A/HRC/24/44 and the construction of infrastructure for the hosting of mega-events, as well as the amount of funds lost due to the toleration of corruption.64 61. Comparing per capita incomes against water and sanitation indicators among countries with comparable levels of development provides a more objective benchmark. Analysing the magnitude, composition and distribution of resources allocated to the water and sanitation sectors,65 as well as the expenditure per capita, can help identify common policy problems that curtail the progressive realization of the rights to water and sanitation, as well as effective policy and strategies that have led to improvements in a specific area. 2. Fiscal policies and taxes 62. During times of economic prosperity there will be more financial resources available to the State to maintain and develop the water and sanitation sectors than in times of economic and financial crisis. Yet, times of crisis per se do not inevitably lead to regressions in implementing the rights to water and sanitation. Fiscal austerity can be achieved not only by cutting government spending, but also by increasing government revenue. From a human rights perspective, a crucial question is how such revenue is raised. 63. Ensuring efficient tax systems that enable continued investments in the water and sanitation sectors contributes to sustainability and guards against impermissible retrogressions. Mobilizing tax revenue, in an appropriately targeted manner, is the responsibility of governments, 66 and a way of implementing their human rights obligations. Methods such as assessing the effective tax rate (or tax to gross domestic product ratio) can be utilized to provide indicators for reviewing and benchmarking States, identifying failures in their efforts to mobilize resources to meet the need for a water and sanitation sector that is sustainable for all, forever. 3. Targeting of resources 64. The Special Rapporteur is aware that resources available to States are limited, despite efforts to mobilize revenue. As noted in a previous report (A/66/255, para. 41 ff), this highlights the need for appropriate targeting of available resources. Human rights principles give clear guidance on this: States should initially direct resources and efforts towards meeting obligations with immediate effect, for example, targeting the realization of the core content of the human rights to water and sanitation without discrimination and protecting existing access. One of the challenges highlighted above demonstrates this need for targeting of resources: while potentially necessary for long-term sustainability of the sector, the introduction of metred service delivery at cost price can have discriminatory effects. Thus the pricing of services (as well as taxation) needs to be targeted and appropriately adjusted for the most disadvantaged and for people living in poverty. For example, scarcity pricing, penalties or higher pricing structures for non-essential use, well- 64 65 66 European Union commitments in the wake of the financial crisis were US$ 1 trillion and the global defence budget is over US$ 1.7 trillion per year. The annual costs of achieving universal access to drinking-water and sanitation are estimated at US$ 215 billion per year. WHO, “Global costs and benefits of drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to reach the MDG target and universal coverage” (2012), p. 43. Available from www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2012/globalcosts.pdf. See, for example, E. Felner, “Closing the ‘escape hatch’: a toolkit to monitor the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights”, Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 1, No. 3 (2009), pp. 416-419. Rhadika Balakrishna and others, Maximum Available Resources & Human Rights (Centre for Women’s Global Leadership, 2011), p. 10. 17