to take continuous steps forward to achieve those rights’ full realisation. To this end, states must move ‘as expeditiously and effectively as possible’.78 The requirement to continuously improve conditions is reiterated in ICESCR Article 11(1) on the right to adequate living conditions, including food, clothing and housing. According to this provision, ‘States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions’ [emphasis author’s own]. This obligation is extremely important vis-à-vis the obligation to mobilise resources. If States Parties must take continuous steps towards the full realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, then states’ passivity in the case of a decline in these rights’ protection due to external circumstances may be considered a violation of this obligation. States cannot be passive towards a decline in the degree of protection afforded a particular right; they must take action that seeks to redress or improve the situation. This obligation is particularly stringent in regard to vulnerable groups. States must actively take steps to protect vulnerable groups, even in times of severe resource constraints. The CESCR has stressed this obligation when States Parties have remained passive in the face of rights-protections deterioration due to, for example, HIV infection rate increases or environmental degradation due to third-party natural resource exploitation.79 According to the CESCR, in such cases, states are required to take steps to address the situation. For example, when considering the implementation of the ICESCR in the Solomon Islands, the Committee noted that there were threats to the natural environment due to deforestation and overfishing, which affected the right to an adequate standard of living (ICESCR Article 11). It therefore recommended that the state take measures to prevent excessive exploitation of the country’s natural resources.80 The non-retrogression obligation ‘[A]ny deliberately retrogressive measures… would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources.’81 According to the CESCR, a ‘deliberately retrogressive measure’ can be defined as any measure implying a step back in protection levels accorded to economic, social and cultural rights as a consequence of a Member State’s intentional decision.82 According to the CESCR, there is a strong presumption that retrogressive measures are incompatible with the obligations imposed by economic, social and cultural rights, and that states bear the burden of proving their compatibility. The CESCR has noted that, to assess whether a retrogressive measure is in compliance with the obligations the 78 CESCR, General Comment No 3, para 9. 79 See, eg, Concluding Observations Russian Federation E/1998/22, paras 113 and 126. 80 Concluding Observations Solomon Islands E/2000/22, paras 204 and 209. 81 CESCR, General Comment No 3, para 9. 82 See, eg, CESCR General Comment No 4 on the Right to Adequate Housing (Art 11 (1)) (1991) UN Doc E/1992/23, para 11; General Comment No 13, para 45; General Comment No 14, para 32. December 2017   The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies 37