CAA Survey of National Building Codes by Commonwealth Association of Architects

Survey of National Building Codes

Findings from a survey undertaken by signatories to the CAA Knowledge Sharing Partnership

Appendices

1. Appendix I, World Bank, Dealing with Construction Permits 57

2. Appendix II, Examples of building failures across the Commonwealth 58

3. Appendix III, Voluntary National Commitments 59

Figures

Figure 1, Is there a mechanism to bring existing buildings up to current standards? 21

Figure 2, Are regulatory impact assessments used when updating the Code? 22

Figure 3, Is the profession involved with development of the Code? 23

Figure 4, Applies to new and existing buildings? 28

Figure 5, Applies to all building sectors? 29

Figure 6, Applies to heritage buildings? 30

Figure 7, Building elements covered by the Code, (ODA and NonODA) 31

Figure 8, Building elements covered by the Code, ODA. 32

Figure 9, Building elements covered by the Code, non-ODA. 32

Figure 10, Is there a mandatory energy code? 33

Figure 11, Is the permitting process manual or digital? 40

Figure 12, Who can submit a permitting application? 41

Figure 13, Is the building control authority adequately resourced?42

Figure 14, Are the staff within the building control departmen suitably experienced? 43

Figure 15, Speed of the permitting process 44

Figure 16, Transparency of the permitting process 45

Figure 17, Predictability of the permitting process 46

Figure 18, Is the process for obtaining a building permit clear, well documented and readily accessible by all? 47

Figure 19, How adequate is building control inspection, by respondent? 49

Figure 20, How adequate is building control enforcement, by respondent? 50

Figure 22, Adequacy of building control inspection, by population52

Figure 23, Adequacy of building control enforcement, by population 53

Figure 24, Adequacy of building control certiﬁcation by Population 53

Figure 25, Practical consequences of deﬁciencies within the building control system 55

Figure 26, Issues associated with implementation of the National Building Code 56

Tables

Table 1, List of Focal Points and contributors to this survey. 2

Table 2, Does a National Building Code exist? If not, how is construction activity regulated and monitored? 14

Table 3, Population in respondent countries without a national building code 14

Table 4, Name of the National Building Code 16

Table 5, Agencies responsible for development, maintenance and implementation of the National Building Code 18

Table 6, Basis of the National Building Code and its availability 20

Table 7, Population in respondent countries by type of Code, (ie Performance, Prescriptive or Hybrid) 20

Table 8, Is there a mechanism to bring existing buildings up to current standards? 21

Table 9, Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments 22

Table 10, Is the profession involved with the development of the Code? 23

Table 11, Positive and negative aspects of National Building Code?26

Table 12, Applies to new and existing buildings? 28

Table 13, Applies to all building sectors? 29

Table 14, applies to heritage buildings? 30

Table 15, Building elements covered by the Code 31

Table 16, Is there a mandatory energy code? 33

Table 17. Link to mandatory energy code 34

Table 18, Manner by which the National Building Code is enacted36

Table 19, Any other issues associated with coverage of the code?39

Table 20, Is permitting manual or digital? 40

Table 21, Who can submit a permitting application? 41

Table 22, Is the building control authority adequately resourced?42

Table 23, Are the staff within the building control department suitably experienced? 43

Table 24, Speed of the permitting process 44

Table 25, Transparency of the permitting process 45

Table 26, Predictability of the permitting process 46

Table 27, Is the process for obtaining a building permit clear, well documented and readily accessible by all? 47

Table 28, Any other issues associated with the permitting process? 48

Table 29, How adequate is building control inspection, by respondent? 49

Table 30, How adequate is building control enforcement, by respondent? 50

Table 31, How adequate is building certiﬁcation, by respondent? 51

Table 32, Adequacy of building control inspection, by population52

Table 33, Adequacy of building control enforcement, by population 52

Table 34, Adequacy of building control certiﬁcation, by population 53

Table 35, Practical consequences of deﬁciencies within the building control system 54

Table 36, Issues associated with implementation of the National Building Code 56

Table 37, World Bank, Dealing with Construction Permits 57

Table 38, Voluntary National Commitments 60

Acknowledgements

The Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) wishes to express its appreciation to each of the signatories to the CAA Knowledge Sharing Partnership, the majority of whom have contributed to this study.

The CAA recognises the contributions made by the following Focal Points, representing 14 of the 16 signatories to the CAA Knowledge Sharing Partnership.

Organisation

Antigua & Barbuda Institute of Architects

Architectural Association of Kenya

Australian Institute of Architects

Barbados Institute of Architects

Institute of Architects Bangladesh

Institute of Architects Pakistan

Jamaican Institute of Architects

Kamra Tal-Periti, Malta

Nigerian Institute of Architects

Royal Architectural Institute of Canada

Royal Institute of British Architects

Trinidad and Tobago Institute of Architects

Uganda Society of Architects

Zambia Institute of Architects

Focal Point

Ms Curisa Smith

Mr George Arabbu Ndege

Mr Justin Hill

Mr Andrew McFadden

Ms Neomie Tavernier

Ms Shafinaz Sameen

Ms Maira Khan

Ms Camille Douglas-Stephenson

Perit Joeaby Vassallo

Dr Mokolade Johnson

Mr Mike Brennan

Mr Adrian Malleson

Mr Ricardo Newallo

Ms Jacqueline Namayanja

Mr Fidelis Kabwiri

Table 1, List of Focal Points and contributors to this survey.

Introduction

This document comprises the ﬁndings from a survey of National Building Codes that has been undertaken by signatories to a Knowledge Sharing Partnership developed among member organisations of the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA).

The study arose as the result of a Fact-Finding Survey undertaken among members of the CAA’s Knowledge Sharing Partnership, published in July 2024, which identified the failure to design, implement and/or enforce built environment legislation as one of the key barriers to sustainable urbanisation across the Commonwealth.

The design and implementation of effective National Building Codes is crucially important for creating safe, resilient and sustainable communities, including:

• Public Health: Effective building codes address a variety of health-related issues such as ventilation, electrical safety, water supply, adequate sanitation etc

• Public Safety: Effective building codes help to ensure that building structures are designed and constructed to be robust thereby reducing the risk of injury and fatalities.

• Energy Efficiency: Effective building codes help to achieve energy efficiency, thereby reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

• Construction Quality: Effective building codes provide a benchmark for construction quality, ensuring that all buildings meet minimum safety and performance standards.

• Investment value and running costs: Effective building codes produce significant cost savings over time by reducing repairs and insurance premiums. A transparent and efficient building control process also provides assurance for investors.

• Resilience: Effective building codes reduce the risk of damage due to climate impacts and natural disasters, allowing communities to recover more quickly and reducing losses.

This survey therefore represents an attempt to understand the underlying issues so that the CAA and its member organisations can identify where strengthening is required so they can better support member states with this vitally important work.

Peter Oborn and Adrian Malleson

For and on behalf of the Commonwealth Association of Architects

Executive Summary

This survey represents an attempt to understand the underlying issues so that the CAA and its member organisations can identify where strengthening is required so they can better support member states with this vitally important work.

The results of the survey highlight a range of systemic issues with the development of national building codes across a number of Commonwealth countries, including, for some or all:

1. The absence of a mandatory national building code.

2. The adoption of codes which may not be appropriate for local culture, economy, climate or practice

3. The absence of a coordinating body to unify the work of different agencies.

4. Scope gaps in existing codes, including a failure to deﬁne mandatory energy performance and/or material and workmanship standards.

5. The need for codes to be more regularly updated to better reﬂect global policy priorities, such a climate change, and changes in materials and manufacturing.

6. Lack of technical and professional experience and/or lack of resources, leading to a failure of implementation and enforcement

The survey reveals that these issues are especially acute among Overseas Development Assistance recipient (ODA) countries, many of which are experiencing rapid urbanisation and are among the most vulnerable to climate impacts. The following are among the survey’s key ﬁndings:

Generally

The ﬁndings of the survey reveal that there are a number of respondent countries that have still not adopted a national building code, a number of countries lack a uniﬁed code and that the currency of the national building codes in respondent countries varies considerably.

• The provision of a coherent uniﬁed national building codes is inconsistent among respondent countries.

• The currency of national building codes varies enormously, and several are currently being revised and updated, yet still do not appear to align with our climate objectives.

• Responsibility for the development of national building codes typically rests with central government and its agencies while responsibility for implementation typically rests with local government.

• The majority of national building codes in ODA countries are prescriptive; the codes are expressed in the form of a series of rules which must be followed.

• Several countries do not publish their codes online, making them difﬁcult to access.

• Approximately two thirds of participating countries do not have a mechanism for bringing existing buildings up to current standards.

• A third of ODA countries do not use any form of standardised Regulatory Impact Assessments when updating their national building code.

