Chapter 2 | Page 91 Thus, in cases of failure to take positive steps or adoption of retrogressive steps, the burden of proof is on the State party ‘to show that such a course of action was based on the most careful consideration and can be justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and by the fact that full use was made of available resources.’225 In situations where resources available to a State are inadequate, the obligation to ensure that the available resources are used most effectively to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of rights remains, particularly with regard to protection of the rights of the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups in the society. In times of severe economic constraint, States have an obligation to take administrative, legal and other steps to the maximum of available resources at an ‘adequate’ or ‘reasonable’ level. The Committee’s proposition in relation to adopting ‘relatively low-cost’ programmes suggests that the State should use the limited available resources in the most effective manner to achieve the greatest results. The Concluding Observations provide further insight into the State’s obligations under resource constraints. The issue is highlighted in a number of reports in which the Committee recognised the limited resources available to the State under review and to take steps to make the best allocation of these limited resources.226 The impact of environmental degradation on the State’s ability to mobilise resources for ESC rights is also identified in some cases.227 It is recognised that the State is required to implement measures to protect the most vulnerable during economic and financial reform processes to minimise the negative impacts of these changes.228 225 Ibid., [9]. 226 CESCR, Concluding observations: Georgia, E/C.12/1/Add.42 (17 May 2000). 227 CESCR, Concluding observations of the Mongolia, E/C.12/1/Add.47 (1 September 2000). 228 CESCR, Concluding observations: Kenya, E/C.12/1993/6 (3 June 1993), [6].