A/68/264 through budget allocations or donor support. The Special Rapporteur has previously called for resource allocation to the sector to be increased (see A/66/255, paras. 11 and 12). 67. Just as important as the absolute amount of resources is how those resources are targeted. The priority must be to achieve basic levels of service for everyone before moving to higher standards, in particular by targeting the most disadvantaged. Current spending patterns are not always aligned with those priorities, and often benefit those who are relatively well-off (ibid., paras. 41 and 42). Funding is disproportionately targeted towards large systems in urban areas (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities and sewerage pipelines) compared with basic services in rural areas and deprived urban areas (e.g., latrines, boreholes and hand pumps). Currently, 62 per cent of all sectoral aid goes to developing large systems, while only 16 per cent goes to basic systems. 43 Because of the limited reach and high costs associated with sewerage systems, very few people benefit from them, and the ones who do are likely to be the better-off. In order to eliminate inequalities, financing less costintensive and more context-appropriate systems should be given higher priority, as should other approaches to prioritize coverage in poorer and marginalized areas. 68. Looking beyond the domestic sector, the “polluter pays” principle must be enforced, including the introduction of nuanced payment structures according to types of pollution and the costs of treatment. Big polluters must pay for their full share of wastewater management. For large companies, requirements to treat wastewater at source can be a useful tool to guarantee that treatment costs are internalized. 69. Another approach is levying a water conservation tax, as in Singapore (see www.pub.gov.sg/general/Pages/WaterTariff.aspx). Similarly, Costa Rica has introduced an environmental tax for discharging polluting substances in water through the adoption of a regulation based on the “polluter pays” principle (see A/HRC/12/24/Add.1, para. 60). Other countries also impose financial charges for discharges to public sewers to avoid externalization of costs. Taxes on the use of fertilizer are a means to reduce pollution in the agricultural sector. 44 70. Finally, the costs of adequate wastewater management are certainly an issue; however, the Special Rapporteur urges policymakers to consider the costs of inaction. Remaining inactive and letting contamination continue unabated means that the huge economic benefits of reducing water pollution and associated health impacts as well as increased productivity and school attendance would not be reaped. While requiring large initial investments, the costs of prevention and treatment by far outweigh the costs of inaction in the long term. 45 Studies on the economic returns of sanitation interventions show that both septic tanks with treatment and sewerage with treatment have a positive cost-benefit ratio, for instance of about 1:4 in the Philippines. 46 Another study in Indonesia that examined __________________ 43 44 45 46 18/23 World Health Organization/UN-Water, Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water, p. 30. Thomas Harter and Jay R. Lund, “Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water”, p. 7 (University of California, Davis, 2012). The Wastewater and Water Quality Framing Paper. World Bank, Water and Sanitation Programme, “The Economic Returns of Sanitation Interventions in the Philippines”, p. 4 (Jakarta, 2011). 13-41825