• The profession’s engagement with the development of national building codes is relatively weak, with only 41% of countries unequivocally engaging the profession in code development. Fifty-three percent of countries engage the profession ‘somewhat’, and 6% have no professional engagement.

Building Code Coverage

The survey has revealed signiﬁcant gaps in coverage among national building codes in both ODA and non-ODA countries.

It appears that only 11% of respondents in ODA countries have adopted a mandatory energy code (vital if we are to achieve our climate objectives) and that only 10% of national building codes in ODA countries cover materials and workmanship (vital if we are to reduce the high incidence of building failures).

• There is an urgent need for effective energy codes in both ODA and non-ODA countries.

• Building codes urgently need to cover embodied carbon and provision for bio-based materials.

• Building codes need to be uniﬁed to be effective.

Building Code, Permitting Process

Responses received to questions about the permitting process reveal that the most severe challenges are being experienced in ODA countries, where permitting processes remain largely manual and are being administered by inadequate numbers of inexperienced staff.

• The permitting process remains manual in a number of countries

• While many countries require an authorised person to submit a permitting application, this does not always ensure building quality.

• Building Control Authorities frequently lack the resources they need to be effective

• The majority of staff within building control in ODA countries are considered to lack necessary experience.

• The permitting process is frequently slow, potentially holding back local economies.

• The permitting process can be opaque, opening the door to corruption.

• Too often, the permitting process is unpredictable, adding uncertainty for investors, designers, contractors and clients.

Building Code, Implementation and Enforcement

The overwhelming majority of respondents from ODA countries report that building control inspection, certiﬁcation and enforcement is inadequate. This is deeply concerning given the importance of an effective building control function for achieving the effective implementation of national building code.

• Building Control inspection in ODA countries is considered to be generally inadequate.

• The enforcement of building code in ODA countries is considered to be generally inadequate.

• The certiﬁcation of projects by building control in ODA countries is considered to be generally inadequate.

Practical consequences of an ineffective building control system

When invited to comment on the practical consequences of an ineffective building control system, respondents highlighted the increased risk of structural failure and lack of ﬁre safety together with increased vulnerability to climate change impacts and extreme weather events, especially among the urban poor.

The ﬁndings of the survey suggest that a number of member states are failing to take advantage of the guidance that has been produced by a range of multilateral bodies such as the World Bank and are failing to meet a range of voluntary national commitments.

Conclusions

The 14 respondents to this survey represent a population amounting to almost 900 million Commonwealth citizens. The ﬁndings of the survey suggest that over 80% of this group (ie circa 750m Commonwealth Citizens) are not adequately protected by their existing national building codes.

The survey illustrates the size of the gap which needs to be closed if national building codes are to serve their intended purpose of:

• Ensuring the safety and well-being of citizens

• Managing resource consumption including water and energy.

• Reducing climate impacts and building resilience

• Promoting a competitive economy which is attractive to inward investment

The delivery of effective building codes requires leadership from central and local government together with active engagement from all members of the supply chain including built environment professionals, contractors and material producers together with local standards and safety agencies.

The CAA is engaging with the findings of the survey in a number of different ways

• It is leveraging its programme of continuing professional development to help promote awareness of the issues and share knowledge and has recently hosted an event on ‘Making Building Codes Work’

• Working with colleasgues from the Commonwealth Association of Planners and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, it has developed a collaboration with the Legislation & Governance section of UN-Habitat to create a Legal Checklist for Cities which will enable cities to identify where strengthening is required.

• It remains actively supportive of the work of the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction and of the Buildings Breakthrough which aims to making near-zero emissions and climate resilient buildings the new normal by 2030

The CAA and its member organisations and stand ready to support member states with this vitally important work

Key Findings

The results of the survey highlight a range of systemic issues with the development of national building codes across a number of Commonwealth countries, including, for some or all:

1. The absence of a mandatory national building code.

2. The adoption of codes which may not be appropriate for local culture, economy, climate or practice

3. The absence of a coordinating body to unify the work of different agencies.

4. Scope gaps in existing codes, including a failure to deﬁne mandatory energy performance and/or material and workmanship standards.

5. The need for codes to be more regularly updated to better reﬂect global policy priorities, such a climate change, and changes in materials and manufacturing.

6. Lack of technical and professional experience, leading to a failure of implementation and enforcement

The survey reveals that these issues are especially acute among ODA countries, many of which are experiencing rapid urbanisation and are among the most vulnerable to climate impacts.

Overview of National Building Codes

• The provision of a coherent unified national building codes is inconsistent among respondent countries.

While the majority of respondent countries have adopted a national building code, some countries do not have a code that is mandatory, (eg Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago), have no unified code at all, (eg Zambia and Malta), or have a mandatory code, but one based on another country’s and so may not be appropriate for local conditions (eg Papua New Guinea).

• The currency of national building codes varies enormously, and several are currently being revised and updated.

A number of respondent countries continue to operate outdated national building codes, but several are in the process of updating (eg Antigua and Barbuda and Fiji).

Nevertheless, this survey shows that there remain considerable gaps of scope and standards which need to be addressed if communities are to be adequately protected, and international policy objectives are to be met.

Local Government often lacks the resources and expertise for adequate implementation This is especially a problem for ODA countries.

• The majority of national building codes in ODA countries are prescriptive; the codes are expressed in the form of a series of rules which must be followed.

The majority of codes in non-ODA countries are hybrid and contain elements of performance-based code which defines the outcomes to be achieved, allowing greater scope for creativity and innovation, although this approach may carry greater risk.

• Several countries do not publish their codes online, making them difficult to access.

• Approximately two thirds of participating countries do not have a mechanism for bringing existing buildings up to current standards.

This is a significant issue for OECD countries which need to retrofit at scale to meet their climate objectives and will become an issue for ODA countries which are currently experiencing high rates of urbanisation.

• A third of ODA countries do not use any form of standardised Regulatory Impact Assessments when updating their national building code.

The basis upon which the costs and benefits of regulations (social, environmental and economic) are being assessed and subsequent decisions taken is unclear.

The participation of built environment professionals in the development, review and updating of national building codes is important especially for ODA countries which often lack access to professional built environment expertise. This is also important if codes are to be appropriate to local conditions and to help secure supply chain engagement.

Building Code Coverage

The survey has revealed signiﬁcant gaps in coverage among national building codes in both ODA and non-ODA countries.

It appears that only 11% of respondent in ODA countries have adopted a mandatory energy code (vital if we are to achieve our climate objectives) and that only 10% of national building codes in ODA countries cover materials and workmanship (vital if we are to reduce the high incidence of building failures).

• There is an urgent need for effective energy codes in both ODA and non-ODA countries.

These ﬁndings are particularly concerning since buildings account for around 40% of annual global CO2 emissions and a number of the respondent countries are rapidly urbanising, with over 90bn sqm of additional ﬂoorspace projected in Africa alone in the next 40 years.

With roughly 50% of the Commonwealth’s total annual CO2 emissions attributable to circa 10% of the population residing in OECD countries, it is also imperative that these countries urgently implement programmes to decarbonise their existing building stock.

• Building codes urgently need to cover embodied carbon and provision for bio-based materials.

Embodied carbon and provision for bio-based materials are barely covered in existing codes in either ODA or non-ODA countries yet are both vitally important elements if we are to achieve our objectives for net zero buildings

Indeed, there is no evidence that embodied carbon is being satisfactorily dealt with by any of the respondent countries.

Provisions for persons with disabilities is also weak in both ODA and non-ODA countries

• Building codes need to be uniﬁed to be effective.

The absence of a uniﬁed building code in a number of countries creates fragmentation, a lack of coordination, and so reducing effectiveness

The majority of National Building Codes appear to have originated by an act of Parliament before being implemented at regional/local level where they may become partially localised and so nationally fragmented

Fragmentation, inconsistency, and lack of coordination also can result from the legislation governing design and construction being covered by a number of different Acts, each covering a distinct thematic area

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the ﬁndings of the survey suggest that the national building codes in ODA countries apply to more sectors than in non-ODA countries, that more of them apply to both new and existing buildings and to heritage buildings. These results warrant further investigation to ensure the accuracy of the findings

Building Code, Permitting Process

Responses received to questions about the permitting process reveal that the most severe challenges are being experienced in ODA countries where permitting processes remain largely manual and are being administered by inadequate numbers of staff, who are often inexperienced

• The permitting process remains manual in too many countries

Half the respondents from ODA countries noted that their permitting process remains entirely manual whereas a third of the respondents from non-ODA countries conﬁrmed that their permitting processes are now fully digital.

The adoption of a digital permitting process tends to increase transparency, accountability and speed. None of the respondents from non-ODA countries reported having any fully manual processes remaining.

• While many countries require an authorised person to submit a permitting application, this does not always ensure building quality.

Three quarters of respondents from ODA countries reported that permitting applications can only be submitted by authorised persons whereas two thirds of respondents from non-ODA countries reported that anyone can submit a permitting application.

