the full realisation of economic, social and cultural rights for the benefit of disadvantaged and marginalised individuals and groups.’ Thus, it recommended that the state ‘ensure that its fiscal policy is adequate, progressive and socially equitable and improves tax collection so as to increase resources available for implementing economic, social and cultural rights’.168 The issue of improving tax collection to ensure the maximum use of available resources has also received greater attention in recent years. Several treaty bodies and special procedures have recommended enhanced tax collection as a way to increase resource availability.169 The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty noted that tax-collection efficiency can be increased through tax-administration improvements. If all developing countries were able to raise 15 per cent of their national revenues through tax collection (a commonly accepted minimum – the OECD average is 37 per cent), they could collect no less than an additional US$198bn per year, more than all foreign development assistance combined. Domestic investment in tax collection can pay off; lack of investment in this area constitutes a short-term false economy.170 As noted, ‘low levels of revenue collection have a disproportionate impact on the poorest segments of the population and constitute a major obstacle to the capacity of the State to finance public services and social programmes’, on which the poor are particularly dependent.171 References have also been made to the benefits of improving informal-sector taxation, in particular in countries with large informal sectors.172 Nevertheless, from a human rights perspective, this potential source of state revenue should be assessed from a perspective of equity and equality; if the informal sector is constituted largely by those who have less, targeting it to raise revenues may exacerbate inequality. Taking on discrimination and addressing inequalities It has been noted that states must implement fiscal policies in line with the principle of non-discrimination, and be vigilant in balancing the need to increase taxation revenue with their responsibilities to both protect the most vulnerable and prevent additional inequality. According to several human rights monitoring bodies, compliance with the principle of equality and nondiscrimination may require setting up a progressive tax system with real redistributive capacity that progressively increases the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, in particular among 168 CESCR, Concluding Observations UK E/C.12/GRB/CO/6 (2016), paras 16–17. 169 See, eg, CESCR, Concluding Observations Paraguay E/C.12/PRY/CO/4 (2015), para 10; Concluding Observations UK E/C.12/GBR/CO/6 (2016); Concluding Observations Burundi E/C.12/BDI/CO/1 (2015); Concluding Observations Ireland E/C.12/IRL/CO/3 (2015), para 11; Concluding Observations Guatemala E/C.12/GTM/CO/3 (2014), para 8. See also CRC, Concluding Observations Guatemala CRC/C/GTM/CO/3-4 (2010), para 26. 170 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/28, quoting ActionAid, ‘Accounting for Poverty: How international tax rules keep people poor’, 2009, p 5. 171 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/28, para 44. See also ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Kishore Singh’ (2011) UN Doc A/66/269, para 52. 172 See, eg, ‘Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on health, Anand Grover’ (2012) UN Doc A/67/302, para 21. 52 The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies   December 2017