1 2 3 1 Substantive contributions to this paper were provided by Paola Marcela Ballon Fernandez, Marine Gassier, Meltem Ikindji, Sana Ikram Sharif, and Stephen Winkler. Alla Ivanov helped with the graphics and design. Many thanks to Sara Batmanglich, Sam Clark, Gillian Cerbu, and Emcet Tas for their excellent peer review comments. 2 An FCV-led study is currently ongoing with the aim of developing a conceptualization of resilience that is more relevant to the specific challenges of FCV, to articulate the implications for World Bank operations, and to support the analysis of resilien ce in Risk and Resilience Assessments. 3 4 First, it aims to help project teams think through how their work can build resilience. It does so by providing a framework for understanding resilience (Section 2) and by outlining three different pathways by which SSI work may promote resilience (Section 3). -wide work on resilience. It provides input from SSI on how data on impacts can be aggregated for the purpose of tracking progress on relevant corporate scorecard measures (Section 4).5 Third, it aims to help teams measure the impact of projects on resilience. It provides examples of indicators that can be used to measure the different elements of resilience in results frameworks and provides guidance on how to collect such data (Section 5). 4 Adapted from Barron et al. (2023). 5 6 7 6 to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including 7 For those wishing to explore some of the broader literatures around resilience, the Social Sustainability book provides an overview with references to prominent sources. Climate change impacts: large shocks (such as droughts, cyclones, etc.), as well as longer-run, slow moving challenges (e.g., desertification). Other natural hazards: such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and pandemics. Conflict and violence: including large-scale civil war, inter-state conflict and aggression, local conflicts, and inter-personal forms of violence such as gender-based violence (GBV). Economic downturns: both at a macro level (e.g., financial crises) or more localized. Resilience can be seen as a continuum that can be broadly divided into three categories: (i) prevention; (ii) coping measures; and (iii) transformative strategies. These broadly relate to the opportunities to address shocks and challenges before, during, and after shocks or challenges hit (Figure 1 below). Project designs, and measures to assess progress, may focus on one or more of these resilience types (often they may work on multiple approaches at the same time). Prevention is about risk reduction and mitigation. These are preparation measures that aim to lower the probability that shocks will occur or to mitigate their negative impacts if they do (Obrist 2010; World Bank 2001, 2013). This translates into the ability of countries, communities, households, and individuals to prepare for and mitigate any shocks, large-scale impacts from them, and the ability to recover and restore basic structures and functions in a relatively quick manner. Examples can be at the individual or household level (digging wells, diversifying assets, getting vaccinated), the community level (setting up security posts, building local flood infrastructure), or at higher levels (establishing safety nets, large-scale vaccination campaigns, etc.) 8 9 10 8 actions or strategies intended to mitigate the effects of climate change, but which end up exacerbating the problem or creating new issues (Watson 2022). 9 Moshy, Bryceson, and Mwaipopo 2015; Mozumder et al. 2018; Solórzano 2016. 10 Béné et al. 2012; Keck and Sakdapolrak 2013; Smith and Frankenberger 2018; Voss 2008 . 11 Figure 2 adapts ideas from a Myanmar project, focusing primarily on the economic dimensions of resilience. At one end, this includes direct cash or in-kind transfers to cover immediate needs. Without these, vulnerable households may be forced to adopt unsustainable coping measures, such as reducing food intake, selling land or assets, or taking children out of school, all of which can have long-term costs and consequences. Many studies have shown that cash transfers can lead to the development of positive coping strategies (e.g., Barrett et al. 2021; Premand and Stoeffler 2020). At the same time, providing only immediate cash or in-kind support may be insufficient on its own to enable people to develop more sustainable, longer- rategies. Moving along the resilience spectrum, support for productive activities, the provision of basic services and infrastructure, and, ultimately, support for sustainable livelihoods and development are key. Where such forms of support are provided in parallel it may be possible for virtuous cycles to emerge whereby aid is both supporting immediate needs while leading to the adoption of effective longer-run coping and transformative strategies. 11 Note, this does not mean work should start on the left side of the spectrum and continue later with work on the right. Workin g on resilience is not linear and different approaches will have utility in different contexts at different times. A community may have very low levels of resilience but may be at very little risk of a shock such as a natural hazard or conflict. As a result, they are not very vulnerable even though they have little resilience. If they have low resilience, this does not mean it increases their vulnerability to a variety of shocks. A community may be at high exposure to climate change, say because they inhabit land which is slowly losing its water sources. However, they may have a high level of resilience (they are well organized and find ways to pipe in water from neighboring areas at an affordable cost). As such, their level of vulnerability is relatively low. A community may see a high risk of conflict they may have a fragmented ethnic population and be situated in an area where intercommunal violence is common. At the same time, their level of resilience may be low due to the factionalized population. In such a case, levels of vulnerability are high. Economic resources: They have access to and can effectively manage a diverse array of resources, which are crucial for supporting stability and recovery during times of stress. Institutions: The organizational structures and processes within which resilient actors operate are robust and flexible. This capacity enables them to make informed decisions, coordinate actions efficiently, and maintain functionality when facing adverse conditions. Social cohesion: Relations are strong enough to allow different people and groups, including the state, to work collectively to address problems. 