Photo: WFP/Shaza Moghraby
Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 16, Issue 02 | May 27, 2020

Technology Assessment: Governing Blocks: Building Interagency Consensus to Coordinate Humanitarian Aid

Farah Awan and Soheib Nunhuck
University College London Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, London, UK
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG160201
Keywords: World Food Programme; Jordan; Syrian refugees; inequality; sustainability; blockchain; coordination; governance; humanitarian aid
Executive Summary: The conflict in Syria has led to one of the biggest refugee crises in history. An estimated 660,000 Syrian refugees have moved to neighbouring Jordan, many of whom are highly vulnerable to monetary poverty and food shortages. To reduce the daily inequalities faced by Syrian refugees, humanitarian agencies are progressively shifting to programmes that encourage financial inclusion and self-reliance. Operating since 2016, Building Blocks, a cash-based assistance programme created by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), uses blockchain technology rather than traditional financial service providers to supply monetary assistance for food purchases by Syrian refugees in Jordan. Beneficiaries have their identities confirmed though iris scanning when purchasing goods at supermarkets within the camps. Following authentication, monetary assistance is provided to complete the transaction. This system benefits over 100,000 Syrian refugees registered on the UNHCR’s PRIMES database and WFP has plans to scale up the programme to include more beneficiaries.
 
This technology assessment focuses on understanding the governance of blockchain technology in Building Blocks (if any), and on finding opportunities for WFP operating partner agencies consisting of UNHCR, UNICEF, UN Women, Oxfam and Mercy Corps, to coordinate with and join the programme. Scaling up Building Blocks will benefit refugees and displaced people by giving these individuals a semblance of normalcy in a situation of vulnerability and crises. We advise WFP to collaborate with its partners to form a blockchain humanitarian consortia governing Building Blocks to avoid duplicating efforts and to achieve their shared objectives of delivering humanitarian aid in a sustainable manner. Other recommendations include to have UNOCHA and UNHCR as data aggregator and coordinator, respectively, to grant joint access to PRIMES for non-UN operating partners, to coordinate efforts with UNHCR’s Common Cash Facility programme, to consider renewable energy sources and to build local technical capacity for women in refugee camps. The involvement of operating partners in governing technology used in such processes will ensure equity of aid delivery, resulting in a broader governance, thus reducing inequality.

I. Introduction

Building Blocks (BB) functions as an accounting system, delivering cash assistance for Syrian refugees in the Azraq and Zaatari camps in Jordan. Blockchain technology helps the process of securing the financial transaction histories and identities of beneficiaries who receive aid. This information was previously entrusted to financial service providers (FSPs) and is now held solely by WFP in respect to BB beneficiaries.

This research revolves on the following problems: How will Building Blocks evolve and impact the governance of blockchain as operational partners gradually join the programme? How can WFP make Building Blocks an interoperable cash-based transfer (CBT) system? As Building Blocks will be scaled up to reach more beneficiaries, there will also be opportunity to accommodate other agencies’ CBTs to make the programme sustainable and resilient.

The WFP-UN Women partnership, an example of collaboration for delivering aid using Building Blocks, is used as the foundational case study to address the research question and inequalities faced by Syrian refugees. This technology assessment then explores the facets of data management and other CBT systems currently operating in Jordan such as the UNHCR’s Common Cash Facility (CCF). An analysis of the institutional constraints and opportunities for CBT use by potential operating partners (OPs), and a risk assessment from their perspectives is then conducted.

The publication concludes by providing WFP with a series of recommendations that emphasise interagency coordination to address existing and emerging inequalities arising from the application of disruptive technologies when delivering humanitarian food aid through sustainable technological intervention.

