Giulio Coppi, a main humanitarian officer with non -profit access, who has done research on the use of blockchain in humanitarian work, says that blockchain technologies, although sometimes effective, offer no obvious advantage compared to other tools that organizations could use, as an existing payment system or another data base tool. “There is no proven advantage that it is cheaper or better,” he says. “The way it was presented is this technological solutionist in solution that has been proven to be repeatedly so as not to have a substantial impact in reality.”
However, there have been successful cases of using blockchain technology in the humanitarian sector. In 2022, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) led a small pilot to provide cash aid to the Ukrainians displaced by the Russian-Ukraine war in a stablecoin. Other pilots have been tested in Kenya by Kenya Red Cross Society. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which works with the Kenya team, has also helped to develop the humanitarian token solution (HTS).
A representative of an NGO that uses blockchain technology, but has not been authorized to speak to the media with regard to problems related to USAID, says in particular with regard to money transfers, Stablecoins can be faster and easier than other methods of reaching the communities affected by a disaster. However, “the introduction of new systems means that you create a new burden” for the many organizations with which USAID is associated, they say. “The relative cost of new systems is more difficult for small NGOs”, which would often include the type of local organizations that would be on the front line of response to disasters.
The proposed adoption of blockchain technology seems to be linked to the emphasis on exercising tight controls on aid. The memo seems, for example, to propose that funding should be subject to the results, in reading, “link payment to results and results rather than in inputs would guarantee that the dollars of taxpayers offer a maximum impact.” An USAID employee, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not allowed to speak to the media, says that many USAID contracts are already working in this way, organizations being paid after doing their work. However, this is not possible in all situations. “These types of agreements are often not flexible enough for the environments in which we work,” they say, noting that in conflict or disaster areas, situations can change quickly, which means that what an organization can do or need to do can fluctuate.
RAFRDE says that this language seems to be misleading and strengthens the affirmations made by Musk and the administration that the USAID was corrupt. “It is not as if the USAID delivered tons of money to people who had not done things,” she said.
This story originally appeared on wired.com.
