The Illusion of the Container Based Sanitation Solution: Lessons from Khayelitsha, South Africa

Abstract

Container Based Sanitation (CBS) is seen, by some, as a sustainable sanitation ‘solution’ for informal settlements. Presented as a cost-effective form of improved, safely managed, affordable, and water-saving sanitation, proponents argue that it not only enhances safety for vulnerable groups, but that it can also be funded through innovative market and circular economy solutions. The City of Cape Town (CoCT) provides CBS on a large scale to informal settlements for free. Yet residents are notoriously unhappy with CBS. This paper is based on two years of fieldwork in BM Section, Khayelitsha, Cape Town, which included transect walks, participant observation, engagement with community leaders and civil society activists, and in-depth interviews with 42 respondents including BM Section residents, City of Cape Town officials, and private sector contractors. The paper applies the concept of infrastructural citizenship to examine the provision of Portable Flush Toilets (PFTs), a form of CBS, in Khayelitsha. Our data reveals conflicted views in relation to the (non)adoption of CBS, which are deeply entwined with frustration at the unmet promises of the post-apartheid state. At face value, CBS in Cape Town is an acceptable and successful form of sanitation for informal settlements. However, this paper suggests that this is an illusion. Our case study reveals that PFTs are experienced as neither a dignified nor a sustainable sanitation solution. This paper shifts the debate surrounding the adequacy and nature of sanitation provision in informal settlements, from focusing on material technological systems to the complexity of sanitation-related infrastructural citizenship.

Article Summary

In cities across the Global South, millions of people living in informal settlements lack access to adequate sanitation. Container-Based Sanitation (CBS) – including technologies like Portable Flush Toilets (PFTs) – has been championed by development agencies and municipalities as a practical, affordable solution for areas without sewer connections. Cape Town stands out globally for providing nearly 26,000 PFTs free of charge to informal settlement residents, making it one of the largest municipal CBS programs in the world. Yet despite this unprecedented scale of provision, residents remain deeply unhappy with these toilets. This study asks why.

The research team conducted in-depth interviews with 42 people, including BM Section residents (both PFT users and non-users), City of Cape Town officials, private contractors, and civil society activists. They also undertook observational site visits and transect walks through the settlement. Using the concept of “infrastructural citizenship” – which examines how citizens and states relate to each other through infrastructure provision – the researchers explored what PFTs mean for residents’ dignity, safety, and sense of citizenship in post-apartheid South Africa.

The findings reveal a complex picture. On one hand, PFTs offer some advantages over shared communal toilets: they’re more convenient, reduce safety risks (especially for women who face violence using shared facilities at night), and provide privacy. Many residents adopt them as the “least worst” option available. However, serious problems persist. PFTs require space that many tiny shacks simply don’t have, forcing residents to build makeshift outdoor structures or keep toilets in their sleeping areas. Servicing is inconsistent – cartridges are sometimes stolen, returned without caps, or leak human waste onto streets. Perhaps most significantly, residents see PFTs as disturbingly similar to the degrading “bucket system” used under apartheid to segregate and demean Black communities. Rather than representing progress, PFTs symbolize the post-apartheid government’s broken promises of dignified sanitation for all.

The study concludes that CBS in Cape Town creates an “illusion of a solution.” While the city has invested heavily in providing thousands of units, the infrastructure fails to deliver genuine infrastructural citizenship. Poor monitoring of private contractors breaks the accountability chain between citizens and the state. Residents feel they have no choice but to accept inadequate sanitation, which depoliticizes their struggle for the flush toilets connected to sewers that wealthier Cape Town residents take for granted. The research challenges the international development narrative that CBS represents an innovative “leapfrog” technology, suggesting instead that it may perpetuate inequality and infrastructural violence against marginalized communities.

Key Points

• Cape Town provides nearly 26,000 free Portable Flush Toilets to informal settlements – one of the world’s largest CBS programs – yet residents remain deeply dissatisfied with this sanitation solution
• While PFTs offer advantages over shared toilets (convenience, safety, privacy), they require space many tiny shacks lack and suffer from inconsistent servicing, leaks, and stolen components
• Residents perceive PFTs as similar to apartheid’s degrading “bucket system,” representing broken post-apartheid promises rather than progress toward dignified sanitation
• Privatized servicing breaks the citizen-state accountability chain, with the City of Cape Town unable to adequately monitor service quality despite full public funding
• The research challenges the narrative that CBS is an innovative solution for informal settlements, arguing it may perpetuate inequality rather than advance universal access to dignified sanitation

This study offers essential insights for policymakers, urban planners, development agencies, and communities worldwide grappling with sanitation provision in informal settlements – revealing why technical solutions must be grounded in political realities and citizens’ lived experiences.

Recommended Citation

Dube, M., Anciano, F., & Mdee, A. (2023). The illusion of the container based sanitation solution: Lessons from Khayelitsha, South Africa. Water Alternatives, 16(3), 849-868. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol16/v16issue3/724-a16-3-8/file