Bio-Based Solutions to Mitigate the Environmental Impact of Solid Waste Management in Humanitarian Crises: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa

In protracted humanitarian crises, solid waste management (SWM) becomes a major challenge due to limited resources, inadequate infrastructure, and competing response priorities. Waste generated in humanitarian settings typically consist of heterogeneous streams, where plastics, biodegradable fractions, and packaging materials represent the dominant components. Proper management of this waste is essential to reduce health risks and environmental impacts on local communities. Within this framework, sustainable bio-based alternatives and compostable solutions represent promising alternatives. The EU-funded Bio4HUMAN project promotes the integration of innovative bio-based solutions aligned with humanitarian and sustainability goals. An exploratory assessment focused on analyzing waste production, material composition, and handling practices in two case study locations in Sub-Saharan Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan (SS)). The results indicate that humanitarian waste cannot be clearly distinguished from household or commercial waste, as streams are typically mixed. Waste composition is dominated by organic matter (43–65%), followed by plastics (15–33%), while other fractions such as paper, glass, metals, and textiles are less significant. Further insights into challenges and opportunities were obtained through a combination of quantitative surveys (n = 29), qualitative interviews with key informants (KIIs) (44) and group discussions sessions (FDG) (9), direct observations, and literature review. Subsequently, a scoping approach was applied to map and classify suitable sustainable solutions into two main categories: bio-based products (BBPs) and organic waste valorization technologies. These were assessed through life cycle assessment (LCA) in accordance with ISO 14040 and 14044, applying SimaPro v.10.2.0.3 software and the Ecoinvent 3.10 database, and compared against fossil-based alternatives. This study compares two case scenarios: a HDPE oil bottle versus PLA alternative (functional unit 6 L), and PE water container versus PLA alternative (functional unit 10 L). For the oil bottle, PLA shows a lower carbon footprint (1.33 kg CO2-eq) than HDPE (2.37 kg CO2-eq). In contrast, for the water container, PLA performs worse (2.22 kg CO2-eq) compared to PE (1.59 kg CO2-eq), due to higher material demand. The results suggest that benefits are context-dependent and most evident for lightweight products with high leakage risks, particularly when composting infrastructure is accessible. This study advances previous work on humanitarian SWM by integrating field-based waste flow characterization with context-specific screening and life cycle assessment of bio-based alternatives, providing quantitative evidence on the conditions under which these solutions can effectively reduce environmental burdens in protracted crisis settings.