-Read the full article through download.-
Download PDF

References

  1. Abdallah S. D., Chang, T., Salomon, A. and Singer, P. A. (2018) “Grand challenges in humanitarian aid”, 11.07.2019, Nature 559, 169-173. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05642-8
  2. Abdo, N., Sweidan, F. and Batieha, A. (2019). “Quality-of-life among Syrian refugees residing outside camps in Jordan relative to Jordanians and other countries.” PeerJ, [online] 7(e6454). [Accessed 12 Jul. 2019].  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6454
  3. Abu Sa’Da, C. (2017). The Middle East: A MANDATORY RETURN TO HUMANITARIAN ACTION. In Makdisi K. & Prashad V. (Eds.), Land of Blue Helmets: The United Nations and the Arab World . Oakland, California: University of California Press. pp. 372-386 http://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520286931.003.0018 
  4. Albu, O.B., Flyverbom, M. (2019). “Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences” Business & Society, [online] 58(2), pp.268-297. [Accessed 5 Jul.2019]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316659851 
  5. Alexander, E.R. (1995). How organizations act together: interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. New York: Gordon and Breach.
  6. Altay, N. and Labonte, M. (2014). “Challenges in humanitarian information management and exchange: evidence from Haiti” Disasters. 38(s1), pp. 50-72. [Accessed 5 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12052 
  7. Altun, F. (2019). Turkey Is Helping, Not Deporting, Syrian Refugees. [online] Flipboard. Available at: https://flipboard.com/article/turkey-is-helping-not-deporting-syrian-refugees/a--Km6Rr1vTWeR3U78d9mjNQ%3Aa%3A507367274-e2e321cd5f%2Fforeignpolicy.com [Accessed 2 Aug. 2019].
  8. Asaduzzaman, M and Virtanen, P. (2016) “Governance Theories and Models”. In: Fraazmand A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2612-1 
  9. Bastagli, F., Hagen-Zanker, J., Harman, L., Barca, V., Sturge, G., Schmidt, T. and Pellerano, L. (2016). Cash transfers: what does the evidence say?. [online] Available at: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10749.pdf [Accessed 12 Jul. 2019].
  10. Bevir, M. (2012) Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199606412.001.0001 
  11. Blockchain4aid. (2018). Building Blocks: an analysis. [online] Available at: https://blockchain4aid.org/analysis/building-blocks/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  12. Boireau, O. (2018). Securing the blockchain against hackers. [online]. [Accessed 3 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-4858(18)30006-0 
  13. Buterin, V. (2015). On Public and Private Blockchains. [Blog] Ethereum Blog. Available at: https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on public-and-private-blockchains/ [Accessed 3 April. 2019].
  14. Christensen, C, M. (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Massachusetts. Harvard Business School Press
  15. Coppi, G. and Fast, L. (2019). Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies in the humanitarian sector. [online] Available at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000104617/download [Accessed 25 Jun. 2019].
  16. Cuccuru, P. (2017). Beyond bitcoin: an early overview on smart contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, [online] 25(3), pp.179-195. [Accessed 4 Aug. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eax003
  17. Davis, N. (2018) “How unequal? Insights on inequality: The future relationship between technology and inequality”. Centre for Economic Development of Australia, page 110
  18. De Angelis, Stefano & Aniello, Leonardo & Baldoni, Roberto & Lombardi, Federico & Margheri, Andrea & Sassone, V. (2017) PBFT vs proof-of-authority: applying the CAP theorem to permissioned blockchain. [online] Available at: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/415083/2/itasec18_main.pdf [Accessed 30 Jun. 2019].
  19. de Kruijff, J & Weigand, H (2017). Understanding the blockchain using enterprise ontology. in E Dubois & K Pohl (eds), Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2017). vol. 10253, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10253, Springer Verlag, pp. 29-43.  [Accessed 5 Aug. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59536-8_3
  20. Digital Humanitarian Network. (2018). Blockchain for The Humanitarian Sector: Future Opportunities. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/BlockChain%20for%20the%20Humanitarian%20Sector%20-%20Future%20Opportunities%20-%20November%202016.pdf[Accessed 12 Jul. 2019].
  21. Doocy, S. and Tappis, H. (2016). Cash-based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review. [online]. [Accessed 10 Jun. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.23846/SR0028 
  22. Evangelista, R. (2015) “Technology and Economic Development: The Schumpeterian Legacy” Review of Radical Political Economics. 50 (1) 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613416666565 
