In Brazil, the unprecedented decision to impose a 20-year fiscal spending cap at the end of 2016 drew strong criticism from both inside and outside the country. In condemning the measure, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights stated: “Logic dictates that it is virtually inevitable that the progressive realization of economic and social rights [will] become impossible.” Economies in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions were similarly hamstrung by austerity measures. During 2017, Indonesia, Mongolia and Sri Lanka witnessed cuts to public spending. Even the budgets of resource-rich Qatar and Saudi Arabia shrank in moves to reduce state deficits, prioritizing economic efficiency over social protection. In the absence of appropriate social safety nets, such measures risk violating governments’ human rights obligations as well as commitments under the global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Looking ahead, even in the short term some commentators are forecasting an “austerity apocalypse”. Regions such as Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are predicted to be particularly badly affected. One report forecasts that during the next three years more than two-thirds of all countries will be impacted by austerity, affecting more than 6 billion people and wiping 7% off global Gross Domestic Product. The human cost is estimated to include millions being put out of work, including 2.4 million people in low-income countries, with few prospects of alternative employment. How should governments respond and what do they have to do to fulfil their human rights obligations? These obligations do not prohibit austerity per se, but do require that other options also be considered by governments making economic and fiscal decisions. Above all, human rights underline the importance of governmental accountability when making such decisions. Rights holders should be asking key questions of their governments when confronted by austerity: What levels of scrutiny were employed? How participatory and transparent was the process? What potential impacts, particularly on the most socially and economically marginalized, were considered and what mitigation measures were put in place? Human rights standards require that measures are put in place to ensure that nobody is allowed to fall below the minimum safety net needed to guarantee a dignified life. Unfortunately, this is routinely being ignored in even the largest economies as we see everincreasing numbers of homeless people and the growth of food banks; charities and communities are responding to welfare cuts by stepping in to prevent people going hungry. There is no question that many national budgets are under strain. But are governments making the maximum use of all the potential resources at their disposal, as they are required to do under human rights law? The November 2017 release of the so-called “Paradise Papers” revealed the vast extent of tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance around the world, demonstrating the systematic failure of governments to close loopholes and monitor and address abuses. It has been estimated that Brazil alone is losing up to USD80 billion a year as a result of tax evasion (which calls into question the need for a 20-year spending cap), while African countries could collectively claw back at least the same amount annually. In addition to the well-known tax havens, a 2017 study showed that countries including Ireland, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the UK are facilitating tax evasion by people in other countries. Globally it is estimated that the annual figure could be as high as USD10 trillion. Extraordinary times require the consideration of radical alternatives. A number of ideas have been gaining traction during 2017. They include the introduction of a universal basic income – already being piloted in some countries – which would guarantee everyone enough money to live on, regardless of circumstances. Another proposal would involve the state paying for all key basic services rather than leaving it to the market. Of course such ideas have their critics: Where will the money come from? Will it simply encourage people to live off the state, even if they are in a position to work? Nevertheless, proponents point to the potential longer-term 16 Amnesty International Report 2017/18