While the use of ‘authorised persons’ may be considered as providing a degree of quality assurance, anecdotal evidence suggests that such persons are often used by unqualiﬁed practitioners to simply obtain the necessary permits, with the process then breaking down at the point of construction due to weaknesses in inspection and enforcement, workmanship and materials. In more mature economies, a more rigorous process can help to ensure compliance.

• Building Control Authorities frequently lack the resources they need to be effective

The majority of respondents from both ODA and non-ODA countries consider that their building control authority lack the necessary level of resources to deliver the level of service required.

• The majority of staff within building control in ODA countries are considered to lack necessary experience.

Only 9% of respondents from ODA countries consider the staff within their building control departments to have the necessary experience for the role while 64% consider them to be somewhat experienced and 27% consider them to lack the necessary experience.

• The permitting process is frequently slow, holding back local economies.

The majority of respondents in both ODA and non- ODA countries consider the speed of their permitting process to be either quite slow or slow.

The complexity and speed of the permitting process is used by the World Bank as an indicator of international competitiveness (see Appendix I).Perhaps reﬂecting local expectations of government service delivery, 18% of respondents in ODA consider their permitting process to be fast while none of the respondents in non-ODA countries do.

• The permitting process can be opaque, opening the door to corruption. 18% of respondents in ODA countries consider their permitting process to be somewhat opaque and a further 18% consider it to be very opaque, increasing the opportunity for corruption

All respondents in non-ODA countries consider their permitting process to be somewhat transparent

• Too often, the permitting process is unpredictable, adding uncertainty for investors, designers, contractors and clients.

None of the respondents in either ODA or non-ODA countries consider the permitting process to be very predictable.

The majority of respondents in both ODA and non-ODA countries consider the process to be only somewhat predictable while 22% of respondents in ODA countries consider the process to be either somewhat unpredictable and a further 22% consider it to be very unpredictable

• Too often the process for obtaining a building permit is unclear. Two thirds of respondents from ODA countries consider the process for obtaining a building permit to be either somewhat unclear, poorly documented and/or not readily accessible.

This compares with two thirds of respondents from non-ODA countries who consider the process to be satisfactory.

Building Code, Implementation and Enforcement

• Building Control inspection in ODA countries is considered to be generally inadequate.

Routine inspection of construction activity by suitably qualiﬁed and experienced personnel is necessary to ensure that work is being undertaken in accordance with approved standards yet over 80% of respondents from ODA countries consider the level of inspection undertaken by building control to be either generally inadequate or sometimes inadequate. 33% of respondents from non-ODA countries consider their building control inspections to be generally inadequate with the remainder split evenly between sometimes adequate and generally adequate.

• The enforcement of building code in ODA countries is considered to be generally inadequate.

The effective enforcement of national building code is vitally important if the requisite standards are to be achieved yet none of the respondents from ODA countries consider the enforcement of their building code to be adequate. Responses from those in non-ODA countries are only marginally less concerning, with 17% stating that the enforcement of their code is generally inadequate and 50% reporting that it is sometimes adequate.

• The certiﬁcation of projects by b uilding control in ODA countries is considered to be generally inadequate.

Certification is important if the market is to have confidence in its building sector, yet over 90% of respondents from ODA countries considered their building control certification process to be generally inadequate or sometimes inadequate, with only 9% stating that it was generally adequate. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, 67% of respondents from nonODA countries stated that their certification process was also generally inadequate or sometimes inadequate, while only 33% stated it was generally adequate

Practical consequences of an ineffective building control system

When invited to comment on the practical consequences of an ineffective building control system, respondents highlighted the increased risk of structural failure and lack of ﬁre safety, together with increased vulnerability to climate change impacts and extreme weather events, especially among the urban poor.

Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that national building codes are failing to achieve their intended purpose, especially in ODA countries. Appendix II contains a examples of recent building failures across the Commonwealth, in which weak building control has been a contributory factor.

It is important to acknowledge that building control issues affect non-ODA as well as ODA countries, a recent example of which is illustrated by the Grenfell Tower Fire which occurred in the UK in 2017 resulting in the death of 72 residents. The subsequent Public Enquiry published its findings in 2024 and revealed serious deficiencies throughout the entire ecosystem including material testing and certification, design, procurement and construction, together with building code and its implementation. The disaster has had a profound effect on the entire UK building industry, with direct costs estimated to be over £1.2bn and indirect costs associated with tackling defective cladding across the country amounting to well over £3.5bn.

The Climate Imperative

Recognising that the buildings sector contributes nearly 40% to global energy related annual greenhouse gas emissions and that the final energy demand from buildings is predicted to increase 50% by 2050 compared with 2015 levels due to rapid urbanisation, the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC) in its 2024 Global Status Report, highlighted the critical role of national building codes as an instrument to improve, align and further enforce standards towards achieving a whole-life net-zero CO2 emission performance for new and retrofit buildings. The report notes that there remain large parts of Africa and Asia where ‘codes are yet to be developed, remain voluntary or are limited in scope and stringency’. Similarly, in its recent report on ‘How do building energy codes and standards measure up’, the World Bank advocates that ‘Building energy codes should outline a clear pathway toward achieving net-zero carbon emissions through progressive tightening of regulations’. The finding of this survey provides further evidence of the urgent need for such action.

Voluntary National Commitments

In response to the Climate Emergency, a number of Commonwealth member states are to be applauded for having become signatories to a variety of voluntary national commitments which seek to accelerate decarbonisation of their buildings sector, including:

• The Buildings Breakthrough

• The Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships for Climate Action (CHAMPS)

• The Declaration De Chaillot

See Appendix III for a brief description of these initiatives and a list of the Commonwealth countries which have become signatories to each of them

Building on the work of others

The CAA recognises the following to be among a number of important studies that have been undertaken in an effort to strengthen the effectiveness of building code both geographically and thematically:

• ‘Building Regulation for Resilience, Managing Risks for Safer Cities’ Published by the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), 2015.

• ‘Managing Risks for a Safer Built Environment in Kenya’, a report by the World Bank Group and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR). 2019.

• ‘Regional Diagnostic Study on the Application of Building Codes in the Paciﬁc’, Published by the Paciﬁc Regional Infrastructure Facility, 2021

• ‘Building Code Checklist for Green Buildings’, Published by the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), 2023.

• ‘Building Code Checklist for Fire Safety’:, Published by the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), 2023.

• ‘Building Code Checklist for Structural Resilience’: Published by the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR), 2024.

• ‘Mapping Energy Efﬁciency: A Global Dataset on Building Code Effectiveness and Compliance’. Published by The World Bank and Knowledge for Change’, May 2024.

It will be seen from the above that ample guidance exists to support those who wish to address the issues identified in this survey.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The 14 respondents to this survey represent a population amounting to almost 900 million Commonwealth citizens. The findings of the survey suggest that over 80% of this group (ie circa 900m Commonwealth Citizens) are not adequately protected by their existing national building codes.

The survey illustrates the size of the gap which needs to be closed if national building codes are to serve their intended purpose of:

• Ensuring the safety and well-being of citizens

• Managing resource consumption including water and energy.

• Reducing climate impacts and building resilience

• Promoting a competitive economy which is attractive to inward investment

The CAA is already working in collaboration with the UN-Habitat Legal and Governance Branch together with the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Commonwealth Association of Planners to develop a Legal Checklist for Cities which will be launched at the 12th World Urban Forum (WUF12) taking place in Cairo in November 2024. The checklist includes a section on building code and building control and is intended for use by central and local government, enabling a high-level gap analysis to be undertaken which can quickly identify where strengthening is most needed. Donors should be encouraged to support such efforts.

The CAA and its member organisations stand ready to support member states with this vitally important work

Overview of National Building Codes

The findings of the survey reveal that there are a number of respondent countries which have not adopted a national building code, that a number of countries lack a unified code and that the currency of the national building codes in respondent countries varies considerably.

Does a National Building Code exist?

The findings reveal that some form of unified/quasi-unified National Building Code exists in all but 4 (23%) of the 17 respondent countries. In those countries which lack a unified National Building Code, design and construction activity appears to be regulated and monitored by a range of different legislation which may or may not be effectively coordinated and may or may not be relevant to the local context, eg in Papua New Guinea which relies upon the Australian National Construction Code

Region Country Has your country adopted a national building code?

Africa Kenya Yes

Nigeria Yes

Uganda Yes

Zambia No

If not, how is construction activity regulated and monitored

Regulation is achieved by means of legislation such as the Public Health Act, Fire Regulations, Urban Planning Act, Environmental Management Act, Lands Act, National Council for Construction Act, etc.

Asia Bangladesh Yes

Caribbean and Americas

Pakistan Yes

Antigua and Barbuda Yes

Barbados Yes But the code is not mandatory.

