Approach Paper An Evaluation of the World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–25 January 14, 2025 1. Background and Context 1.1 Fragility, conflicts, and displacement have increased over the past decade. Geopolitical tensions and risks are at their highest in decades. Within this complex and rapidly changing context, the global fragility landscape has worsened significantly. The world has been experiencing a record number of violent conflicts since 1946 (figure 1.1), and conflicts have become more lethal (Our World in Data 2024). Battle-related deaths have increased from annual averages of 33,717 in 2003–13 to 114,143 between 2013 and 2023. The past three years (2021–23) have been the most violent period since the end of the Cold War in 1989. There has been a rise in interstate conflicts and irregular transitions of power, with nine successful military coups in Africa alone since 2020 (Vines 2024). Conflicts have also led to significant numbers of deaths by starvation and other causes of premature death, with nonlethal forms of political violence, such as systematic sexual violence, disproportionately affecting women (Kishi 2023). The world is also facing the largest forced-displacement crisis ever recorded, with forcibly displaced people numbering 117.3 million in 2023, up from 44 million in 2010 (UNHCR 2023). Figure 1.1. Number of Violent Conflicts Internationally, 1945–2023 Source: PRIO 2024, 9. Note: The left axis shows the number of conflicts, and the right axis shows battle-related deaths 1.2 Fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) have upended development progress. Overlapping and mutually reinforcing crises, including worsening climate challenges, ideological polarization and extremism, growing economic disparities, and weak governance and corruption, have all exacerbated the frequency and severity of conflicts. Civil wars, interstate conflicts, and violence and crime in both low- and middle-income countries have profound welfare impacts inside affected countries and destabilizing effects across borders through irregular migration and forced displacement and the disruption of trade and supply chains. Global poverty reduction and shared prosperity have slowed since 2014 with significant risks of reversing, which the World Bank attributes to lower economic growth, the COVID-19 pandemic, high inflation, and increased conflict and fragility (World Bank 2024b). As a result, global extreme poverty is above the level of 2018, calling into question the achievement of the World Bank Group’s objective of ending extreme poverty by 2030. 1.3 Operating in conflict-affected situations is increasingly central to achieving development progress and the Bank Group’s mission of ending extreme poverty. By 2025, more than half of all people living in extreme poverty globally will be in countries classified by the Bank Group as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS; figure 1.2).1 This figure is expected to rise to 59 percent by 2030. Conflict and violence in many non- FCS middle-income countries also remain a major development challenge (World Bank 2022). The number of countries classified as FCS by the Bank Group has increased from 32 in 2012 to 39 in 2024. Among the 25 countries rated as most vulnerable to climate change, 15 are FCS—and 9 of these are also food-insecurity hotspots of highest concern.2 1.4 In addition to high poverty, FCS countries tend to face multiple compounding challenges but have limited capacities to address them. FCS countries manifest a different development trajectory from non-FCS countries in terms of insufficient human capital and other socioeconomic indicators, lower capital flows, and being disproportionately affected by climate change and other risks. They are often characterized by weak institutions with limited capacity to deliver public goods and manage risks, including resolving conflict without violence (World Bank 2023c; World Bank Group 2023). 2 Figure 1.2. Poor People Increasingly Live in FCS economies Source: World Bank 2023c. Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations. 1.5 The Bank Group has identified addressing FCV challenges as critical to achieving its mission, and its role in engaging on FCV has evolved. The Bank Group’s engagement has developed from a focus on postconflict reconstruction to addressing challenges across the full spectrum of fragility, conflict, and forced displacement. The Bank Group has also increasingly stepped into the role of global convener with the advent of the Fragility Forum.3 Over the past decades, the Bank Group’s thought leadership and evolving practice in FCS have been underscored by several analytical flagship reports. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development (World Bank 2011) emphasized the close links among security, justice, and development and put forth an analytical framework to address FCV. The joint UN–World Bank report Pathways for Peace (World Bank and United Nations 2018) called on the Bank Group to “pivot to prevention” by further prioritizing inclusive approaches to development that can help prevent and mitigate FCV risks before conflict and violence take hold. In response to the Syrian Arab Republic refugee crisis, there has been a shift in the Bank Group’s approach to forced displacement, with emphasis on thought leadership, a “development approach” as part of the humanitarian-development nexus, and concessional finance facilities to address the needs of forcibly displaced and host communities, helping them manage the economic and social impacts of the crisis.4 The 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Capital Increase Package highlighted the importance of stronger Bank Group efforts to systematically address FCV. 3 1.6 The Bank Group has made more financing available to International Development Association (IDA) FCS countries and introduced more tailored engagements. In this regard, the 18th Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA18, FY 2016–18) represented a significant shift and included investing in conflict prevention, supporting refugees and host communities, preventing and responding to gender-based violence, engaging in situations of active conflict, and supporting transitions from conflict to peace (World Bank 2020b). IDA19 further scaled up resources through an FCV Envelope to top