This study examines the environmental impacts of emergency Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) interventions in conflict-affected settings and explores how eco-innovative practices can improve the environmental sustainability of humanitarian responses in Cabo Delgado Province, Northern Mozambique. Emergency WASH programmes are critical for preventing disease outbreaks and ensuring access to safe water and sanitation during humanitarian crises. However, these interventions are often implemented under urgent timelines with limited environmental assessment, which can unintentionally contribute to ecological degradation, including groundwater depletion, sanitation-related contamination, deforestation, and plastic waste accumulation in displacement settings. The study employed a qualitative case study approach grounded in resilience thinking and political ecology frameworks. Data were collected through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, field observations, and document analysis across five districts in Cabo Delgado: Pemba, Metuge, Montepuez, Mocímboa da Praia, and Quissanga. A purposive sample of humanitarian practitioners, government officials, and internally displaced community members was selected to provide context-specific insights into WASH implementation practices and environmental outcomes. Findings indicate that emergency WASH interventions significantly improved access to safe water and sanitation services but also generated unintended environmental pressures. Intensive borehole drilling contributed to declining groundwater yields; poorly sited sanitation facilities increased the risk of soil and groundwater contamination; and plastic-based hygiene kits contributed to waste accumulation in internally displaced persons (IDP) settlements. Operational factors such as compressed donor timelines, limited environmental screening, and weak coordination with local authorities further amplified these impacts. The study concludes that environmental sustainability should be integrated into humanitarian WASH programming. Strengthening environmental screening, incorporating ecological indicators into monitoring systems, and promoting eco-innovative technologies such as solar-powered water systems and reusable hygiene materials can help balance life-saving humanitarian objectives with long-term environmental resilience.

This study examined emergency WASH programming in conflict-affected Cabo Delgado Province, focusing on environmental impacts, operational drivers of degradation, and opportunities for eco-innovative practices within humanitarian response. Drawing on qualitative evidence from field assessments, interviews, focus group discussions, and document review, the research demonstrates that humanitarian WASH interventions can generate significant environmental consequences if ecological considerations are not systematically integrated into programming. Findings show that emergency WASH interventions often produced cumulative environmental pressures. Intensive borehole drilling in districts such as Metuge and Montepuez contributed to declining groundwater yields, while poorly sited latrines in flood-prone areas of Pemba and Quissanga increased the risk of soil instability and groundwater contamination. Plastic-heavy hygiene kit distributions also contributed to the persistent accumulation of solid waste. These impacts were largely driven by compressed implementation timelines, standardized technical approaches, and donor-driven output targets that limited environmental screening and monitoring. At the same time, the study identified promising eco-innovations that demonstrate the compatibility of emergency response and environmental sustainability. Solar-powered water systems reduced reliance on diesel fuel, community-led sanitation improved maintenance and reduced open defecation, and locally produced reusable hygiene materials helped reduce plastic waste while supporting livelihoods. The research also highlights the importance of governance and coordination in shaping environmental outcomes. Weak oversight and limited technical capacity at the district level constrained systematic environmental management, while stronger coordination between humanitarian actors and government institutions showed potential for improved accountability. Overall, the study concludes that environmental sustainability should be treated as a core component of humanitarian WASH programming. Integrating environmental screening and monitoring, and strengthening institutional coordination, can help ensure that emergency interventions meet immediate humanitarian needs while safeguarding fragile ecosystems in conflict-affected settings.