Canada Yes

Jamaica Yes

Trinidad and Tobago No

Europe Malta No

Some elements of a Building Code in place and form part of the Statutory Building Approvals process. These are speciﬁcally: an Electrical Wiring Code (TTS:171), Accessible Buildings and Facilities (TTS/ICC/ANSI A117.1), MOWT Structural Design Guidelines, National Plumbing Code, NFPA Codes.

Construction Industry professionals otherwise refer to IBC/ICC codes and standards, as these are typically required by clients for larger-scaled projects.

A combination of laws which regulate different aspects of the process

Europe United Kingdom Yes

Paciﬁc Australia Yes

Paciﬁc Fiji Yes

Paciﬁc Papua New Guinea No

Paciﬁc Samoa Yes

We are currently using the NCC from Australia. Our Planning boards use these documents as a basis of assessing our submissions. Our Country's Building Code has yet to be amended.

Table 2, Does a National Building Code exist? If not, how is construction activity regulated and monitored?

Table 3, Population in respondent countries without a national building code

Name of the National Building Code

It will be seen from Table 4 that several countries have not adopted a national building code, that a number of countries lack a uniﬁed code and that the currency of the national building codes in respondent countries varies considerably.

Region Country Name of the Code Date published Date last updated Notes

Africa Kenya The National Building Code, 2024 20 February 2024 20 February 2024 New code recently published

Nigeria Federal Republic of Nigeria, National Building Code 02 August 2006 07 June 2019

Uganda The Building Control Regulations, 2020 17 January 2020 Unknown

Zambia No building codes are available online. Unknown Unknown There is currently an initiative via the Zambia Compulsory Standards Agency to develop standards/codes for the construction industry as well as the National Construction Council of Zambia as directed by the Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development

Asia Bangladesh Bangladesh National Building Code 2020 01 January 2015 18 February 2020

Pakistan Building Code of Pakistan 2021 Unknown

Caribbean and Americas Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda Building Code 01 January 1995 1995. This Code has not been ofﬁcially updated since then.

In 1995, Antigua and Barbuda adopted the Antigua Building Code, which is a subset of the OECS Building Code for the Caribbean Region. It was developed with the assistance of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and the United Nations Development Programme and the Organization of American States/ Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project.

Currently, we are in the ﬁnal stages of adopting a new building code that enhances the existing by incorporating topics such as sustainability and energy. The new code is expected to be tabled in parliament around September 2024. https://environment.gov.ag/assets/uploads/attachments/5c9b6revised-draft-building-guideline-antigua-and-barbuda-july-2021.pdf?

Barbados Barbados National Building Code (2013 Edition)

Canada National Building Code of Canada 2020

Jamaica Jamaica Building Code 2023

18 July 2013 Unknown

The code is not mandatory.

28 March 2022 Unknown

15 July 1905 Unknown

Trinidad and Tobago Guide to the Design and Construction of Small Buildings

01 January 2006 01 January 2006

Europe Malta N/A N/A

United Kingdom The Building Regulations 2010, The Approved Documents

01 October 2010 15 May 2024

This 2023 edition of the Jamaica Building Code presents the code as issued by the ICC in the 2018 IBC, with changes that customize this code to Jamaican natural hazards and locally acceptable construction practices. The aim of the Bureau of Standards Jamaica is to promulgate a new edition of this code every 6 years.

This is a voluntary code for buildings for single or multiple-family residential, or general-purpose use, comprising not more than two storeys and with a gross ﬂoor area of three hundred square metres (300 m2) or less.

No uniﬁed code exists currently. See: https://bca.org.mt/regulations/ for a consolidated list of documents compiled by the Malta Building and Construction Authority.

Overarching requirement is 'The Building Regulations 2010'. Approved Documents provide technical guidance in England. In Scotland, the Building Standards is the area and Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and Technical Handbooks provide the technical guidance. Scotland: The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Paciﬁc Australia The National Construction Code 01 January 1988 05 January 2023. Date when adopted by States and Territories

Fiji Fiji National Building Code (FNBC)

26 June 1905 2024 (in progress)

Papua New Guinea NCC (National Construction Code) Unknown Unknown

Samoa National Building Code of Samoa, 2017

Table 4 , Name of the National Building Code

01 February 2017 09 July 1905

Previously called the Building Code of Australia, ﬁrst released in 1988, then adopted progressively by State Parliaments 1994 onwards.

https://www.theprif.org/document/ﬁji/building-codes-andstandards/ﬁji-building-code

Agencies responsible for development, maintenance and implementation

It will be seen from Table 5, while responsibility for the development of national building codes rests with central government and its agencies, responsibility for implementation typically rests with local government which is frequently found to lack the necessary resources and expertise to deliver the service required. This is especially a problem for those in ODA countries.

Region Country Agency responsible for development of the code

Africa Kenya National Construction Authority

Nigeria National Council on Housing and Urban Development

Uganda National Building review Board

Zambia Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development

Asia Bangladesh Housing and Building Research Institute (HBRI)

Pakistan Pakistan Engineering Council

Caribbea n and Americas

Antigua and Barbuda

The Development Control Authority, (DCA)/Department of Environment (DOE)

Barbados Barbados National Standards Institution

Canada National Research Council of Canada (NRC)

Jamaica Ministry of Local Government, Bureau of Standards

Agency responsible for maintenance of the code

National Construction Authority and the 47 County Governments

Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON) and States' Building/Physical Control Agencies

Unknown

The Development Control Authority, (DCA)

Barbados National Standards Institution (BNSI)

Unknown

Ministry of Local Government, Bureau of Standards

Agency(s) responsible for implementation of the code

The devolved County Government's Department of Lands, Housing, Physical Planning, and Urban Development, working closely with the National Construction Authority.

Physical Control Agencies at Local and State Govt levels

National Building review Board

Multiple agencies - Local councils, National Council for Construction, Zambia Environmental Management Agency, Zambia Compulsory Standards Agency, etc.

RAJUK (Dhaka), CDA (Chottogram), KDA (Khulna), RDA (Rajshahi), Municipalities/City corporations

Unknown

The Development Control Authority (DCA)

Planning and Development Department

Municipal authorities having jurisdiction

Ministry of Local Government

Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards Municipal Corporations (for structural and OSH considerations), TT Fire Services Division, Town & Country Planning Div, Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA), Government Electrical Inspectorate, TT Fire Services Division.

Europe Malta N/A

United Kingdom Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities

N/A

Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (government department) and Building Safety Regulator (part of the Health and Safety Executive, an arm’s length body)

Pacific Australia Australian Building Codes Board Australian Building Codes Board State & Territory

Fiji Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Meteorological Services

Papua New Guinea Australian Building Codes Board

Samoa Ministry of Works Transport and Infrastructure - Building Division

Ministry for Public Works, Transport & Meteorological Services

Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Meteorological Services

Australian Building Codes Board The relevant provincial building authorities

Ministry of Works Transport and Infrastructure - Building Division

Ministry of Works Transport and Infrastructure - Building Division, Planning and Urban Management Agency (PUMA)

Table 5, Agencies responsible for development, maintenance and implementation of the National Building Code

Basis of the National Building Code and its availability

Forty-four percent of respondents have adopted prescriptive building codes whereby the codes are expressed in the form of a series of rules which must be followed. Thirty eight percent of respondents have adopted performance building codes whereby the codes are expressed as a series of outputs, impacts which the codes are designed to achieve. Nineteen percent of respondents appear to have adopted a hybrid code which allows for different approaches for different building elements. The adoption of performance-based codes relies to a large extent on the maturity of the market in which one is operating as they depend for their success on an experienced and well-resourced building control department for evaluation and on an experienced supply chain for effective implementation.

Region Country Basis of the code (standards) Type of code Are regulatory impact assessments used when updating the code Code available from:

Africa Kenya Kenya Standards (KS) developed by the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), and sometimes British standards

Prescriptive Yes

https://aak.or.ke/download/national-building-code-2024/

Nigeria British standards Hybrid No

Uganda Other Prescriptive Yes

https://epp.lagosstate.gov.ng/regulations/National_Building_Code_of_Ni geria_2006.pdf

https://www.kcca.go.ug/media/docs/The%20Buildings%20Control%20R egulations%202020%203.pdf

Zambia Our Country Standards Hybrid Don't know https://www.iccsafe.org/products-and-services/globalservices/countries/zambia/

Asia Bangladesh American Standards Prescriptive No

Pakistan British standards Prescriptive Yes

Caribbea n and Americas

Antigua and Barbuda Our Country Standards

Prescriptive Yes

Barbados Other Prescriptive Yes

https://compliancebangladesh.com/bnbc-2020-pdf- download/

https://pec.org.pk/downloads-documents/building-code-of-pakistan/

The Government Printery (Physical Copy Only)

https://www.iccsafe.org/products-and-services/globalservices/countries/barbados/

Canada Our Country Standards Hybrid Don't know

Jamaica Our Country Standards Hybrid Yes

https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certiﬁcations-evaluations-standards/codescanada/codescanada- publications/national-building- code- canada2020

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/JAMBC2023P1/preface

Trinidad and Tobago Other Hybrid Don't know http://ttstandards.ttbs.org.tt/stds.php?s=TTS%20599:2006

Europe Malta Other Prescriptive Don't know N/A

United Kingdom British standards Hybrid Yes

Paciﬁc Australia Our Country Standards Performanc e Yes

Fiji Other Yes

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-and-approveddocuments-index

https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/

http://www.theprif.org/sites/default/ﬁles/documents/FJI-1990-01-FijiNBC1990_0.pdf

Papua New Guinea Our Country Standards Performanc e Don't know Australian Building Codes Board

Samoa Other Performanc e No

Table 6, Basis of the National Building Code and its availability

https://theprif.org/document/samoa/national-building-code-samoa2017

7, Population in respondent countries by type of Code, (ie Performance, Prescriptive or Hybrid)

Table

Is there a mechanism to bring existing buildings up to current standards?

