A/HRC/30/39 the choice of technology or service provider, which can result in inappropriate – often more costly – choices being made. Corruption also affects prices directly when bribes have to be paid for repair work, connection or reconnection. On a larger scale, there can be corruption within tendering processes for the delivery of services. Corruption tends to disproportionately affect poor and disadvantaged individuals and groups, as they lack the necessary power to oppose the vested interests of elites, and do not have the necessary resources to pay bribes.6 20. Limiting corruption requires focused efforts by States, regulatory bodies and service providers. Introducing a strong legal structure based on human rights can provide for anticorruption measures such as strengthening transparency and accountability mechanisms.7 For instance, one city in South-east Asia recognized the importance of addressing corrupt practices in order to increase access to water and sanitation for the poor, and instituted specific measures, including focused training for employees, the establishment of public offices so that customers could pay their bills directly rather than going through bill collectors, and the introduction of meters for all connections. 8 C. The cost of poor governance 21. Poorly managed service provision can also have a significant impact on the cost of service provision. States must work to ensure that the right incentives are in place such that providers improve the management of water and sanitation services, including through appropriate organizational structure, optimized running costs, efficient service delivery (e.g. low water losses), among other measures. It also includes strengthening the human rights principles of participation, access to information and accountability in governance structures and decision-making processes.9 Further, where the provision of services is intended to provide profits for the provider or shareholders (whether publicly or privately owned), this imperative to extract profits can also increase costs for the user beyond levels of affordability, and prevent the company from reinvesting in the service (see Special Rapporteur’s mission report for Brazil (2014), A/HRC/27/55/Add.1, para. 68). D. The price of inaction 22. The costs of ensuring access to water and sanitation may be high. Yet, the price of not investing is even higher. The lack of access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene underlies severe human costs such as poor health and high mortality rates, as well as major economic losses – globally, an estimated $ 260 billion is lost yearly due to lack of access to sanitation alone.10 In developed nations, advances in life expectancy and child mortality accompanied economic growth only after governments began making substantial investments in water supply and, more importantly, sanitation. 11 6 7 8 9 10 11 See Transparency International, Global corruption report 2008 (footnote 5 above), p. 6. Ibid. Ibid. p. 48. WaterAid, Reforming public utilities to meet the Water and Sanitation MDG (2006), pp.5-7. World Bank, “WB Confronts US$260 Billion a Year in Global Economic Losses from Lack of Sanitation”, 19 April 2013, available from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2013/04/19/wb-confronts-us-260-billion-a-year-in-global-economic-losses-from-lack-ofsanitation. UNDP, Human Development Report 2006 (footnote 5 above), pp. 28-31. 7