A/HRC/18/33 65. The obligation to fulfil economic, social and cultural rights requires taking steps to the maximum of available resources. There has been much recent scholarship and a number of tools have been developed on assessing whether States are deploying the maximum of available resources towards guaranteeing human rights. One approach is to compare current budget allocations to past efforts to evaluate whether efforts have progressed, stagnated or regressed. A decrease would prima facie raise concerns. If past allocations to the sectors are evidently insufficient, a slight incremental increase based on yearly adjustments may not be sufficient, and a reallocation of funds would need to be considered. Another approach is a comparison between similarly situated countries. Such tools are not meant to provide definite answers on the use of maximum available resources, but can be used to prompt further inquiries. A decrease in the budget could be justified, for instance, when resources are used more efficiently and allocated to the most vulnerable and marginalized, or when economic conditions change, as long as the decrease is based on the most careful consideration and can be justified by reference to the totality of rights. 66. Budget allocations should be made based on the projected costs of envisaged activities that go to the maximum of what is attainable with the given resources, to realize the plan. Necessary resources must be allocated to the appropriate authorities that are intended to carry out the activities, for instance when delegated to the local level. 3. Expenditure tracking 67. Apart from assessing budget allocations from a human rights perspective, it is also essential to track expenditures, that is, determine whether the allocated budget has been utilized. If the projected budget has not been spent, this can indicate capacity problems. Such under-expenditure could be justified, though, with efficiency gains, that is, when the envisaged results have been achieved with fewer resources. Likewise, it will be important to track whether the resources have been spent in line with the priorities identified in the plan, and where this is not the case, to ascertain the reasons. These could relate to lack of capacity to spend resources, corrupt practices or other explanations. D. Participation and transparency 68. Any plan for the realization of the rights to water and to sanitation must be developed through a participatory and transparent process. Systematic participation is crucial in every phase of the planning cycle, from diagnosis through target setting and the formulation of responses and implementation to monitoring and evaluation. Sanitation, in particular, cannot just be delivered, but requires behavioural change, which can be achieved only through the active involvement of interested beneficiaries. Opportunities for participation, including community needs assessments, must be established as early as possible. 69. Participation must be active, free and meaningful. It must go beyond mere information-sharing and superficial consultation, and involve people in decision-making, providing real opportunities to influence the planning process. The organization of a truly participatory process is challenging. Different mechanisms and approaches will be required, including consultations with various stakeholders, public meetings and hearings as well as the opportunity to submit written comments and feedback. 70. Groups that should have opportunities to participate include civil society organizations, community-based organizations, national human rights institutions, academia and research institutions, the private sector and above all the communities and people concerned themselves, with a special emphasis on women’s input. Disadvantaged and at-risk people and communities must be represented, to ensure that participation is not only for a few well-established non-governmental organizations or local elites. Meetings 17