The findings of the survey reveal that approximately two thirds of respondents do not have a mechanism for bringing existing buildings up to standard. This is a significant issue for OECD countries which are faced with the need to retrofit at scale to meet their climate objectives and will doubtless become an issue for ODA countries which are experiencing high rates of urbanisation.

Table 8, Is there a mechanism to bring existing buildings up to current standards?

Figure 1, Is there a mechanism to bring existing buildings up to current standards?

Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments

Regulatory Impact Assessments provide a means by which to support decision making by government. They set out the objectives of policy proposals and the costs, benefits and risks of different ways (non-regulatory as well as regulatory) of achieving those objectives. Regulatory impact assessments enable policymakers to decide on the appropriate (regulatory or non-regulatory) approach when faced with a policy question.

The survey reveals that a third of respondent countries do not appear to use any form of standardised Regulatory Impact Assessments, in the absence of which it is hard to understand the basis upon which the costs and benefits of regulations (social environmental and economic) are being assessed.

Table 9, Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments

Are regulatory impact assessments used when updating the code ?

Figure 2, Are regulatory impact assessments used when updating the Code?

Is the profession involved with development of the Code?

The findings reveal that the professions engagement with the development of national building codes is relatively weak, with only 41% of respondents confirming that they are involved, 53% of respondents confirming that they are somewhat involved and 6% of respondents confirming that they are not involved at all.

The participation of built environment professionals in the development, review and updating of national building codes is important if codes are to be appropriate for local market conditions and to help secure supply chain engagement.

Table 10, Is the profession involved with the development of the Code?

Figure 3, Is the profession involved with development of the Code?

Positive and negative aspects of National Building Code

The comments received from respondents highlight a range of systemic issues with the development of national building codes across a number of Commonwealth countries, including:

1. The absence of a national building code in some countries.

2. The adoption of codes which may not be appropriate for local culture, climate or practice

3. The absence of a coordinating body to unify the work of different agencies.

4. The need for codes to be more regularly updated to better reflect global policy priorities (such a climate change) and technological advances (in materials and manufacturing)

5. The failure to implement and enforce existing codes.

Region Country

Please brieﬂy describe the positive and negative aspects of your National Building Code.

Africa Kenya The revised 2024 Code has considered new technologies and materials but fell short of mandating green building strategies.

Nigeria National Building Code arose from the following existing conditions: (a) The absence of planning for towns and cities; (b) Incessant collapse of buildings, ﬁre infernos, built environment abuse, and other disasters; (c) Dearth of referenced design standards for professionals; (d) Use of non-professionals and quacks; (e) Use of untested products and materials; (f) Lack of maintenance culture.

Uganda 1. positively and steadily working towards inclusive design 2. constant review required to embrace the new technologies and methodologies setting construction trends around the world.

Zambia There is no national code yet, however the current building regulations give some guidance on planning permission

Asia Bangladesh Bangladesh National Building Code is an outcome of the rigorous review and adoption of good practices worldwide. It emphasizes sustainable development goals and has incorporated speciﬁc design codes for hazard considerations, and also brief guidelines on energy efﬁciency. It is a comprehensive document that embraces safety standards, environmental considerations, and standardizations of construction practices in both urban and rural contexts making it easier for construction professionals to follow consistent guidelines involving both contemporary technologies and conventional methods. The major drawback of the BNBC is that the review and update of the codes are not in place on a regular basis. The duration between the drafting of the document and publishing can be as long as a decade or more. The major challenge arises when new technologies are in the market which, however, cannot be utilized to their fullest for not being included in the BNBC due to the lack of its timely update. Nonetheless, the construction industry in Bangladesh is becoming increasingly aware of the necessity of safe and standardized construction processes, and initiatives are being taken in

both the public and private sectors to train and produce more skilled manpower.

Pakistan Positive: The policy focuses on the advantages as well; it allows the available resources to be allocated efﬁciently, stimulates competition, supports innovation and promotes the growth of the economy. Negative: The policy is not implemented properly.

Caribbean and Americas Antigua and Barbuda

POSITIVE- Safety and Structural Integrity: The code ensures that buildings meet safety standards, protecting occupants during natural disasters and emergencies.

Uniformity: By providing guidelines for construction practices, the code promotes consistency in building design and construction across the country.

Energy Efﬁciency: The new code encourages energy-efﬁcient building practices, reducing energy consumption and environmental impact.

Disability Access: It includes provisions for accessibility, ensuring that buildings are usable by people with disabilities.

Environmental Sustainability: The new code addresses sustainable materials, waste management, and green building practices.

Professional Standards: Compliance with the code reﬂects professionalism and quality workmanship in the construction industry. NEGATIVE- Not effectively enforced.

Barbados The building code a s a document has merit, however as approximately 97% of the housing stock in Barbados is done by draftsmen, it transitions that a lot of private buildings in Barbados are not particularly constructed in accordance with any building code. There are also some aspects of the code which are overly restrictive and not applicable to our climate territory.

Jamaica Building code needs to be updated more frequently, 5 years is far too long before revisions utilizing IBC are used.

Trinidad and Tobago

Europe Malta

United Kingdom

A formal and accepted National Building Code does not exist at this time, however several elements of a Building Code are in place and in independently monitored and enforced via several government agencies, such as building occupant health and safety, electrical codes, plumbing codes, etc. As there is no single agency responsible for ensuring that all buildings meet the requirements of these components, the building approval and inspection process, and as a result the quality of the built environment, suffers.

The way the industry is managed is not adequate to the realities of the industry nowadays and issues are somewhat addressed by introducing further bureaucracy

Enforced by Registered Building Inspectors through Local Authority Building Control, or private building control bodies. Allows design to either follow Approved Guidance or fulfil the more general Building regs in a different way. The Grenfell Tower fire and subsequent independent review of building regulations and fire safety exposed failures in products and their testing, enforcement, the technical guidance and in ownership of design and construction choices. Reponses have included the Building Safety Act and the creation of the Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive.

Paciﬁc Australia It requires each state and territory to adopt each revision of the code - which is variable, e.g., the 2019 changes to the energy provisions were only adopted in the Northern Territory in 2023.

Fiji People slowly familiarising themselves with the new code. The new code better reﬂects the current context

Papua New Guinea

Since we utilize the Australian building, it is highly detailed and addresses almost all aspects of our construction activities. I strongly believe our Building code has to be enacted to address the Papua New Guinean context. The Australian building code was designed for a developed country. PNG is still a developing country, and I believe this should be a driving factor into how our built projects are put together.

Samoa It is good that the code was updated and now includes current fire, disabled access and structural references. The 2017 version of the code was hastily drafted, and despite being well consulted there are many gaps and conflict within the document that should be corrected during regular reviews unfortunately the building code has not been treated as a living document and has not been revised since it was drafted. the previous 1992 Building Code was also never revised. Some of the content is not appropriate to Samoa and would be difficult to enforce. Particularly Section H Climate Change, while the intentions are good, the government does not have the capacity to enforce all of the requirements at this time

Table 11, Positive and negative aspects of National Building Code?

Building Code Coverage

The results of the survey have thrown up several somewhat surprising findings including the fact that more of the national building codes in ODA countries apply to new and existing buildings, more national building codes in ODA countries cover more sectors and more national building codes in ODA countries appear to apply to heritage buildings These findings warrant further investigation to ensure that we are comparing like with like.

Applies to new and existing buildings?

Perhaps surprisingly, the results of the survey suggest that more of the national building codes in ODA countries apply to both new and existing buildings. A further survey might seek to better understand how this is achieved as experience suggests that this is most probably not being effectively achieved in practice.

Table 12, Applies to new and existing buildings?

4 , Applies to new and existing buildings?

Figure

Applies to all building sectors?

The results suggest that the national building codes in ODA countries are considerably more comprehensive than in non-ODA countries in so far as they cover more building sectors.

