Issuu

Rethinking Waste in Humanitarian Aid Humanitarian aid saves lives, but unfortunately also leaves behind large amounts of waste. Bio4HUMAN, a Horizon Europe project, is scouting bio-based packaging, digesters and other technologies across Europe and Africa for use in challenging settings, then producing a roadmap to bring workable options for solid waste management in humanitarian settings. Crisis response saves lives, but it also generates waste that lingers long after the emergency passes. In long-term emergencies, camps and host villages struggle with piles of plastic packaging, discarded bottles, and organic waste that has nowhere to go. With weak infrastructure and overstretched budgets, most humanitarian organisations have little choice but to let it build up. Bio4HUMAN takes this overlooked problem as its starting point. The project brings together humanitarian NGOs and the bio-based sector to ask a simple yet difficult question: how can aid be both life-saving and sustainable? In the first year and a half of the project, the consortium scanned the field for bio-based alternatives and explored their environmental impact through life cycle assessments (LCAs). The next step is the most practical one: in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan, the team is now asking if these solutions fit the community, the regulations, and the realities of everyday aid delivery.

The hidden footprint of aid When humanitarian organisations mobilise, speed and scale matter the most. Supply chains are designed for robustness, with items packaged to survive long transport and harsh storage conditions. Once distributed, much of that material becomes waste. Previous surveys of humanitarian actors show that 81 percent see packaging and plastics as the most pressing waste challenge. But Bio4HUMAN is careful not to assume that these materials can be easily replaced. Local production of bio-based packaging is limited, and long supply chains make substitution difficult in practice. Instead, the project is assessing feasibility: where packaging alternatives might work, but also where other approaches - such as onsite treatments for organic waste - are more realistic. In Sub-Saharan Africa, municipal waste streams are already dominated by

organic matter (around 57 percent) and plastics (about 13 percent), according to UNEP’s Africa Waste Management Outlook (2018). Humanitarian aid adds further strain to fragile systems, underscoring the need for solutions that fit local contexts. Local infrastructure is rarely equipped to cope with solid waste management. Roads are poor, collection is patchy, and formal landfills are scarce. Most camps and communities rely on open burning or informal dumps, leading to health risks and environmental damage. For aid agencies, solid waste management usually falls outside their immediate life-saving

To back up the choices, partners are running life cycle assessments (LCA). This method tracks every stage of a product’s life: from raw materials and production, through transport and use to disposal, and compares the footprint against conventional petro-based alternatives. A compostable pouch for ready-touse therapeutic foods, for example, is measured against the multilayer plastics currently used. These analyses provide evidence that bio-based alternatives are not only “greener” in theory but deliver measurable benefits in practice.

“It’s one thing to say that a technology fits humanitarian needs, but another to sit with a community and ask if they actually want to use it.” mandate. As project coordinator, Andrea Motola notes, “the mission is to save lives. Waste solutions need extra funding that organisations don’t usually have.” Bio4HUMAN began with a solid-waste management needs assessment in two SubSaharan locations, led by humanitarian partners. Interviews, field observations and basic audits identified what accumulates, how it is handled and where the gaps are. Those findings then guided a scan of the bioeconomy solutions that would address this challenge: about 70 biobased solutions and technologies from projects, industry and fairs, ranging from compostable packaging to biogas digesters and black soldier fly units. The list has been narrowed down to 27 solutions, aiming to end the project with around 10, filtered by cost, technology readiness and end-of-life performance. “It’s not enough that something looks good on paper,” says Andrea, “Aid agencies will not be interested in solutions that are costly.”

Assessing the selection in the toughest settings Finding a promising solution is only half the challenge. The real question is whether it works where humanitarian organisations operate. That’s why Bio4HUMAN’s case work focuses on two complex contexts, the DRC and South Sudan, and on multiple settings within them: smaller municipalities and rural communities, large urban centres, and displacement camps. Both countries face protracted crises, weak infrastructure, and ongoing insecurity. They also host large numbers of displaced people living in camps or scattered host communities, where aid generates high volumes of waste, but formal waste management systems are lacking. By working in these particularly challenging environments, the consortium hopes to

