In extending the service coverage to poor areas, many municipalities consider partnerships to be pro-poor, and many arrangements rely on the expansion mandate to address inequalities in access to services. In many cases, the delivery of new water, sanitation and waste services will improve the quality of people's lives. Yet it is a municipal responsibility to consider whether or not, in any particular context, it is indeed that simple. In particular, consideration needs to be given to affordability of new services and then to the type (or level) of service to be provided. The one-service-for-all ethos often referred to as 'universal coverage' is not the right one for all contexts, and increasingly experience suggests that 'service gradation' is the only way that the poor are going to be able to access better services. As discussed in Chapter 5, a lack of service options often removes the choice available to the poor, undermines livelihood strategies and increases the vulnerability of the poorest groups.
The municipality will not need to consider only the political issue concerning different levels of service. Other social and physical factors will influence the service options to be provided, and these factors will become apparent through the initial context and poverty assessment. In many arrangements, improving services immediately and to the same standards as those provided for existing customers is often hindered because the poor often occupy the most marginal land (e.g., steep hillsides or low-lying land) and the cost of installing infrastructure in these areas is prohibitive.
At a micro-level, households on the most inaccessible plots within a poor area (which are often occupied by the poorest households) may have to pay the highest connection costs (distances are likely to be greater, for instance), and in many cases the costs of networked services become unaffordable. The partnership arrangement will need to be flexible enough to account for the needs of the more vulnerable households. Also, households within an urban community will generally display a range of capacities, and these will vary at different times. Some will be very poor, at times destitute; some will manage on a humble income; and some will be hovering close to the poverty line. These heterogeneous groups will generally demand significant flexibility and variability including different levels of service and the ability to change the service they buy.
One of the primary characteristics of urban poor communities is their level of interdependence. Some households (not just tenants) rely entirely on other poor households that do have services to act as their suppliers (e.g., water supply, toilets and/or electricity) (see Box 7.5). While this relationship may be, and frequently is, exploitative, it also often meets a need for flexibility. The introduction of household water and sewerage connections to a community will fundamentally change the informal systems established, and will bring with it advantages and disadvantages. While many householders will benefit enormously, other more complex impacts may result. For instance:
• householder-suppliers who can afford the connection will pass on its cost to the buyers - their poorer neighbours, who can least afford it;
• the buyers do not opt for the higher payment and the seller cannot then afford the connection and tariff - the service becomes less affordable;
• the poorest households raise money for the connection (by going into debt with better-off neighbours); or
• landlords pass on the connection costs to tenants in the form of increased rent. This generally exacerbates problems for the poorest tenants and creates a cycle of evictions and rent increases.
The decision-making process must ensure that all residents are able to express their preferences. All too often, consultation is limited to those on whom the poorest are dependent.