The discussion earlier in this chapter draws attention to the heterogeneity of urban communities, the diversity of groups and households within the low-income bracket and the interdependence exhibited between households for services. It stresses the problem of capacity and the need for capacity building if poor consumers are to be able to pay for services and exercise rights. When considering the relative characteristics of consumers as actors in the partnership, it is essential that the poor are not considered as one homogeneous group, but are disaggregated to acknowledge their different vulnerabilities, capacities and coping strategies. Recognition of this diversity (and the need for proper assessments) will inevitably challenge some widely held views - among private operators particularly - that the poor can be viewed as one consumer type (a type that often only reflects the needs and capabilities of the most vocal members of the community). Box 6.14 sets out some of the characteristics of able and marginalised groups. It points towards a massive variation in the problems, needs, capacities and willingness of service consumers in poor urban contexts.
As individuals, consumers are simply a multitude of voices. In a PPP, individuals' resources and importance can seem minor, yet as a group they are a force and asset to be taken seriously; disaggregated consumer voices form a group that collectively may represent a market that it is possible to work with. In order for such voices to be heard, it is necessary for consumers to form interest groups or user groups to interact with other partners. In many poor urban areas these groups may be established CBOs with broad development agendas (neighbourhood committees, lane committees, people's organisations or women's groups, for instance) or a group that is developed to address a specific municipal service concern (an infrastructure committee, a water committee, a solid waste committee etc.). These two types of groups have fundamentally different attributes but the success or failure of an existing or newly formed committee will depend on the degree to which it represents the marginalised as well as the vocal elite. This requires mechanisms that ensure that the whole community is included, and capacity building to ensure the members are empowered to participate in a meaningful way.17
As vehicles of accountability, CBOs are important at all income levels. However, for poor people whose voices are not usually heard, effective CBOs can be critical in interacting with service suppliers. As aggregate groups, organised CBOs (perhaps working with NGOs) and networks of CBOs can:
• provide a vehicle for low-income consumers to articulate their needs and requirements;
• promote contextually specific solutions suitable to particular areas;
• influence construction, operation and maintenance and cost-recovery approaches;
• promote a livelihoods (rather than sectoral) agenda;
• create momentum for change; and
• encourage suppliers to meet (sometimes very) low levels of demand.