Creditably for it, the federal government has drawn an instructive lesson from the disastrous earthquake that hit Azad Kashmir, parts of NWFP, and Islamabad on October 8, 2005. It has grasped the chilling reality that Pakistan is situated in a high seismic activity zone, and hence needs to prepare itself to meet any eventuality in the years to come.
The Director General of the National Housing Authority told the media last Sunday that a "Building Code of Pakistan: Seismic Provisions, 2007" has become operative with immediate effect throughout the country, and Azad Kashmir. The code requires that all new buildings -residential, industrial or commercial, particularly high rises - follow new construction guidelines.
In the light of a seismic survey, the country has been categorised into four zones, depending on the expected intensity of future earthquakes, and the code contains technical specifications of each category with a view to ensuring structural safety of buildings.
The need for such a code cannot be stressed enough, especially because space constrains have given way to a growing trend in our urban centres towards skyscrapers. It is important to note that during the October earthquake in Islamabad - which together with Rawalpindi is said to be "on the border of red zone" - the worst calamity proved to be a multi-storey residential building with reported structural defects.
And in Azad Kashmir and NWFP, most of the buildings that suffered complete destruction had been constructed without laying a proper foundation. The NHA Director General himself acknowledged that a building construction code was formulated back in 1986, but it was not enforced.
In the meantime, technological advancements have rendered it outdated, hence the need for a new formulation. It is not known what exactly the new requirements are. But pile foundation, common to our style of construction, is believed to be unsuitable for earthquake prone zones; a more appropriate solution is said to be raft foundation.
But it is expensive, too. In fact, the Housing Authority chief said that the new code might entail a significant increase in the construction cost of commercial and industrial concerns while there would be a nominal cost increase in the case of residential buildings.
Going by the prevalent practices, construction companies would try to cut their costs, even if that means making compromises on safety. That is where the real challenge lies for the government. It, of course, is not enough to formulate a safe construction code, equally important is it to have the code implemented.
In this regard, it would be helpful to enforce at least two measures. One is the elimination of all kinds of waivers, which open the way for corruption and consequently substandard construction.
Yet those in the habit of making quick money through dishonest means can still use their authority to allow violation of the construction code. That problem can be overcome if well-recognised, independent watchdog bodies keep a check on the construction standards. The death and destruction caused by the October earthquake should be fresh enough in our minds not to leave any room for negligence with regard to future preparedness.