12 o SPF: Improved Livelihoods for Internally Displaced Persons in Azerbaijan P178125 o Indonesia Inclusive Livelihoods for Poor Rural Communities in Eastern Indonesia Project P174902 Bolstering and diversifying household assets. o Nigeria for Women Project P161364 Improving the quality of, and access to, community or public assets. o Rural Service Delivery Project in Papua New Guinea P159517 o Burundi Integrated Community Development Project P169315 Enhancing equity of the above through targeted support that empowers minorities or the most vulnerable. o Generating Growth Opportunities and Productivity for Women Enterprises Uganda P176747 o Ecuador Territorial Economic Empowerment for the Indigenous Afro-Ecuadorians and Montubian Peoples and Nationalities Project P173283 12 Examples in this section are indicative. Enhancing information flows e.g., the ability of institutions to consolidate and disseminate information on issues such as climate risk, to allow for more effective adaptation, and conflict risk, to manage rumors and avoid escalation. o Myanmar Community Resilience Project P179066 o Stabilization and Recovery in Eastern DRC P175834 Building participation in the public space e.g., the ability of institutions to execute bottom- up planning processes and adopt structures that enable local governments to tap local knowledge on risks and effective prevention actions. o Response - Recovery - Resilience for Conflict-Affected Communities in Ethiopia P177233 o Afghanistan NGO/CSO Capacity Support Project P178933 Enhancing flexible and transparent financing and resource mobilization mechanisms e.g., to provide coping resources to people when shocks occur. o Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP) in the Horn of Africa P161067 Enhancing social accountability and institutional responsiveness to support prevention and responses to shocks. o Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Rural Investment and Institutional Support Project P176780 Developing institutional spaces which bring together different sections of the community to collectively identify problems and solutions e.g., community fora for CLD projects. o Gulf of Guinea Northern Regions Social Cohesion Project P175043 Bring together conflicting groups to develop mutual understanding through approaches such as perspective taking. o Mali Reinsertion of Ex-combatants Project P157233 Training local leaders in conflict mediation. o Myanmar National Community Driven Development Project P132500 Building fora for collective planning and implementation of projects by local governments and communities. o Local Governance and Community Resilience P178699 13 14 15 13 The indicators are outlined in the WBG Scorecard paper FY24-FY30 (World Bank 2024b). This discussion is expanded to indicators for other components of social sustainability (inclusion, cohesion, and process legitimacy), and their alignment to the scorecard, in a parallel paper which identifies the priority project-level indicators most aligned to the scorecard (Cuesta forthcoming). 14 For the first year of the corporate scorecard, the resilience indicator will apply only to IPF operations and will be further expanded in subsequent years to other types of operations. 15 Figure 5: A resilience index developed by the FLLoCA program only illustrative 16 16 A rapid review of review of results frameworks for active SSI projects was conducted, with frameworks reviewed for projects that either: (i) had resilience in their title; or (ii) had a focus on resilience in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD). For identified projects, results frameworks were reviewed to identify potential indicators (this included recently approved projects and projects that SSI have co-led). For the climate specific indicators, some of these emerged from a portfolio review of SSI-led projects that focus on climate resilience done by the Social Dimensions of Climate Change (SDCC) team. Some indicators were also included from other work outside the Bank including a Mercy Corps paper on measuring social cohesion in CDD projects (Kim, Sheely, and Schmidt 2020) and USAID work on social cohesion and peacebuilding (Lichtenheld, Sheely, and Inks 2022). We would welcome suggestions for additional indicators for future iterations of the paper. 17 Percentage of beneficiaries from the Percent of ex-combatant beneficiaries who Number of people benefiting from targeted groups that feel project are economically active (disaggregated by demand-driven climate resilient multi- investments reflected their needs. armed group). sectoral infrastructure. Number of target communities with Number of direct beneficiaries reporting Groups using/adopting climate smart improved access to social and economic perceived improved livelihoods as a result technologies. infrastructure as a result of project of emission reduction program in areas Percentage of beneficiaries who think that support. affected by conflict (number). the project will help their household cope Percentage of supported microenterprises Increase in the number of women-led with the impact of disasters. still in business 12 months after receiving enterprises in project locations (including Hectares of forest area managed by forest the last disbursement of project hosting and refugee communities). cooperatives eligible to receive revenues investment grant. from the sale and transfer of emissions reductions. 