A/HRC/30/39 23. Studies have shown evidence of a positive cost-benefit ratio. One analysis estimated that for each dollar invested in achieving universal access to basic drinking water at home, the average return is $4. For universal access to basic sanitation at home, the estimated benefit is $3, while the return on eliminating open defecation in rural areas is $6 per dollar spent.12 The safe management and treatment of wastewater has received less attention in cost-benefit analyses. While requiring large initial investments, in the long term the price of inaction is far greater than the cost of ensuring adequate wastewater management. Studies on the economic returns of sanitation interventions show that both septic tanks with treatment as well as sewerage networks with treatment have a positive cost-benefit ratio, for instance about 1:4 in the Philippines13 and about 1:3 in Vietnam.14 24. Although sometimes monetized in economic analyses, interventions provide some intangible benefits related to time saved, dignity gained and diseases and deaths prevented. The particularly positive impact for women and girls of investing in water and sanitation is crucial for achieving gender equality. Environmental benefits are also significant, given that improving water and sanitation services helps combat contamination and environmental degradation. III. Understanding affordability A. Defining affordability and setting standards 25. Affordability, as a human rights criterion, requires that the use of water, sanitation and hygiene facilities and services is accessible at a price that is affordable to all people. Paying for these services must not limit people’s capacity to acquire other basic goods and services guaranteed by human rights, such as food, housing, health, clothing and education. Affordability standards must be considered together with standards of an adequate quantity and quality of water and sanitation to ensure that human rights standards are met. 26. Affordability provisions in water and sanitation laws are quite common. For instance, in Namibia, the Water Resources Management Act requires ensuring “that all Namibians are provided with an affordable and a reliable water supply that is adequate for basic human needs”.15 In many instances, the challenge is to translate general provisions into concrete affordability standards. Such standards are essential to ensure that tariffs are set in a way that is affordable to people and to ensure accountability. Generally, people are prepared to pay a high price for water because it is essential for so many aspects of a person’s life, but this does not justify a high affordability threshold. Willingness-to-pay studies therefore often deliver limited results in terms of people’s actual capacity to pay. 27. A number of countries have set standards for affordability. For instance, a regulation in Indonesia explains that “Tariff shall meet the principle of affordability... if domestic expense on the fulfilment of the standard of basic need for drinking water does not exceed 12 13 14 15 8 Guy Hutton, Laurence Haller and Jamie Bartram, “Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions”, Journal of Water and Health (5 April 2007), pp.481-502. World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, “The Economic Returns of Sanitation Interventions in the Philippines”, Research Brief (Jakarta, 2011), p. 4. World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, “The Economic Returns of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam”, Research Brief (August 2011). Available from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/10/05/000020953_2011100 5094020/Rendered/PDF/647750wsp0viet00Box361544B00PUBLIC0.pdf. Namibia, Water Resources Management Act No. 24 2004, article 26.1.