A/66/255 23. In any event, the human rights framework obliges States to ensure, first, that the cost of accessing water and sanitation remains affordable and appropriately reflects the needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups and, second, that there is a safety net in place for those who cannot afford to pay or who can only afford to pay a minimal fee. In this context, affordable means that the costs should not significantly detract from a household’s ability to pay other essential costs, such as food, housing or health care. 28 24. As discussed below, various forms of government support, for instance, direct or cross subsidization, can have a positive impact on affordability. 29 Sound, transparent indicators for measuring and monitoring affordability help to further promote accountability in the sector. While consideration is given throughout the present report to financing for both water and sanitation, it is worth assessing the reasons why financing for sanitation differs from that for water. Although the benefits from investing in sanitation are considerably more pronounced than investing only in water, requirements for the water sector are easier to finance than requirements for the sanitation sector, with 37 per cent of aid fundinga and an average of a mere 20 per cent of government spending on the sectors going to sanitation.b Access to water is a need felt by every woman, child and man, regardless of economic status, and there is no substitute, so people will pay high prices even for poor quality water if there is no alternative. For these reasons, water is generally higher on both the political agenda of governments and list of budget priorities of households, schools, workplaces and clinics than is sanitation, where the economic and health benefits of owning and using a latrine are not fully understood. Further, sanitation can be a taboo subject, with many cultures finding it difficult to discuss individual needs, particularly those of women. This means that there is not enough information on who does not have adequate access to sanitation and why, making planning and budgeting difficult, if not impossible. A male head of household, who may be the decision maker in budget prioritization, has often a wider range of options for accessing safe sanitation, whether at the workplace or through cultural norms which make it more acceptable for men to urinate, if not defecate, in the open. This may mean that women’s needs are not represented in household budgetary decisions, and their need for convenient and safe sanitation, not only for personal use but also to assist in care of children, the sick and the elderly, is not met. __________________ 28 29 11-44364 General Comment No. 15 (2002) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Pricing Water Resources and Water and Sanitation Services, p. 77. 9