  23. Fondation Grameen Crédit Agricole, Sida and UNHCR. (2018). Assessing the Needs of Refugees for Financial and Non-Financial Services – Jordan. [online] Available at: https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/66387 [Accessed 1 Aug. 2019].
  24. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. (2018). Cash-based transfers: Increasing the resilience of agricultural livelihoods. [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/I9684EN/i9684en.pdf [Accessed 25 Jun. 2019].
  25. Fukuyama, F. (2013) “What Is Governance?”. CGD Working Paper 314, Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Available at: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/what-governance-working-paper-314 
  26. Georgieva, K. and Brende, B. (2015). The growing need for humanitarian aid means we must find a new approach to development. In The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/26/addressing-humanitarian-crisis-is-key-to-reaching-the-sustainable-development-goals [Accessed 17 Apr. 2019].
  27. Grafham O, Glada L. (2018). The Costs of Fueling Humanitarian Aid. [online] Moving Energy Initiative. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-12-10-Costs-Humanitarian-Aid2.pdf [Accessed 12 Jun. 2019].
  28. Gratzke, P., Schatsky, D. and Piscini, E. (2017). Banding together for blockchain. [online] Deloitte University Press. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3769_Signals-for-Strategists_Aug2017/DUP_Banding-together-for-blockchain-consortia.pdf [Accessed 23 Jul. 2019].
  29. GSDRC, University of Birmingham. (2018). Cash-based initiatives for refugees in Jordan: annotated bibliography. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6bdbf340f0b61a1afc3f8b/381_Cash-based_Initiatives_in_Jordan.pdf [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
  30. GSM Association. (2019). Data Privacy Frameworks in MENA Emerging approaches and common principles. [online] Available at: https://www.gsma.com/mena/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GSMA-Data-Privacy-in-MENA-Exec-Summary.pdf [Accessed 12 Jul. 2019]
  31. Idris, I. (2017). Cash transfer platforms in humanitarian contexts. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a5f37b4ed915d7dfb57d033/1416-Cash-Platforms-in-Humanitarian-Contexts.pdf [Accessed 12 Jun. 2019].
  32. Innovation.wfp.org. (2019). Blockchain for Zero Hunger: Building Blocks. [online] Available at: https://innovation.wfp.org/project/building-blocks [Accessed 26 Aug. 2019].
  33. ISO. (2018). Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies – TC307 WG1 report. [online]. Available at: https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/perf-and-scale-wg/attachment/439/0/ISO-TC307_N0327_TC307_WG1_report.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2019]
  34. Jamal, J. and Bakar, H. (2017). Revisiting Organizational Credibility and Organizational Reputation – A Situational Crisis Communication Approach. SHS Web of Conferences, [online] 33(00083). [Accessed 3 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173300083 
  35. Jaspars, S. (2018) “The state, inequality, and the political economy of long-term food aid in Sudan”, African Affairs, Volume 117, Issue 469, Pages 592–612. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady030 
  36. Jiwani, S. (2019). Powering Life in The World’s Largest Syrian Refugee Camp. [Blog] Climate, Energy, and Environment. Available at: https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/powering-life-in-the-worlds-largest-syrian-refugee-camp/ [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
  37. Jordan Humanitarian Fund. (2018). Annual Report. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Jordan%20HF%20Annual%20Report%202018.pdf [Accessed 2 Jul. 2019].
  38. KPMG. (2019). Blockchain spotlight: UN World Food Programme. [online] Available at: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2019/01/blockchain-spotlight-un-world-food-programme-fs.html [Accessed 23 Jul. 2019].
  39. Kshetri, N. (2017). Will blockchain emerge as a tool to break the poverty chain in the Global South?. Third World Quarterly, [online] 38(8), pp.1710-1732. [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1298438 
  40. Kuner, C., Svantesson, D., Cate, F., Lynskey, O. and Millard, C. (2017). Data protection and humanitarian emergencies. International Data Privacy Law, [online] 7(3), pp.147-148. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be2b/8b7683e882a935deab3670d3f30247cb28b1.pdf. [Accessed 2 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx012 
  41. Madianou, M. (2019). "Technocolonialism: digital innovation and data practices in the humanitarian response to refugee crises." Social Media+ Society 5, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119863146 
  42. Mazurana, D., Benelli, P. and Walker, P. (2013) How sex‐and age‐disaggregated data and gender and generational analyses can improve humanitarian response. [online] [Accessed 2 Aug. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12013 