A further survey might seek to define the sectors concerned and the reasons for the apparent difference in approach

Table 13, Applies to all building sectors?

Figure 5, Applies to all building sectors?

Applies to heritage buildings?

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the results suggest that more national building codes in ODA countries apply to heritage buildings than in non-ODA countries.

A further survey might seek to define what constitutes a ‘heritage building’ in each country, the extent to which such regulations are sensitive to the building fabric and the way in which modern standards are applied to such structures eg whether relaxations are allowed and, if so, for which elements and on what basis).

Table 14 , applies to heritage buildings?

Figure 6, Applies to heritage buildings?

Building elements covered by the Code

When considering the number of building elements covered by the National Building Code, it is notable that neither ODA nor non-ODA countries appear to have adequately addressed the issue of embodied carbon, nor do their codes appear to make adequate provision for biobased materials.

It is also notable that the codes adopted by ODA countries appear to be particularly weak in the area of energy use, access for persons with disabilities and materials and workmanship.

Table 15, Building elements covered by the Code

Building Code Coverage

Not Covered Partially Fully

Figure 7, Building elements covered by the Code, (ODA and Non-ODA)

Building Code Coverage - ODA

Structural safety

Fire safety

Electrical safety

Sanitation, drainage and water use

Heating and cooling

Energy Use

Embodied Carbon

Access (eg for people with disabilities)?

Materials and workmanship

Is there provision for bio-based materials?

Not Covered Partially Fully

Figure 8, Building elements covered by the Code, ODA.

Building Code Coverage, non-ODA

Structural safety

Fire safety

Electrical safety

Sanitation, drainage and water use

Heating and cooling

Energy Use

Embodied Carbon

Access (eg for people with disabilities)?

Materials and workmanship

Is there provision for bio-based materials?

Not Covered Partially Fully

These ﬁndings are particularly concerning in light of the climate emergency, in terms of mitigation and adaptation, and highlight the urgent need for review and updating in many cases.

Figure 9, Building elements covered by the Code, non-ODA.

Is there a mandatory energy code?

While only 40% of respondents from non-ODA countries confirmed the existence of a mandatory energy code, only 11% of respondents from ODA countries were able to do so, with 44% stating that there was no mandatory energy code in place and a further 44% unable to confirm one way or another. These findings are deeply concerning in light of the fact that buildings account for around 40% of annual global CO2 emissions and a number of the respondent countries are rapidly urbanising, with over 90bn sqm of additional floorspace projected in Africa alone in the next 40 years.

Table 16, Is there a mandatory energy code?

Figure 10, Is there a mandatory energy code?

Link to Mandatory Energy Code

Region Country Does it include mandatory energy code?

Link to mandatory energy code

Africa Kenya Partially Kenya has various mandatory energy regulations that can be found at this link: https://www.epra.go.ke/regulations, but none that appear to deal with building performance

Nigeria No

Uganda No

Zambia Unknown

Asia Bangladesh No

Pakistan Yes 1

Caribbean and Americas

https://www.pec.org.pk/downloadsdocuments/building-code-of-pakistan/. See also: https://www.iea.org/policies/2539-building-codeof-pakistan-energy-provisions-2011

Antigua and Barbuda Unknown https://www.ccreee.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/12/2019-Energy-ReportCard-AG-completed-25_11_2021.pdf

Barbados No

Canada Unknown https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certiﬁcationsevaluations-standards/codes-canada/codescanada-publications/national-energy-codecanada-buildings-2020

Jamaica Unknown Consultation document: https://www.bsj.org.jm/sites/default/ﬁles/DJS%203 09_Draft%20Jamaica%20Energy%20Conservation %20Code_public%20comments.pdf Current status unclear.

Trinidad and Tobago No

Europe Malta

United Kingdom Yes

Paciﬁc Australia yes

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/con servation-of-fuel-and-power-approveddocument-l

Section J Energy Efﬁciency | NCC (abcb.gov.au)

Fiji Partially Partially

Papua New Guinea Not sure

Samoa Unknown

Table 17. Link to mandatory energy code

1 Building energy efﬁciency policies and practices in Pakistan: A literature review, 2018

Manner by which the National Building Code is enacted

The majority of National Building Codes currently in force were Implemented by an act of Parliament before then being adopted at regional/local level at which point they may be subject to some form of localisation. In a number of instances, the legislation governing design and construction may be covered by a number of different Acts, each of which covering a distinct thematic area.

Region Country

Africa Kenya

Please describe the way in which the national building code is enacted, eg National Building Act, National Building Code, Local Byelaws

The Building Code (1968) was enacted under the Local Governments Act (1968), the County Government Act (2012) repealed the Local Government Act (1968), leaving the 1968 Building Code not legally mandated. The National Construction Authority Act 2011 mandated NCA to publish and enforce the building code. The Code was revised in 2024 and will come into law in 2025.

Nigeria The Defunct National Council of Works and Housing directed that a National Building Code should be developed for Nigeria in 1987. By all the stakeholders in the Building Industry for input. The draft was later amended and approved by the National Council on Housing in 1991.

Uganda Through approval processes for new buildings and renovations, demolition works, sensitization campaigns around the country, regular inspections during construction

Zambia The Zambia Compulsory Standards Agency is responsible for the development of standards via a stakeholder engagement process with sector industries, enforcement agencies, the public etc. These are then subjected to relevant legislative processes in order for them to be enforceable.

There is currently an initiative via the Zambia Compulsory Standards Agency to develop standards/codes for the construction industry as well as the National Construction Council of Zambia as directed by the Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development

Asia Bangladesh The Building Construction Act 1952; National Building Code; Building Construction Rules.

Pakistan Local Byelaws

Caribbean and Americas Antigua and Barbuda

The A&B Building Code of 1995 is not currently enacted by law. Improvement to the physical planning act was tabled in the Senate (Upper House) last week and will subsequently be tabled in the Lower House around September 2024.

Currently, we are in the ﬁnal stages of adopting a new building code that enhances the existing by incorporating topics such as

sustainability and energy. The new code is expected to be tabled in parliament around September 2024. https://environment.gov.ag/assets/uploads/attachments/5c9b6revised-draft-building-guideline-antigua-and-barbuda-july2021.pdf?

Barbados The document is published and circulated in draft form for review and comments; the final draft has to cross the floor and be presented/accepted at Parliament. Once ratified it is to be gazetted to the public.

Canada As a model for provincial building codes

Jamaica National Building Act.

Trinidad and Tobago

Europe Malta The Construction Industry is regulated via various entities and legislations including, inter alia, the BCA (Building Construction Agency)

United Kingdom

Paciﬁc

There are three key pieces of primary legislation. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Building Act 1984 and the Building Safety Act 2022. In England the Building Regulations 2010 are enacted under the Building Act and are a set of national building standards that apply to the design and construction of the majority of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings, including projects involving a material change of use

Australia Code is adopted by State or Territory Parliaments, through their own Acts, sometimes with local amendments. In some cases, an earlier version of the Code has been adopted. Local Councils then comply with the State Act generally, or in some cases probably not depending on the size and sophistication of that local Council.

Previously called the Building Code of Australia, ﬁrst released in 1988, then adopted progressively by State Parliaments 1994 onwards.

Fiji National Building Act

Papua New Guinea The correct channel in which the building code is adopted is via the Department of Works. The country's building code is undergoing amendments and hence in the interim we have been utilising the NCC from Australia.

Samoa Building Code is enacted through 2004 Ministry of Works Act

Table 18, Manner by which the National Building Code is enacted

Any other issues associated with coverage of the Code

Region Country Embodied Carbon Access (eg for people with disabilities)? Materials and workmanship Is there provision for bio-based materials?

Africa Kenya Not Covered Yes. A whole Part has been dedicated to aspects of People Living with Disabilities. The part mandates universal access to the building, and its facilities in accordance with KS ISO 21542 (Building constructionAccessibility and usability of the built environment) Partially. Green building materials not included Not Covered

Any other issues associated with coverage of the code

The 2024 Code that comes to effect in 2025 has made some critical additions that the 1968 edition did not have. These include mentions of green building strategies and new technologies as well as accessibility. By integrating Kenya Standards (KS) alongside British Standards (BS), it incorporates locally developed guidelines that reﬂect the Kenyan climate, materials, and practices. This hybrid approach helps address both local needs and global best practices in construction

Nigeria Not Covered Not Covered Partially Not Covered Lack of Veriﬁcation of the quality of building materials. Building control Agency ofﬁcials compromise the approval processes. Flooding and surges, ocean rise. Etc are not covered.

Uganda Partially Fully Partially Partially Climatic zones

Zambia

Asia Bangladesh Not Covered Partially Fully Not Covered

Pakistan Not Covered Partially Partially Partially

Enforcement & Application not done up to the standards. The Codes are not fully covered for the Natural Disasters

Caribbean and Americas Antigua and Barbuda Don't know Partially Partially. In addition to the Building Code, there is a supplementar y Building Guidelines that illustrates good practice in construction.