EU Research

show that solutions proven viable can inspire confidence in their ability to succeed in other settings worldwide. Fieldwork is carried out by Bio4HUMAN’s humanitarian partners, People in Need and Polish Humanitarian Action, who already have long-standing operations and trust within local communities. Their teams have conducted needs assessments, interviews, and landfill observations, documenting what kinds of solid waste is being accumulated. They also explore issues, such as the absence of guidelines for tracking where humanitarian waste actually ends up. Community acceptance is a critical test. Options that seem simple on paper, such as PLA water bottles, compostable pouches for therapeutic foods, or biobased sanitary pads, still raise practical and cultural questions. Would families or villages be willing to use them? Do local regulations allow their use? Could they create new jobs or businesses, or, on the contrary, might they take away opportunities or exclude certain groups? These are the kinds of conversations happening now on the ground. “It’s one thing to say that a technology fits humanitarian needs, but another to sit with a community and ask if they actually want to use it,” explains Andrea.

From field tests to policy and markets The work in the DRC and South Sudan will feed into a set of Bio4HUMAN guidelines and recommendations aimed at three audiences: humanitarian practitioners who make procurement decisions, European policymakers who shape the rules that govern them, and bioeconomy actors for whom humanitarian operations represent a new and significant market for their products and technologies. A mid-term policy brief has already highlighted the biggest implementation challenges: financing and coordination, followed by weak policy frameworks and enforcement. Recommendations range from green procurement criteria and

better monitoring systems to capacity building and local partnerships. Importantly, Bio4HUMAN speaks directly to the bioeconomy community. For many providers of compostable packaging, hygiene products, and organic waste treatments, humanitarian aid has never been considered as a market. The project is opening that door, showing innovators that their products could be deployed in places they may never have imagined. For aid agencies, the message is equally clear: sustainable alternatives already exist, and some can be considered for procurement today. Beyond the end of the project, it’s lasting value is more than just a shortlist of biobased solutions. Bio4HUMAN expects longer-term gains: healthier environments and hygiene in aid-receiving regions; livelihood opportunities around safe recycling and organic-waste treatment; and stronger community involvement in shaping what gets deployed. Economically, the work should open a new market lane for the bioeconomy, supporting jobs and entrepreneurship while giving beneficiary countries the tools needed to move towards a greener economy. Scientifically, the project aims to leave transferable guidelines and spur interdisciplinary research across materials, environment, and development studies. Environmentally, its results are designed to support EU goals on climate neutrality, circularity and zero pollution, aligning with the European Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan. Bio4HUMAN’s value is practical. It turns field evidence into choices that buyers and policymakers can act on. Some shifts will take time, especially where local supply for bio-based packaging is limited. Others can begin sooner through communitylevel treatments, better data, and clearer procurement. The point is not to promise substitution everywhere, but to set out what is feasible now, what needs building up, and who needs to be involved.

Bio4HUMAN Life Cycle Assessment for Innovative Bio-Based Solutions in Humanitarian Settings

Project Objectives

Bio4HUMAN aims to identify and assess innovative bio-based solutions for solid waste management in humanitarian settings, providing practical tools, LCA methodologies, and policy guidelines to support implementation, scale-up, and replication across diverse contexts.

Project Funding

The Bio4HUMAN project is funded by the European Union, Grant agreement No. 101135144.

Project Partners

• Enspire Science Ltd • Instituto Tecnologico del Embalaje • Transporte y Logistica • Universidad de Cantabria • Fundacja Edukacji i Dialogu Spolecznego Pro Civis • Človek v tísni Ops • WeLOOP • Irish Bioeconomy Foundation • olska Akcja Humanitarna Fundacja • AIMPLAS - Asociacion de Investigacion de Materiales Plasticos y Conexas • BioEast Hub CR, z. u.

Contact Details

Project Coordinator, Enspire Science HaKatif 5, Rehovot 7632845 Israel E: inquiry@bio4human.eu W: https://bio4human.eu/

Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Andrea Motola

Andrea Motola is an experienced coordinator of EU-funded projects for Enspire, such as Bio4HUMAN, and also acts as a consultant for Horizon Europe research and innovation collaborative funding. She focuses on impact-driven, cross-disciplinary project design and implementation, and holds an MA in International Relations from Masaryk University in Brno.