TC 167: Steel and Aluminium Structures
• TC 176: Quality Management and Quality
Assurance
• TC 196: Natural Stone
• TC 218: Timber
new regulations in the context of a reconstruction
strategy, as Sri Lanka did after the tsunami of 2004
(NHDA, 2006). These typically apply in coastal
areas, but not in others.
Leaving quality up to the people
Authorities and agencies alike may consider this
a risky approach. After all, a disaster may have
just caused a huge amount of damage, many
casualties and injuries, with insufficient quality
of construction a major contributing factor. One
should not thus conclude however, that people are
not concerned about the quality of their housing,
nor that they always have insufficient knowledge
about quality. There are plenty of examples where
vernacular housing has withstood natural hazards.
In such cases, although no formal standards were
applied, people and local building artisans often
use informal standards of their own that have
evolved over many years(see, for example PCR Tool
5, Learning from the Housing Sector). However,
people do not always have the resources required to
build as they would like. They often have difficult
choices to make, e.g. between the size and the
quality of their housing, and where families are
large they may be forced to opt for an extra room,
over a stronger structure. Reconstruction, however,
may provide an opportunity to overcome this with
the additional resources made available.
Leaving decisions on quality to people does
not have to mean a free-for all. Whilst it does
mean that no authority or agency will force
people to build their houses in a certain way,
they can still raise their awareness of disaster
risks, provide information about safer ways of
building, demonstrate those, provide training and
support people in their building processes (see
PCR Tool 8, Communicating Better Building).
Using encouragement rather than the force of
regulation may be equally effective in ensuring safe
housing. Furthermore, it may be the only approach
remaining in situations where it does not make
sense to apply an existing regulatory regime or time
is too restricted to create tailor-made regulations.
6