Blockchain technology has been increasingly employed by humanitarian organizations to address issues with inadequate identification verification or a lack of banking in undeveloped or war-torn countries.
Two Humanitarian Initiatives
In December, two brand-new initiatives were unveiled, one of which will use the Stellar network to provide monetary assistance to Ukrainian refugees, and the other of which will use the Partisia network to provide both cash and vouchers.
However, previous blockchain ventures have had a mixed bag of success. Others have found the use of blockchain to be redundant, while certain projects have been successful in enabling users to avoid red tape and receive the assistance they need.
On December 15, Stellar Development Foundation made the announcement that it had partnered with the UNHCR to offer USD Coin USDC on the Stellar network as a form of financial aid to Ukrainian refugees. Any MoneyGram location will accept the USDC tokens for payment. Even if refugees lack bank accounts or are unable to access those they do have, the program’s developers believe this will make it simpler for them to obtain aid.
According to Tori Samples, assistant product manager at Stellar Aid, by leveraging Circle’s USDC digital currency and working with Moneygram for cash-outs, “the whole solution becomes meaningful and accessible for individuals living in crisis.”
“This product was specifically designed to meet the needs of aid organizations delivering assistance in difficult environments. It can’t be experimental or not hold up to real-world use. Donor dollars are some of the most scrutinized in the entire world. The fact that some of the largest aid organizations are using Stellar Aid Assist today in Ukraine shows that it has real-world value and the potential to scale.”
Making Blockchain Payments More Effective
In association with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Partisia Blockchain Foundation hosted a “hackathon” on December 2 earlier this month. The purpose of the event was to identify ways in which Red Cross payments for humanitarian help may be made more effectively by means of the Partisia network.
Although these efforts to use blockchain are commendable, the industry has a troubled past. Researchers from the Digital Humanitarian Network evaluated prior initiatives to use blockchain for the benefit of assistance users in their study titled “Humanitarian Blockchain: Inventory and Recommendations” published in August. They discovered that while blockchain did improve some organizations’ ability to give aid more effectively, in other situations the technology had to be abandoned since it didn’t bring value.
It used Building Blocks, a blockchain project launched by the World Food Programme, as an illustration of a fruitful endeavor. Duplicative help, or several relief services giving the same aid to the same people, was the issue that it sought to address.
The initiative comprised a permissioned blockchain network that made it possible for various assistance organizations to communicate and share data. Humanitarian organizations were able to more effectively target their aid where it was needed since silos between them were broken down. Building Blocks continues to be active today.
On the other hand, a program called Direct Cash Aid, which was developed by a coalition of 121 different humanitarian organizations, had to stop using blockchain after it was discovered that the technology didn’t support its objectives. For recipients in Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, and the Netherlands who were unable to create their own evidence of identity, Direct Cash Aid planned to deploy a blockchain-based self-sovereign identity (SSI).
After experimenting with SSI, the program’s administrators discovered that the majority of users lacked smartphones and couldn’t access the internet quickly enough. Many assistance organizations also refused to work together or had doubts about the identification verification services provided by other organizations. The SSIs produced by the program “proven to currently have no value” as a result. The program’s blockchain components were ultimately dropped in favor of more centralized identity verification techniques.
Image Courtesy of Shutterstock