  43. Mercy Corps (n.d.). Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions. [online] Available at: https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/website_privacy_policy.pdf [Accessed 5 Aug. 2019].
  44. Mercy Corps (n.d.), Humanitarian Work in Jordan, [online] Available at: https://www.mercycorps.org/countries/jordan [Accessed 1 Aug. 2019]
  45. Miliband, D, and Gurumurthy, R (2015). "Improving Humanitarian Aid: How to Make Relief More Efficient and Effective." Foreign Affairs 94, no. 4: 118-29.
  46. Moore, S., Eng, E. and Daniel, M. (2003). International NGOs and the Role of Network Centrality in Humanitarian Aid Operations: A Case Study of Coordination During the 2000 Mozambique Floods. Disasters, [online] 27(4), pp.305-318. [Accessed 2 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2003.00235.x
  47. Mulder, F., Ferguson, J., Groenewegen, P., Boersma, K., and Wolbers, J. (2016) "Questioning Big Data: Crowdsourcing crisis data towards an inclusive humanitarian response." Big Data & Society 3, no. 2 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716662054 
  48. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2018). Blockchain Technology Overview. [online] Available at: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2018/NIST.IR.8202.pdf [Accessed 2 Jun. 2019].
  49. Nightingale, K. (2012) “Building the Future of Humanitarian Aid: Local Capacity and Partnerships in Emergency Assistance”, Christian Aid. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/25978_buildingthefutureofhumanitarianaid1.pdf 
  50. NIST. (2016). NIST Special Publication 800-53: Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. [online] Available at: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf[Accessed 2 Aug. 2019].
  51. Nolte, I. M., Martin, E. C., and Boenigk, S. (2012) "Cross-sectoral coordination of disaster relief." Public Management Review 14, no. 6: 707-730. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.642629 
  52. O'Neal, S. (2018). From Qatar to Palestine: How Cryptocurrencies Are Regulated in the Middle East. [online] Available at: https://cointelegraph.com/news/from-qatar-to-palestine-how-cryptocurrencies-are-regulated-in-the-middle-east [Accessed 14 Aug. 2019].
  53. OECD (2018). Blockchain Technology and Corporate Governance. [online] Available at: https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/CA/CG/RD(2018)1/REV1&docLanguage=En[Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].
  54. Oxfam GB. (2018). Privacy Policy : Oxfam GB. [online] Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/privacy-and-security/full-privacy-policy [Accessed 27 Jul. 2019].
  55. Privacy International. (2019). State of Privacy Jordan. [online] Available at: https://privacyinternational.org/state-privacy/1004/state-privacy-jordan [Accessed 25 Jul. 2019].
  56. Privacy International. (2019). The Humanitarian Metadata Problem - Doing No Harm in the Digital Era. [online] Available at: https://privacyinternational.org/report/2509/humanitarian-metadata-problem-doing-no-harm-digital-era [Accessed 24 Jul. 2019].
  57. The New Humanitarian. (2018). EXCLUSIVE: Audit exposes UN food agency’s poor data-handling. [online] Available at: http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2018/01/18/exclusive-audit-exposes-un-food-agency-s-poor-data-handling [Accessed 3 Jul. 2019].
  58. The UN Refugee Agency. (2015). Policy on the Protection of Personal Data of Persons of Concern to UNHCR. [online] Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/55643c1d4.html[Accessed 2 Jul. 2019].
  59. Thylin, T. and Duarte, M. (2019). Leveraging blockchain technology in humanitarian settings – opportunities and risks for women and girls. Gender & Development, 27(2), pp.317-336, [Accessed 7 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2019.1627778 
  60. Tierney, K. J. (1985). Emergency medical preparedness and response in disasters: The need for interorganizational coordination. 45th ed. Public Administration Review, pp.77-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3135001 
  61. Trapnell, S. (2013) “Measurement of governance, government, and the public sector” [blog] Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/measurement-of-governance-government-and-the-public-sector 
  62. UN Women. (2015). Cash-for-work programme economically empowers Syrian refugees. [online] Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/10/cash-for-work-programme-economically-empowers-syrian-refugees [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
  63. UNDP. (2017). Data Privacy, Ethics and Protection: Guidance Note on Big Data for Achievement of the 2030 Agenda. [online] Available at: https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/UNDG_BigData_final_web.pdf [Accessed 7 Aug. 2019].
  64. UNHCR, The Cash Learning Partnership. (2017). Review of The Common Cash Facility Approach in Jordan. [online] Available at: http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-ccf-jordan-web.pdf [Accessed 19 Jun. 2019].