Not Covered. This isn't covered in the current code, but references may be made in the new code. To be further investigated.

Material and Construction Standards

Barbados Not Covered Fully Fully Not Covered Miscellaneous Hazards

Canada Partially Fully Partially Partially. Heavy timber

Jamaica Partially Partially Not Covered

Don't know

Trinidad and Tobago Not Covered Partially Partially. Not for all building types.

Previously was based on the 2017 version of the Jamaica Building Code which utilized the 2009 IBC, now it is the JBC 2023 based on 2018 IBC.

Not Covered mitigation measures to minimize the impact of hurricanes, earthquakes and ﬂooding

Europe Malta Don't know Fully Partially Not Covered

United Kingdom Not Covered Partially Fully.

Material classiﬁcations in guidance along with supplier test certiﬁcates

Paciﬁc Australia Don't know Fully Fully. May be in review

Not Covered Approved Document Guidance is under review for the Future Homes Standard and Future Buildings Standard and guidance is generally under review. Building Regulations Functional Requirements (Schedule 1) and Approved

Documents A to T

Don't know If it were a federal Code, it would be more effective, however the structure of AU legislation coverage hinders that. Buildings in Flood prone areas

Fiji Partially Fully Partially Partially Earthquake & Flooding

Papua New Guinea Not Covered Fully Not Covered Not Covered

Samoa Not Covered Fully Partially. AU/NZS

Durability

Table 19, Any other issues associated with coverage of the code?

Partially.

H6 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

The code appears to be applicable to the main city centres. Other provinces tend not to have the capacity to enforce the code

Supplementary code for minor structures section should include small Samoan fale as well. Hazardous substances

Building Code, Permitting Process

Responses received to the questions about the permitting process reveal there to be issues in both ODA and non-ODA countries but that these are considerably more serious in ODA countries It is particularly concerning that the most severe problems are being experienced in ODA countries which are also those experiencing the highest rates of urban growth together with increased vulnerability to climate impacts.

Is the permitting process manual or digital?

Respondents from ODA countries reported that their permitting processes are divided equally between those which remain fully manual compared with those which are partly manual and partly digital. This compares with two thirds of the respondents from non-ODA countries who reported that their permitting processes were partly manual and partly digital, the remaining third being fully digital. None of the respondents from non-ODA countries reported having any manual processes remaining.

Table 20, Is permitting manual or digital?

Figure 11, Is the permitting process manual or digital?

Who can submit a permitting application?

Seventy-three percent of respondents from ODA countries report that permitting applications can only be submitted by authorised persons while 67% of respondents from non-ODA countries report that anyone can submit a permitting application.

Who can submit

Table 21, Who can submit a permitting application?

Figure 12, Who can submit a permitting application?

Resourcing of the building control authority?

The majority of respondents from both ODA and non-ODA countries consider that their building control authority lack the necessary level of resources to undertake the role.

Table 22, Is the building control authority adequately resourced?

Figure 13, Is the building control authority adequately resourced?

Experience of staff within the building control department

Only nine percent of respondents from ODA countries consider the staff within their building control departments have the necessary experience for the role while 64% consider them to be somewhat experienced and 27% consider them to lack the necessary experience.

This compares with 40% of respondents from non-ODA countries who consider the staff within their departments have the requisite experience for the role.

Table 23, Are the staff within the building control department suitably experienced?

Figure 14 , Are the staff within the building control department suitably experienced?

Speed of the permitting process

The majority of respondents in both ODA and non-ODA countries consider the speed of their permitting process to be either quite slow or slow. Perhaps ironically, 18% of respondents in ODA consider their permitting process to be fast while none of the respondents in non-ODA countries do.

Table 24 , Speed of the permitting process

Figure 15, Speed of the permitting process

Transparency of the permitting process

All respondents in non-ODA countries consider their permitting process to be somewhat transparent while 18% of respondents in ODA countries consider their permitting process to be somewhat opaque and a further 18% consider it to be very opaque.

Table 25, Transparency of the permitting process

Figure 16, Transparency of the permitting process

Predictability of the permitting process

None of the respondents in either ODA or non-ODA countries consider the permitting process to be very predictable. The majority of respondents in both ODA and non-ODA countries consider the process to be only somewhat predictable while 44% of respondents in ODA countries consider the process to be either somewhat unpredictable (22%) or very unpredictable (22%).

Table 26, Predictability of the permitting process

Figure 17, Predictability of the permitting process

Is the process for obtaining a building permit clear, well documented and readily accessible?

Sixty-four percent of respondents from ODA countries consider the process for obtaining a building permit to be either somewhat unclear, poorly documented and/or not readily accessible. This compares with 67% of respondents from non-ODA countries who consider the process to be satisfactory.

Table 27, Is the process for obtaining a building permit clear, well documented and readily accessible by all?

Figure 18, Is the process for obtaining a building permit clear, well documented and readily accessible by all?

Any other issues associated with the permitting process?

When invited to comment on any other issues associated with the permitting process, respondents note the inconsistent application of the process itself, inconsistent interpretation of the building code, lack of skilled resources and the unpredictability of the process as being among the obstacles encountered.

Region Country Any other issues associated with the permitting process?

Africa Kenya

Every county government in Kenya has its unique permitting procedures, while AAK advocates for a standardized process given that all approvals are given based on the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (PLUPA, 2019) and the National Building Code. In the majority of cases approvals are granted arbitrarily even where the stipulated duration is outlined in the county's own bylaws. Furthermore, most counties have not enacted comprehensive development control bylaws, zoning regulations, or Local Physical Development Plans

Nigeria No enforcement of existing laws

Uganda Corruption still plagues the process, which should rather be quite ﬂawless

Caribbean and Americas Barbados

The local permitting process is extremely simpliﬁed. We do not have a Building Control Department beyond planning permissions. Enforcement of regulations and veriﬁcation controls in development are lacking

Jamaica There are great challenges currently with the ﬁre approval process. The local engineers are consistently being given interpretations of the NFPA code that are not in keeping with the intent of the code by the Jamaica Fire Brigade Ofﬁcers reviewing the plans. The review process also changes with every application.

Europe United Kingdom New process for Higher Risk Buildings

Paciﬁc Australia

Papua New Guinea

Samoa

Variance at Local Government level [waivers, etc]

Statutory authorities take a rather lengthy period of time to assess and issue permits

Most staff have no idea how to use the building code or the referred standards.

Table 28, Any other issues associated with the permitting process?

Building Code, Implementation and Enforcement

The overwhelming majority of respondents from ODA countries report that building control inspections, certification and enforcement is generally inadequate. This is deeply concerning given the importance of an effective building control function in terms of ensuring life-safety together with its wider contribution to social, economic and environmental well-being.

Adequacy of building control inspection

A shocking 82% of respondents from ODA countries consider their building control inspections to be generally inadequate or sometimes inadequate, with 64% considering them to be generally inadequate. A surprising 33% of respondents from ODA countries consider their building control inspections to be generally adequate with the remainder split evenly between sometimes inadequate and generally inadequate.

Table 29, How adequate is building control inspection, by respondent?

Figure 19, How adequate is building control inspection, by respondent?

Adequacy of building control enforcement

A shocking 73% of respondents from ODA countries consider that the enforcement of their building code is generally inadequate with the remaining 27% stating that it is only sometimes inadequate. No respondents from ODA countries consider that the enforcement of their building code is adequate. Responses from those in non-ODA countries are only marginally less concerning, with 17% stating that the enforcement of their code is generally inadequate and 50% stating it is sometimes adequate.

Table 30, How adequate is building control enforcement, by respondent?

Figure 20, How adequate is building control enforcement, by respondent?

Adequacy of building control certification

Ninety-one percent of respondents from ODA countries stated that the building control certification process was generally inadequate or sometimes inadequate with 64% stating that it was generally inadequate. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, 67% of respondents from non-ODA countries stated that their certification process was also generally inadequate or sometimes inadequate, while 17% stated it was generally inadequate.

Table 31, How adequate is building certiﬁcation, by respondent?

Figure 21, How adequate is building certiﬁcation, by respondent?

Adequacy of inspection, certification and enforcement (by

population)

When the responses in this section are analysed based on population size (rather than number respondents), it becomes clear that the vast majority of citizens are poorly served by their national building control, with serious consequences for health and well-being together with life safety.

Table 32, Adequacy of building control inspection, by population

Figure 22, Adequacy of building control inspection, by population

Table 33, Adequacy of building control enforcement, by population

Figure 23, Adequacy of building control enforcement, by population

Table 34 , Adequacy of building control certiﬁcation, by population

24 , Adequacy of building control certiﬁcation by Population

Figure

Practical consequences of deficiencies within the building control system

When invited to comment on the practical consequences of deficiencies within the building control system, respondents highlighted increased vulnerability to extreme weather events, structural failure, lack of fire safety and poor energy performance/resource utilisation as being among the main consequences. Respondents also highlighted the effect of such deficiencies in terms of the threat to life and the impact on health and well-being together with the associated economic and environmental impacts.