17 It should be noted that there are some gaps in the resilience indicators. Following the discussion of different ways (or sub-pathways) to promote resilience laid out above, interventions that directly aim at building or strengthening a shared purpose in the community or across populations (as part of the social cohesion dimension) have generally not been included in projects and hence examples of such indicators are not given. While there are indicators that directly refer to other components of the social cohesion dimensions, such as increasing trust or collaborative collective action in the community, the firming of a shared purpose has not been explicitly mentioned or indirectly addressed in past projects. Examples of indicators that have been used elsew https://www.allianceforpeacebuilding.org/eirene-peacebuilding-database. Note that the database does not attempt to assess the quality of indicators. Percentage of beneficiaries who report Number of direct beneficiaries benefiting that their revenue from self-employment from carbon benefits (percentage of and paid employment has increased one Individual/household conflict percentage of which year after end of project support. status (ex-combatants, conflict are indigenous peoples). Percent of households in target population victims). relying on crisis and emergency livelihood- Geographic area (high conflict based coping strategies. areas). Percentage of households in target Geographic area (level of population with acceptable food vulnerability to impacts from consumption score. climate change). Number of regions and municipalities in Early Warning and Response System in Number of people benefiting from targeted regions that have prepared their place. community-level early warning systems. Regional Development Plans and Number of conflicts addressed by project Number of people benefiting from building Commune Development Plans in a using the Early Warning and Response capacity of local government on demand- participatory manner. System. driven climate resilient investments. Consolidated, relevant, and Percentage decrease in incidents of Number of people mobilized for comprehensive budget reports and conflict/violence and crime among participatory climate risk assessment and financial statements in project provinces community members. planning. are produced and available. Financial Program in place to allow Number of people involved in the Percentage of community-based territorial entities/institutions, including implementation of participatory climate risk organizations formed or reinforced and still main host areas, to access contingent assessment. operational one year after receiving lines of credit and expanded guarantee Number of communities with improved funding. ceiling in the event of climate and natural basic disaster preparedness and response Percentage of communities able to plan, disasters. capacities. implement, and monitor their village Climate resilient infrastructure projects Percentage of eligible local governments development plans. completed in refugee hosting areas. that have executed their local climate fund People having access to project-built or transfers in accordance with local rehabilitated socioeconomic and climate participatory plans. resilient infrastructure and services after Number of wards benefiting from program- conflict ended (disaggregated by sex and funded functioning resilience investments age groups) (number). in the agriculture, environment, water, or People having access to project-built or other prioritized sectors. rehabilitated connectivity infrastructure Percentage of local government that facilitate cross-border movement or investment resources that are tagged as trade after conflict ended (disaggregated contributing to climate resilience. by sex and age groups) (number). Number of subnational climate change Total project beneficiaries with improved entities whose capacity is strengthened to access to water supply, electricity, rural address climate change risks. roads, and other social and environmental services supported under the project. Geographic area (level of vulnerability to impacts from Geographic area (high conflict climate change). areas). Percentage of targeted people who Percent of ex-combatant beneficiaries who Number of people benefiting from express the opinion that Local report social acceptance by their environmental management in refugee Government (LG) investments reflect their communities (disaggregated by armed hosting areas. development needs and priorities. group). Percentage of people who think their local Percentage of beneficiaries surveyed who Percent of host community members who leaders involve the community in decision- believe that local development report social acceptance of ex- making related to climate and committees/local public officials treat all combatants. environmental issues. community members similarly/equitably. Beneficiaries who experience a feeling of Percentage of people who think that Percentage of people who think that it is greater security attributable to the project climate change has had an effect on important to help in [project-related or areas. tensions in the community over the project geographical area] activities. following issues. (Access to water, access Percentage of people who think that Percentage of community members who to arable land, access to pasture for people from a different [social group] as think that community accepts use of livestock). them should be allowed to participate violence to solve problems. Number of people mobilized in in/be leaders of project [or project Percentage of members of beneficiary participatory climate risk assessment and geographic unit] activities. communities who agree that local disputes planning. Percentage of people who think that are better managed and less likely to Percentage of targeted beneficiaries that individuals in the entire [project escalate. express the opinion that local geographic unit] would try to solve the Beneficiaries reporting that project