up financing available to IDA FCS countries with a structure of incentives and accountabilities for countries to reduce FCV risks. IDA19 also made the Risk and Resilience Assessment mandatory for IDA FCS, making World Bank FCV diagnostics more systematic. Supporting investments in FCS has been a strategic priority for both the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA; see box 1.1). Box 1.1. International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations Supporting investments in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) has been an International Finance Corporation (IFC) corporate priority since 2009, and IFC has since refined its approach to introduce several initiatives and instruments to support its engagement in FCS and has expanded its engagements into new areas, such as forced displacement. The 2018 IFC Capital Increase package placed a strong emphasis on IFC’s growth in International Development Association (IDA) and FCS countries. IFC committed to increasing its share of own-account long-term finance investment commitments in IDA and FCS to 35–40 percent, with 15–20 percent in low-income IDA and IDA FCS countries by FY 2030. This would require a significant increase in investment volumes from the current level. FCS have been a strategic priority for the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) since 2005. Its FY12–14 strategy noted that MIGA was expected to provide demonstration effects to the private sector in FCS countries. Subsequent strategies reaffirmed this commitment, with the FY21–23 strategy setting targets for IDA and FCS countries to an average of 30 to 33 percent of MIGA’s new guarantee volume. IFC and MIGA have deployed new tools and instruments to adapt their business model in FCS, such as the Private Sector Window, the Conflict-Affected States in Africa, and the Creating Markets Advisory Window. However, increasing investments in FCS has faced challenges. Further, IFC and MIGA have not differentiated targets for business in FCS countries from the targets combining IDA and FCS countries, making it difficult to assess progress in FCS specifically (World Bank 2022). Source: Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank Group Engagement in FCS 1.7 World Bank financing in FCS countries has grown significantly, driven by newly classified FCS countries. World Bank financing support to FCS countries has expanded 4 significantly since FY15 and especially since FY20. This is partly because of large borrowers becoming FCS countries (FCS List, World Bank Group 2023), especially Nigeria in 2020, Ethiopia in 2022, and Ukraine in 2023 (figure 1.3). In FY24, these three countries accounted for 64 percent of all FCS commitments, implying a significant concentration of FCS financing among a few countries. Excluding these three countries, financing volumes to FCS increased by an average of 7 percent annually between 2010 and 2024 (with Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine, this increase was 16 percent). Financing volumes in “legacy” FCS countries (excluding the three new entrants) peaked in FY22, coinciding with the final year of IDA19 and the COVID-19 response, but have since declined by about 50 percent. FY24 commitments from countries with FCS status pre- FY20 represent about one-third of the total, equivalent to FY17–19 levels and a decrease from the FY22 peak. Appendix C provides more details on the evolution of the World Bank portfolio. 1.8 The IDA FCV Envelope and trust funds contributed to the increase in financing (see appendix C). In this context, FCS countries received 80 percent of total World Bank recipient-executed trust fund disbursements from FY19 to FY23, with Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the West Bank and Gaza as the top beneficiaries (World Bank 2023c). Figure 1.3. World Bank Financing to Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations Has Increased Mainly Driven by Three Countries, Commitments FY10–24 25 Average annual growth rate of FCS commitments excluding Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ukraine: 7% Commitment (US$, billions) Average growth rate including Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ukraine: 16% 20 15 3 12 3 10 10 3 11 12 5 9 7 6 6 7 6 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 -5 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year Total commitment Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine Trend commitment Trend with Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations. 5 1.9 IFC and MIGA have sought to increase their commitments in FCS but have faced challenges in meeting corporate targets. IFC committed US$5.9 billion in own account long-term financing in FCS between FY15 and FY24, representing about 4.6 percent of its total long-term commitments. In terms of number of investment projects, IFC committed 262 investments in FCS, or 9 percent of all projects. With the addition of Nigeria to the FCS list, there is a slight upward trend in IFC investment volumes in FCS, reaching US$1.23 billion in FY24, but its commitments remain below corporate targets (box 1.1; World Bank Group 2023). MIGA issued guarantees in FCS for US$4.2 billion in FY15–24, or 8 percent of its guarantee volume and 18 percent of projects, with significant fluctuation in its engagements year on year (appendix C). 1.10 In addition to significant financing, the institutional arrangements to support Bank Group engagement in FCS countries have evolved from a Nairobi-based Center for Conflict, Security, and Development to a cross-cutting solutions area on FCV established in 2014 and the current FCV Group. This institutional evolution facilitated the adoption in 2020 of the first Bank Group FCV strategy, which will be the subject of this evaluation. The World Bank Group’s Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Strategy 1.11 The Bank Group introduced its Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–2025 (FCV strategy) in February 2020 to enhance its effectiveness in supporting countries in addressing the drivers and impacts of FCV (World Bank 2020b). The strategy has four pillars that guide the Bank Group in engaging in different types of FCV settings and help inform Country Partnership Frameworks and programs (figure 1.4). The pillars are (i) preventing violent conflict and interpersonal violence, (ii) remaining engaged during conflicts and crisis situations, (iii) helping countries transition out of fragility, and (iv) mitigating the spillovers of FCV. The strategy included operational measures to strengthen the Bank Group’s institutional effectiveness in FCV settings, organized by policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships. 