Otros servicios

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction calls for increase in accountability across actors including public and private stakeholders (UNISDR, 2015). While accountability of public actors like municipalities and disaster management authorities has been discussed in risk literature, the role and responsibilities of private actors has attracted limited attentions (Murray, 2017). Accountability here is defined as “obligation of power-holders to account for or take responsibility for their actions”(Malena, Forster and Singh, 2004). It is closely linked with the concept of sharing responsibility of risk governance between actors in the risk network (Renn and Klinke, 2013). As the building sector is largely informal in Almora, it is difficult to establish accountability of the building professionals to urban risks post construction or in the event of a mishap. This is due to the absence of registration of building professionals in the municipality and the absence of legal contracts between the building professionals and homeowners. This section discusses the absence of a formal accountability framework in Almora and its consequences. It also discusses the informal accountability mechanism in place and its efficacy in addressing urban risk.

Formal accountability:

Formal or legal accountability is established through the existence of legally binding contracts between the homeowners and the building professional. The purpose of such contracts is two- fold. First, to ensure that the building professional delivers a good quality house and have a liability period where homeowners can hold them legally accountable for any damages or losses. Second, it helps the building professional from being exploited through the regular payment of fees and pre-establish set of duties.

During the household surveys in Almora, it was found that of the 150 households surveyed, only one had a legally binding contact with their building designer and contractor. This was further confirmed in interviews with building professionals who worked with verbal agreements rather than legal contracts (see Annex 13). Furthermore, the building professionals that were active in residential construction were different from the ones registered at the municipality. A majority of the building professionals in Almora thus operated without establishing formal accountability either to homeowners or to the municipality.

Legal accountability of the building professional to the municipality can be established through a registration and regulation process where building professionals meeting certain training or educational criteria can be allowed to practice in the town. Furthermore, national and state level building bye-laws stress on issue of occupancy certificates by the municipality only if the building professional involved in construction submits an undertaking that the building was built as per the established regulations (Government of Uttarakhand, 2016; Ministry of Urban Development India, 2016). However this accountability mechanism is missing from the building regulations of Almora (Government of Uttarakhand, 2015).

Absence of legal accountability of building professionals in Almora has a consequence for disaster risk reduction. On the one hand, households do not have a legal basis to hold building professionals accountable for bad design decisions or not incorporating risk reduction measures. If bad design decisions had been executed (e.g. building straight from the cut rock face without leaving gaps), homeowners had to live with it. Losses due to faulty design (collapse of walls) could not be charged to the building professional. On the other hand, municipality cannot hold building professionals accountable for not following regulations that they agreed upon in their building applications.

Absence of formal building contract also had consequences for building professionals. Not having a legal contract could lead to problems in timely payment for their services. Furthermore, they could be removed from the project midway and not be compensate for their lost time and efforts (Bhatt J 2017, personal communication, 21 March).

In this scenario, the next question asked was whether other informal forms of accountability existed? Here I investigate the primary reasons homeowners give for engaging building professionals for construction (see Figure 6.5). The results show a vast deviation from rational choice model where professional qualifications account for only 4% of choices. A large segment of people (30%) employ building professionals that are known to them. This meant that people chose a building professional from their family or friends or through recommendations made to them. Their social accountability was thus valued higher than their legal or professional accountability.

The second large segment of people (22%) preferred building professionals as they could be in control of the construction in terms of design and the material used in construction. Here it can be seen that homeowners relied on their agency much more than the state regulation or professional knowledge. Other reasons for employing building professional varied from having no choice in Almora to low costs to being tied to the building professional as they were also instrumental in the land deal for the house.

Figure 6.5 Primary reason given by household for employing a building professional (own compilation)

Informal or Social Accountability:

A large number of building professionals are employed in Almora as they are socially known to the households. Social accountability is a tool with the households in the absence of legal accountability as the reputation of the building professional dictates that he delivers a safe built forms. However, social accountability can be questioned in Almora based two grounds. First, as a large segment of building professionals are informal, their source of knowledge may be different from scientific standards or established building regulation (this is explored further in Chapter 7). Low risk knowledge among professionals can hamper them from delivering a safe building even with the best of intentions. In this case, social accountability would not go a long way in ensuring safety of the residents.

Second, social accountability failed as a tool when houses experienced problems built by professionals known to them. None of the 150 surveyed household had been able to hold the building professional financially accountable. They has, instead, applied for post disaster

30%

22%

16%

10%

4%1%

17%

Control over construction process No other choice Low rates Professional qualifications Land deal Do not know

assistance from the state or used their own funds. Thus, social accountability may be the reason for hiring building professionals, absence of a legal accountability framework hampers the process of recovering financial losses experienced based on bad design decisions. Furthermore, lack of documentation makes it difficult to establish if the design decision was made by the building professional or the homeowner.

Furthermore, the question on choice of building professional also indicates a strong inclination towards self-accountability. 22% of the households chose building professionals as they could exercise control over design decisions as well as control the materials used for the building. This indicates a large reliance of one’s own ability versus the professional competence of the building professional. However, it does not come as a surprise in the context of Almora where the building professional industry is largely informal.

This section thus discussed two forms of accountability and its consequence for disaster risk reduction. Legal or formal accountability is based on hiring registered building professionals with legal contract for house construction. However, this was not an established practice in Almora, with only one out of 150 surveyed house having worked with a registered building professional and a legal contract. In its place, people relied on social accountability by hiring building professional that they know socially or they relied on their own agency in supervising the construction process. However, the knowledge sources of informal building professionals (see Chapter 7) were different from established methods of disaster risk reduction. In this scenario, a degree of informality among build professionals and the absence of a legal accountability framework works as a disadvantage for homeowners who, in the advent of disaster due to bad design decisions cannot hold the building professional accountable.