problem together. investments have positively contributed to their development needs and priorities. increased trust among community members in context of conflict. (percentage). -making (in Geographic area (level of refugee and host areas). vulnerability to impacts from climate change). Individual/household conflict status (ex-combatants, conflict victims). Geographic area (high conflict areas). Project Resilience. This measures the level of confidence that the anticipated investment results will be realized, considering if a project has factored in climate and disaster risks, has integrated adaptation strategies, and has shown economic feasibility in spite of clim ate threats. Resilience via the Project pathways, depending on whether investments aim to enhance climate resilience in the wider community or sector. Absorptive capacity. The capability to prepare for, lessen, or avoid the adverse effects of disasters, thereby safeguarding and rebuilding essential functions and structures. Adaptive capacity. This refers to the capability to adjust features and behaviors to reduce the potential harm of future disasters, ensuring continued operation without significant qualitative changes. This can involve strategies such as diversification, redundancy, integration, connectivity, and adaptability. Transformative capacity. This involves the ability to overhaul existing systems to evade the detrimental effects of disasters. Household survey capturing energy vulnerability in Tajikistan (Sacks, Casabonne, and Faria 2018) Resilience module on IP households in the Philippines (World Bank and Philippine Survey and Research Center 2023) Mercy Corps community development toolkit (Kim, Sheely, and Schmidt 2020) RCT on cash transfers as instruments to enhance resilience against climatic shocks in the Sahel (Premand and Stoeffler 2022) A resilience rating system of a project defined by TTLs and/or stakeholders (Hallegatte et al. 2021) Analysis of twitter images of the 2015 Nepal earthquake (Kumar 2022) Sentiment analysis on service delivery in Pakistan (Braley, Fraiberger, and Tas 2021) A systemic review of methods and theories on community resilience to natural disasters (Zaman and Raihan 2023). Comprehensive meta- analysis of CDD impacts on resilience (Barron et al. forthcoming) Resilience among refugee children (Kuru and Ungar 2021) Resilience in post-war Sri Lanka (Somasundaram and Sivayokan 2013) Demographic information pertaining to communities/districts typically includes variables such as population size, age distribution, gender structure, and proximity to main roads and/or markets. Socioeconomic variables often encompass employment and unemployment figures and rates, as well as indicators of revenue and spending capacity, which are commonly obtained from district budgets or measures of locally generated resources versus those received from central authorities. In cases where poverty maps estimates from Censuses are available, estimates of monetary poverty at district levels may be also derived. Alternatively, satellite imagery, such as nighttime lights, can serve as a proxy for economic activity at the community/district levels. Institutional capacity can be approximated by assessing social infrastructure, including the presence and capacity of health and education facilities (measured by the quantity and type of services provided), the presence and effectiveness of law enforcement organizations, and, where applicable, facilities for emergency response, such as refugee centers. Information on electoral participation in both national and local elections or satisfaction with local authorities and/or service provision may also be pertinent to capture. Social cohesion indicators may include an inventory of civil society organizations within the community or district, or information on community activities such as participation in protests, signing petitions, or engaging in organized community projects. Additionally, data on violent incidents (ranging from homicides to assaults and robberies) can offer insights into social dynamics and cohesion within the community. Counterfactual analysis: Comparison of project results with corresponding development aspects in a control region or group where no equivalent resilience-building measures were conducted. Dynamic baseline: Adjustment of baseline data collected at the start of the project to account for substantial changes in conditions (e.g., climate factors and their consequences) to maintain benchmark relevance. Opportunistic results measurement: Comparison of the impact of extreme events occurring during the project term with the impact of similar events at the start of the project, or simultaneously comparing the impact of extreme events in the project region and other similar regions lacking the resilience-building measures. Universal/cross-cutting metrics: Quantification of the results of resilience-building projects in a cross-sectoral and cross-project indicator such as the number of saved lives or the value of protected assets. In-depth interviews. Conducting semi-structured or unstructured interviews allow for a deep exploration of individuals lived experience of resilience than is possible using quantitative methods. Participants can describe challenges they face, the strategies used to cope, and the resources or support systems that have helped them overcome adversity. Focus group discussions. Bringing together individuals who have experienced similar adversities allows for an exploration of shared experiences, common challenges, and collective coping strategies. Participant observation. By observing interactions, behaviors, and communication patterns, researchers can gain insights into how resilience is manifested, lost, or maintained in a given context. Other approaches. These include ethnography and document analysis. Avner, P., V. Viguié, B.A. Jafino, and S. Hallegatte. 2021. Policy Research Working Paper 9744. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Barrett, C.B., K. Ghezzi- World Development vol. 146.