Imlisanen Jamir
The adoption and enforcement of building codes is considered the most effective tool in safeguarding lives and property against earthquakes. Given the disaster prone nature of Nagaland, it would seem that such codes and byelaws would have been enforced with vigour. But such is not the case.
A statewide mock drill on earthquake preparedness is set to be held on November 17. The mock drill exercise will take place on November 17 under the aegis of Nagaland State Disaster Management Authority (NSDMA) in collaboration with National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to test the capability of the state to respond to, and manage any mega disaster.
There are very limited, and in some cases no ways to prevent natural disasters. In most cases, all that communities can do is to enhance preparedness to deal with the aftereffects of such events, and ensure that infrastructure is built in ways that mitigate damage. Strict enforcement of building and construction byelaws becomes essential here.
While there is the Nagaland Building Byelaws 2012, it is yet to be enforced. Construction activity has sprung up over the past decade, and particularly in the urban areas, there is no building code that private builders have to follow. In such a scenario, there is no way to estimate the sturdiness of neither the old or new buildings. This becomes even more concerning when it comes to critical infrastructure and public utility structures that house large numbers of people like schools, hospitals, complexes etc.
Along with similar exercises and drills like the one to be conducted on Thursday, there needs to be political will to make the byelaws enforceable.
Inadequate expertise is often cited as a constraint to the proper enforcement of building regulations. In many disaster-prone developing communities, there are no adequate instructional programmes for engineers and architects or builders on seismic-, wind- or flood-resistant design’.
A particular issue for seismic resilience is the ‘invisible’ difference between safe and unsafe reinforced concrete construction. The building regulatory process requires competent professionals to review plans and inspect sites.
Some factors, such as code complexity and low public risk perception are also factors that might have prevented any strong willingness on the part of policy makers. Then there is also the inevitable red tape that would surround the enforcement of such laws. However, we can only work on these concerns when the laws are actually enacted.
Ambiguities create opportunities for failures arising from a sense of normalised irresponsibility. Considering our geographical and geological realities, Nagaland cannot afford to take such chances.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