  65. UNHCR (2018b). The Common Cash Facility: Providing Dignity to Refugees. [online] Available at: https://dfsobservatory.com/sites/default/files/unhcr.pdf [Accessed 8 Jul. 2019].
  66. UNHCR. (2016). Policy on Cash-Based Interventions. [online] Available at: https://cms.emergency.unhcr.org/documents/11982/159474/UNHCR%2C+Policy+on+Cash-Based+Interventions/89b1c28c-fb3e-43c1-bd3d-84dd964b566a [Accessed 27, Aug. 2019].
  67. UNHCR. (2017). The Common Cash Facility: Partnering for Better Cash Assistance to Refugees in Jordan. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/commoncashfacility2.pdf [Accessed 5 Apr. 2019].
  68. UNHCR. (2018a). Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report Universal Periodic Review: Jordan. [online] Available at: https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1439130/1930_1532503208_5b56fce37.pdf [Accessed 2 Aug. 2019].
  69. UNHCR. (2017). Action Against Hunger. Evaluation Synthesis of UNHCR’s Cash Based Interventions in Jordan. Available at: https://www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/unhcr_report_final_low_res_digital_infographics.pdf [Accessed 13 Jul. 2019].
  70. UNHCR. (2018).UNHCR Cash Assistance. [online] Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/5c5c5acc4.pdf [Accessed 10 May. 2019].
  71. UNHCR. (2019).Jordan Factsheet – July 2019. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/70665.pdf [Accessed 5 Aug. 2019].
  72. UNHCR (2019a). Operational Portal Refugee Situations. [online] Available at: https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations [Accessed 2 Aug. 2019].
  73. UNHCR. (2019b). UNHCR – Guidance on Registration and Identity Management. [online] Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/registration-guidance/chapter3/ [Accessed 20 May. 2019].
  74. UNICEF Jordan. (2018). My Needs, Our Future Hajati Cash Transfer Post Distribution Monitoring Report .[online] Available at: https://www.unicef.org/jordan/media/146/file/My%20Needs,%20Our%20Future.pdf [Accessed 1 Aug. 2019].
  75. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2013). World Economic and Social Survey 2013: Sustainable Development Challenges. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/wess2013/WESS2013.pdf [Accessed 13 Apr. 2019].
  76. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015) “Concepts of Inequality. Development Issues No. 1”. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_dev_issues/dsp_policy_01.pdf
  77. United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals. [online] Available at: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf [Accessed 20 June. 2019].
  78. United Nations. (2018). Personal Data Protection and Privacy Principles. [online] Available at: https://www.unsceb.org/CEBPublicFiles/UN-Principles-on-Personal-Data-Protection-Privacy-2018.pdf[Accessed 2 Aug. 2019].
  79. United Nations. (2018). Secretary-General’s Strategy on New Technologies. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/en/newtechnologies/images/pdf/SGs-Strategy-on-New-Technologies.pdf [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
  80. Verme, P., Gigliarano, C., Wieser, C., Hedlund, K, Petzoldt, M., and Santacroce, M. (2016) The Welfare of Syrian Refugees: Evidence from Jordan and Lebanon. Washington DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0770-1 
  81. Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press
  82. Weber, M. (1905) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Courier Corporation.
  83. Weigand, H., van der Poll, F., and de Moor, A. (2003) “Coordination through Communication” in Proceedings of the 8th International
  84. Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication modelling, Tilburg University Press.
  85. World Food Programme. (2018). 2018 – WFP’s contribution to the SDGs. [online] Available at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000074429/download/?_ga=2.197991343.1056883182.1566693697-1546932691.1565723624 [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
  86. World Food Programme. (2019). Annual Performance Report for 2018. [online] Available at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000104617/download/ [Accessed 5 Aug. 2019].
  87. World Food Programme. (2018b). Building Blocks: The Future of Cash Based Transfer at WFP – Draft for Discussion. [online] Available at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:el8K1Cqrru0J:www.diplomatie.be/oda/25221_PROGDESCR_Annexe_1
  88. WFP_Innovation_Accelerator_Building_Blocks_proposal_20180316_rev.docx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk [Accessed 15 Jul. 2019].
  89. World Food Programme. (2016). Cash Based Transfers: WFP Myanmar. [online] Available at: https://cdn.wfp.org/wfp.org/publications/Cash%20Based%20Transfer.pdf?_ga=2.33978529.1056883182.1566693697-1546932691.1565723624 [Accessed 19 Jul. 2019].
  90. World Food Programme. (2019a). Hunger Map 2019. [online] Available at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000107324/download/?_ga=2.263682828.1056883182.1566693697-1546932691.1565723624 [Accessed 5 July. 2019].
