A/HRC/39/55 interaction between humanitarian and development actors has been particularly poor. 40 Such differences could, however, be potential opportunities to complement the capacities and capabilities of different actors. Humanitarian actors, for instance, could make better use of specialized expertise of a development actor who has working experience in the area. The need for the humanitarian and development sectors to align their programmes for common achievements and to move towards a complementary approach has also been highlighted, including at the World Humanitarian Summit. 47. The human rights principles that are vital to the humanitarian-development nexus include sustainability, participation, equality and non-discrimination and progressive realization. What sustainability means for development actors with regard to, inter alia, time frame and targeted groups may be different for humanitarian actors. Water and sanitation services that are the cheapest and quickest to install often do not comply with the normative content of the human rights to water and sanitation, and might require repair or reinstallation in a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, development programmes sometimes impose systems that are not financially sustainable, such as in the case of desalination plants in Kiribati and Tuvalu (see A/HRC/24/44/Add. 1 and 2). 48. The human rights principle of sustainability requires States to adopt comprehensive and integrated strategies and programmes to ensure that sufficient and safe access to water and sanitation is available for present and future generations. This also requires the longterm management of water resources and wastewater. Many important elements for achieving the human rights principle of sustainability are indeed included in both the Sphere standards applied by humanitarian actors and the indicators under the Sustainable Development Goals targeted by development actors, such as the management and maintenance of services, safe excreta disposal and equal emphasis on hygiene promotion as sanitation and water services.41 Integrating the human rights principle of sustainability into both humanitarian and development planning and programming therefore does not require completely new standards, but rather common planning and targets. 49. One of the key terms repeated in recent discussions on humanitarian aids is “cost efficiency”. For humanitarian actors, cost efficiency tends to mean low expenditure of funds to produce a certain outcome; for instance, one cost-efficiency analysis of latrinebuilding programme looked at the yearly cost per person of latrine access, although it also examined the sustainability of access and the types of access that are easier for women. 42 Similarly, in the development sector, the focus is on cost recovery, where some funders request or even impose an obligation on partner States to recover, fully or at least partially, the costs of operation and maintenance of such systems through tariffs (A/72/127, para. 66). From the point of view of human rights, cost efficiency means that funds should first target the most marginalized groups of people to ensure the minimum content of the rights for everyone, and then progressive improvement of access, without any retrogression. When certain limits of expenditure — per person or per household — are adopted in humanitarian or development programmes, there is a risk of exclusion of hard-to-reach people or of dispensing with some levels of service, which are sometimes necessary to comply with core human rights obligations. States and humanitarian and development actors should develop strategic planning with human rights at the centre, as a continuous obligation. Such an approach requires long-term thinking as much as long-term funding. 50. Failing to fulfil the right to participation of affected populations in both the humanitarian and the development context will have a negative impact on the sustainable access to water and sanitation of forcibly displaced persons. In Aceh, Indonesia, after the tsunami in 2006, large parts of the Government’s master plan for reconstruction had to be modified because it had been developed with little input from local communities. Studies have in fact confirmed that reconstruction and development projects have a better chance of sustainability if the views of displaced persons are taken into account. The Special 40 41 42 Nathaniel Mason and Beatrice Mosello, “Making humanitarian and development WASH work better together”, Overseas Development Institute, policy brief, August 2016. Ibid. See www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/document/956/latrinesdesignedbrieffinal.pdf. 13