Region Country

Asia Bangladesh

What are the practical consequences of any deficiencies within your building control system

There have been a few past incidents of building collapse, fire hazard; damp.

Pakistan Infrastructure is not sufficiently disaster resilient

Caribbean and Americas Antigua and Barbuda

Unsafe Structures: Without proper enforcement, buildings may not adhere to safety standards. This jeopardizes the wellbeing of occupants and visitors.

Structural Weakness: Non-compliance with building codes can lead to structural weaknesses, making buildings more susceptible to damage during natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes.

Inefficient Resource Use: Buildings that don’t follow energyefficient guidelines waste resources (e.g., excessive energy consumption, water usage) and contribute to environmental degradation.

Aesthetic and Cultural Impact: Poorly designed or haphazardly constructed buildings can negatively impact the overall aesthetics and cultural heritage of the area. Legal and Financial Implications: Lack of enforcement may result in legal disputes, fines, or delays in construction projects. It also affects property values.

Barbados Poor urban development; Poor construction mainly in the residential and small commercial development; significant building damage during hazardous events resulting in loss of life

Pacific Australia

Generally, a deficiency in coverage will lead to a revision of the NCC. For example, the Northern Territory introduced new building code requirements following a devastating cyclone in the 1970s, leaving to regional adjustments in structural performance codes for affected areas.

Fiji Structural defects generally manifest themselves when tested by hurricanes and adverse conditions

Papua New Guinea

The construction of buildings that tend not to address the fire compliance aspects of the code. PWD challenges are always prevalent in buildings today especially in regions that do not enforce the building code.

Table 35, Practical consequences of deﬁciencies within the building control system

Figure 25, Practical consequences of deﬁciencies within the building control system

Issues associated with implementation of the National Building Code

When invited to comment on the issues affecting the effective implementation of their National Building Code, respondents noted lack of skilled resources, lack of enforcement and an overly complex bureaucracy as being among the principal obstacles encountered.

Region Country Issues associated with implementation of the National Building Code?

Africa Kenya As we transition to the new code challenges of enforcement are yet to be addressed. We have also witnessed emerging, unregulated professions going to court to challenge the implementation of the 2024 code arguing that the code should acknowledge them explicitly.

Zambia Inspection/enforcement agencies are reluctant to enforce regulations in cases involving politically exposed persons.

Asia Pakistan Application and enforcement of the regulations are not sufficiently rigorous

Caribbean and Americas Jamaica Too many varying bodies are managing specific areas of the process, and it slows the review process down. It would be helpful to have a more centralized process or format to receiving the reviews.

Europe Malta Politics hinder/slow down the establishment of an adequate set of building codes.

United Kingdom

There have been a number of new legislative changes following the Building Safety Act 2022, that will create a period of change related to building code in the industry (in terms of process, implementation and performance).

Pacific Australia If there are issues, these lie within the layered nature of approval, from Federal Code to State Acts to local council approval.

Papua New Guinea Geographic location. The further you are from the enforcing body the more likely you are to construct non-compliant buildings.

Samoa Lack of skilled professional available to interpret enforce the code means that there are large gaps in knowledge transfer and therefore lack of awareness.

26, Issues associated with implementation of the National Building Code

Table 36, Issues associated with implementation of the National Building Code

Figure

Appendix I, World Bank, Dealing with Construction Permits

Table 37, World Bank, Dealing with Construction Permits

Appendix II, Examples of building failures across the Commonwealth

The following are offered as examples of recent building failures across the Commonwealth, in which building control has been a contributory factor:

• Bangladesh: 24 April 2013, the Rana Plaza collapse, killing 1,134 people and leaving thousands more injured: https://cleanclothes.org/campaigns/past/rana-plaza

• United Kingdom: 14 June 2017, the Grenfell Tower ﬁre, killing 72 residents with profound consequences for the entire ecosystem in the UK: https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/

• Pakistan: 01 July 2020, “Building collapses common in Pakistan as safety codes ignored”, https://www.dawn.com/news/1566204

• Nigeria: 01 June 2016, “Factors Affecting the Development & Implementation of The Structural Aspects of the Nigeria Building Code among the Stakeholder’s within the House Building Construction Sector in the Lokoja Municipality”, https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/factors-affecting-the-development-ampimplementation-of-the-struc

• Ghana: June 2018, “The Challenge of Reducing the Incidence of Building Collapse in Ghana: Analysing the Perspectives of Building Inspectors in Kumasi”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325269397_The_Challenge_of_Reducing_the_In cidence_of_Building_Collapse_in_Ghana_Analyzing_the_Perspectives_of_Building_Inspect ors_in_Kumasi

• Kenya: 28 September 2022, “Kenya: Architects blame corruption, lack of regulation for building collapse”, https://www.africanleadershipmagazine.co.uk/kenya-architects-blamecorruption-lack-of-regulation-for-building-collapse/

• Cameroon: 13 August 2023, “Cameroon: death toll rises to 40 in building collapse”, https://www.africanews.com/2023/07/27/cameroon-death-toll-rises-to-40-in-buildingcollapse//

• Nigeria: 26 April 2023, extract from’ The Guardian’ newspaper’. “Nigeria has one of the highest number of collapsed buildings in Africa, says Standards Organisation of Nigeria Director General.”: https://guardian.ng/news/nigeria -has-highest-number-of-collapsedbuildings-in-africa-says-son-dg/

• Uganda: 15 November 2023, “Evaluating the Causes of Building Collapse in Kampala District, Uganda”, https://kjset.kiu.ac.ug/assets/articles/1707815162_evaluating-the-causesof-building-collapse-in-kampala-district-uganda.pdf

• South Africa: 17 May 2024, “Rescue efforts halted after South African building collapse where 33 died”, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/rescue-efforts-halted-after-southafrican-building-collapse-where -33-died-2024-05-17/

• Nigeria: 01 September 2024, “Collapse after collapse - why Lagos buildings keep crashing down”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ed9y3049o

Appendix III, Voluntary National Commitments

Recognising that the buildings sector contributes nearly 40% to global energy related annual greenhouse gas emissions and that the final energy demand from buildings is predicted to increase 50% by 2050 compared with 2015 levels under business-as-usual scenarios due to rapid urbanisation and the doubling of the built surface area, a number of Commonwealth member states are to be applauded for having become signatories to a variety of voluntary national commitments which seek to accelerate decarbonisation of their buildings sector, including:

• The Buildings Breakthrough

Four Commonwealth members states have become signatories to the Buildings Breakthrough. Launched at COP28, the initiative aims to strengthen international collaboration to decarbonize the building sector and make clean technologies and sustainable solutions the most affordable, accessible and attractive option in all regions by 2030.

• The Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships for Climate Action

Seventeen Commonwealth Member States have become signatories to the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships for Climate Action (the Champs Initiative) which aims to enhance cooperation between national and subnational governments in the planning, financing, implementation, and monitoring of climate strategies, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and Long Term Low-Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS), to maximise climate action.

• The Declaration de Chaillot

Sixteen Commonwealth Member States have become signatories to the Declaration do Chaillot in which the signatories have committed themselves to (inter alia) Implementing roadmaps, regulatory frameworks, and mandatory building and energy codes to move towards carbon-neutral buildings, Implementing an appropriate financial framework with financial and fiscal incentives, and regulatory tools to increase the share of resilient, nearzero emission, and affordable buildings, leading by example by adopting ambitious policies regarding public procurement, promoting the production, development, and use of low-carbon, durable, and cost-effective construction materials, developing tools and regulatory frameworks to collect and share data and best practices.

Table 38 illustrates which Commonwealth countries have become signatories to each of the above initiatives. The findings of the current survey, however, serve to illustrate the gap which needs to be closed between if such ambitions are to be realised.

Region Country

Asia

Pacific Africa

Botswana

Cameroon

eSwatini

Gabon

Gambia, The Ghana

Kenya

Lesotho

Malawi

Mauritius

Mozambique

Namibia

Nigeria

Rwanda

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

South Africa

Tanzania

Togo

Uganda

Zambia

Bangladesh

Brunei Darussalam

Hong Kong SAR

India

Malaysia

Maldives

Pakistan

Singapore

Sri Lanka

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahamas, The

Barbados

Belize

Canada

Dominica

Grenada

Guyana

Jamaica

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Trinidad and Tobago

Europe

Cyprus

Malta

United Kingdom

Australia

Kiribati

Nauru

New Zealand

Papua New Guinea

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Tonga

Tuvalu

Vanuatu Total

Table

38, Voluntary