ACAPS. (2026). Mozambique: Country analysis update. https://www.acaps.org/en/countries/mozambique Ahmed, S. (2024). Determining sample size in qualitative research: Revisiting saturation and analytical sufficiency. Qualitative Research Journal, 24(1), 45–60. Ahmed, S. (2025). Rethinking qualitative sample adequacy: Beyond numerical thresholds. Journal of Advanced Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 1–15. Ahmed, S. K. (2025). Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 6, Article 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198 ALNAP. (2022). The state of the humanitarian system 2022: ALNAP study. Overseas Development Institute. https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/2022-the-state-of-the-humanitarian-system-sohs–full-report/ Ballard Brief. (2020). WASH practices in Mozambique. https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/wash-practices-in-mozambique Bouncken, R. B., Czakon, W., & Schmitt, F. (2025). Purposeful sampling and saturation in qualitative research methodologies: Recommendations and review. Review of Managerial Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00881-2 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2020). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society, 21(4), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444 Global WASH Cluster. (2021). Global humanitarian WASH guidance 2019–2021. https://www.washcluster.net/sites/gwc.com/files/2022-01/Global%20Humanitarian%20WASH%20Guidance%202019-2021.pdf Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 Howard, G., Calow, R., Macdonald, A., & Bartram, J. (2016). Climate change and water and sanitation: Likely impacts and emerging trends for action. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 253–276. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085856 ICRC. (2016). Water, peace and security: ICRC statement to the United Nations, 2016. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/water-peace-and-security-icrc-statement-icrc-statement-united-nations-2016 ICRC. (2020). Climate change and humanitarian action: What role for the ICRC? https://www.icrc.org/en/climate-change-conflict-humanitarian-response IGRAC. (2023). Groundwater country profile: Mozambique. https://un-igrac.org/data/country-profiles/mozambique/ Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2023). Guidance on climate, environment and humanitarian action. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/operational-policy-and-advocacy-group/iasc-guidance-environmental-responsibility-humanitarian-operations-0 Jowsey, T., Deng, C., & Weller, J. (2021). General-purpose thematic analysis: A useful qualitative method for anaesthesia research. BJA Education, 21(12), 472–478. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8606608/ Kothari, C. R. (2019). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (4th ed.). New Age International Publishers. Luke, R., & Walters, J. (2022). Logistics challenges and opportunities in Africa in the 2020s. Manaktala, A. (2024). Single-use plastics’ economic and environmental impact: A case study on local businesses and solutions. International Journal of Novel Research and Development. Médecins Sans Frontières. (2024). Crisis info: Cabo Delgado. https://www.msf.or.ke/msf-crisis-info-cabo-delgado Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Miraz, M. H., Ali, M., Excell, P. S., & Picking, R. (2025). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS): Applications and methodological implications. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24, 1–14. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html OCHA. (2021). Southern and East Africa | Global humanitarian overview. https://2021.gho.unocha.org/inter-agency-appeals/southern-and-east-africa/ OCHA. (2023). Mozambique: Humanitarian response—Cabo Delgado Province overview (Jan–Dec 2023). https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/mozambique/mozambique-humanitarian-response-cabo-delgado-province-overview-jan-dec-2023-enpt Oxfam. (2023). Greening humanitarian response: Oxfam’s humanitarian approach. https://www.oxfamwash.org/wp-content/uploads/Humanitarian-WASH-strategy-2023-25.pdf Perreault, T., Bridge, G., & McCarthy, J. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of political ecology (2nd ed.). Routledge. Resnik, D. B. (2020). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis Robbins, P. (2021). Political ecology: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Sanderson, D. (2020). Identifying resilience in recovery—Complexity, collaboration and communication. In D. Sanderson & L. Bruce (Eds.), Urbanisation at risk in the Pacific and Asia (pp. 206–219). Routledge. Samantha, B., & Frances, C. (2020). Environmental footprint of humanitarian assistance: Scoping review. Groupe URD. Sphere Association. (2018). The Sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response (4th ed.). https://spherestandards.org/handbook/editions/ UNDP. (2022). Impact of the five-year conflict in Cabo Delgado in Mozambique. https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/20230707_ACAPS_Thematic_report_Mozambique_impact_of_the_five-year_conflict_in_Cabo_Delgado.pdf UNEP. (2021). Environment and humanitarian action: Increasing effectiveness, sustainability and accountability. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/eha_study_web_final.pdf UNEP & OCHA. (2020). Environment and humanitarian action in the field: Policy and practice review. United Nations Environment Programme / UN OCHA Joint Environment Unit. UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda UNHCR. (2019). Global strategy for sustainable energy 2019–2025. https://www.unhcr.org/media/global-strategy-sustainable-energy-2019-2025 UNHCR. (2024). Greening humanitarian WASH: Innovative approaches to sustainable service delivery. https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/respond-emergencies/water-sanitation-and-hygiene UNICEF. (2021). Water under fire (Vol. 3): Attacks on water and sanitation services in armed conflict and impacts on children. https://www.unicef.org/media/98976/file/Water%20Under%20Fire%20%20%20Volume3.pdf UNICEF. (2022). Safe and equitable WASH services in Mozambique. https://www.unicef.org/mozambique/en/safe-and-equitable-wash-services-and-live-safe-and-sustainable-climate-and-environment UNICEF. (2023). WASH in emergencies: Annual report 2023. https://www.unicef.org/reports/unicef-annual-report-2023 UNICEF. (2024a). Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in emergencies: Global annual results report 2024. https://www.unicef.org/reports/global-annual-results-report-2024-goal-area-4 UNICEF. (2024b). Mozambique humanitarian situation report No. 4 (January–December 2024). https://www.unicef.org/media/167536/file/UNICEF_Mozambique_Humanitarian_Situation_Report_No._4_-_January_-_December_2024.pdf UNICEF. (2024c). Factsheet Mozambique: Water, sanitation and hygiene (January–December 2023). https://www.unicef.org/mozambique/media/6336/file/Factsheet%20Mozambique%202023%3A%20Water%2C%20Sanitation%20and%20Hygiene.pdf WHO. (2018). Guidelines on sanitation and health. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241514705 WHO. (2022). Water, sanitation, and hygiene: Responding to health emergencies. Wutich, A., Beresford, M., & Bernard, H. R. (2024). Assessing saturation in qualitative research: Empirical benchmarks for interview-based studies. Field Methods, 36(1), 3–18. Yates, T. (2023). Gaps in humanitarian WASH response: Perspectives from people affected by crises, practitioners, global responders, and the literature. Disasters, 47(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12571 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. Zhang, X., Li, Y., Chen, S., & Kumar, R. (2025). Adaptive governance and resilience in social–ecological systems: Emerging perspectives. Global Environmental Change, 82, 102734.

© 2025 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques (IJET).

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

IJET assigns a unique DOI to every accepted article via Zenodo for persistent linking and citation. Your article’s DOI: https://doi.org/{{doi}}

Open DOI About Zenodo DOI

Close