  91. World Food Programme Innovation Accelerator. (2018). Building Blocks: The future of cash disbursements at the World Food Programme. [online] Available at: https://unite.un.org/sites/unite.un.org/files/session_2_wfp_building_blocks_20170816_final.pdf [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
  92. World Food Programme Innovation Accelerator. (2018). How can Blockchain help to end hunger? [online] Available at: https://unctad.org/meetings/en/Presentation/dtl_eWeek2018p72_GiovanniPio_en.pdf [Accessed 5 Jul. 2019].
  93. World Food Programme. (2017). Internal Audit of Beneficiary Management. [online] Available at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000040084/download/ [Accessed 10 Aug. 2019].
  94. World Food Programme Jordan Country Office. (2018). WFP’s General Food Assistance to Syrian Refugees in Jordan 2015 to mid-2018 Evaluation Report. [online] Available at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000101797/download/?_ga=2.189600427.1056883182.1566693697-1546932691.1565723624 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2019].
  95. World Food Programme. (2018a). Overview. [online] Available at: https://www.wfp.org/overview [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
  96. World Food Programme. (2014). WFP Corporate Partnership Strategy (2014–2017). [online] Available at: https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp282072.pdf [Accessed 10 May 2019].
  97. World Food Programme. (2018c). UN Women and WFP harness innovation for women’s economic empowerment in crisis situations | World Food Programme. [online] Available at: https://www.wfp.org/news/un-women-and-wfp-harness-innovation-women%E2%80%99s-economic-empowerment-crisis-situations [Accessed 10 Jul. 2019].
  98. Women’s Refugees Commission, International Secure Committee, Mercy Corps. (2018). CASE STUDIES FROM IRBID AND MAFRAQ, JORDAN. [online] Available at: http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/library/1160-optimizing-benefits-and-mitigating-risks-of-integrating-cash-based-initiatives-and-gbv-programming-case-studies-from-irbid-and-mafraq-jordan?searched=1&currentpage=9 [Accessed 13 Jul. 2019].
  99. World Humanitarian Summit. (2016). Bringing the humanitarian-development divide. [online] Available at: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WHS-background-paper.pdf [Accessed 25 Apr. 2019].
  100. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen X. et al (2017). An overview of blockchain technology: Architecture, consensus, and future trends. 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), pp. 557-564. [Accessed 25 Jun. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigDataCongress.2017.85
  101. Zwitter, A. and Boisse-Despiaux, M. (2018). Blockchain for humanitarian action and development aid. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, [online] 3(1), p.16. [Accessed 15 Jul. 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-018-0044-5
Farah Awan is an eye care practitioner who has recently completed a MPA in Development, Technology and Innovation Policy enabling her to contribute to the implementation of health technology in both private and public ventures. She has a keen interest in global digital health and specializes in health policy and the design and delivery of emerging health directed technology in these areas. She can be contacted further on LinkedIn.
 
Soheib Nunhuck is a Projects Officer at the International Monetary Fund. He is part of the Digital Advisory Unit, a group of technologists specialized in disruptive technologies. He holds a BSc (Hons) in Management and Information Technology from Lancaster University and obtained his MPA in Development, Technology and Innovation Policy from University College London. Soheib is passionate about disruptive technologies, innovation, digital transformation, international development and financial inclusion. You can find Soheib on LinkedIn.
 
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank University College London, Department of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Public Policy (UCL STEaPP) for their encouragement during the course of the MPA and this project. We would like to thank Thariq Aziz and Jingru Hang for their contribution to the original dissertation project.
 
Disclaimer
This technology assessment co-authored by Farah Awan and Soheib Nunhuck in October 2019 is based on an original group dissertation project. The original research was completed Farah Awan, Thariq Aziz, Jingru Hang and Soheib Nunhuck in August 2019 to complete their Master of Public Administration degree. All reasonable precautions have been taken to verify the reliability of the material in this publication. The information contained herein does not necessarily represent the views of University College London and the Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy. The mention of specific organisations or certain projects does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the Authors in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.