6 Figure 1.4. Core Elements of the 2020 Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Strategy Source: World Bank 2020b. Note: CRW = Crisis Response Window; ERF = early response financing; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IBRD = International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; PBA = performance-based allocation; PSW = Private Sector Window; TF = trust fund. 7 1.12 The FCV strategy aims to enhance Bank Group support to countries facing FCV challenges by addressing the drivers of conflict and building resilience, especially among the most vulnerable groups. The strategy calls for a long-term outlook and sustained engagement. Its guiding principles highlight the need for (i) a differentiated approach by which the Bank Group’s assistance is tailored to specific country contexts; (ii) consideration of inclusion and the needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups and individuals; (iii) supporting the legitimacy, transparency, and accountability of institutions; and (iv) scaling up private sector engagements. The strategy was geared toward supporting countries in addressing the drivers and impacts of FCV, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable and marginalized populations. It makes the case that, even in the toughest environments during conflict, the Bank Group can meaningfully engage to preserve institutional capacity and human capital critical for the country’s future recovery and that when signs of recovery emerge, the Bank Group can support governments attempting transformational change. 1.13 The FCV strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships. It also strongly emphasizes learning, highlighting collaboration with a diverse set of partners, including the UN, regional organizations, bilateral and multilateral development institutions, and local stakeholders. This was partly a response to calls from humanitarian actors for better coordination and collaboration from the Bank Group, because of inadvertent tensions, duplication, and implementation challenges in serving similar populations. The strategy emphasizes that these partnerships are crucial for leveraging complementary strengths, sharing knowledge, and ensuring coordinated efforts. 1.14 However, the FCV strategy does not develop a theory of change and lacks indicators to assess its higher-level outcomes. Although the strategy contains implicit statements on desired outcomes in FCS countries (see chapter 3), it does not include explicit statements and indicators for higher-level impacts on fragility and conflict implicit in its objective to help countries better address drivers of fragility and conflict, such as on more inclusive institutions, social cohesion, or stabilization. Instead, it identified 23 operational measures linked to the Bank Group’s operational framework (figure 1.4). The FCV strategy lacks a theory of change to articulate how it expects its various components and implementation modalities to achieve higher-level FCV impacts. 1.15 The Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the 2023 FCV strategy concluded that the strategy remained relevant. The 2023 MTR noted the challenging global environment, which has further deteriorated since the completion of the review, thus reinforcing the need for the Bank Group to maintain its focus on those countries affected by FCV. The MTR found that the Bank Group had made substantial progress in implementing the FCV strategy, while recognizing that there was more to be done to enable deeper and 8 more effective engagement. It indicated that although the FCV strategy remained fit for purpose and had proven effective, the Bank Group’s approach needed to be adjusted to adapt to future FCV challenges and align with the Bank Group’s evolution process. The MTR also called for greater efforts in preventing conflict and emphasized the importance of the domestic private sector, fragility in middle-income countries, and gender-based violence. 1.16 Previous Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) evaluations in FCS contexts indicate a lack of a systematic and differentiated approach to FCV (box 1.2). These evaluations also highlight progress in improving the identification of fragility and conflict drivers in FCS countries and use of fragility diagnostics but note that the World Bank has yet to systematically link improved analytics to addressing drivers of fragility and conflict in operational programs. Box 1.2. Evidence from Previous Independent Evaluation Group Evaluation Past Independent Evaluation Group fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) evaluations have generated rich evaluative insights on different aspects of the World Bank Group’s fragile and conflict-affected situation (FCS) engagements. • Country strategies and programs in FCV are more relevant and realistic if they integrate diagnostics of the drivers of fragility and conflict and adapt the design and implementation of programs. • The Bank Group has improved the identification and analysis of fragility factors and conflict drivers. However, although World Bank country programs increased the discussion of fragility, they have yet to systematically link conflict analysis to FCV- informed program priorities. • Helping countries emerge from fragility requires focusing on complex objectives, such as creating more inclusive institutions and promoting social cohesion, which are hard to define and measure. • Results frameworks do not capture the World Bank’s contribution to conflict-related country outcomes well. • FCV countries are constrained by weak capacity, infrastructure, and services. Support for state building needs to be sustained through careful sequencing, use of political economy analysis, and prioritization of long-term reforms. • FCV operations are more resource intensive, but enhanced financial and staff resources and managerial attention can lead to better performance. Multidonor trust funds can be more than a source of funding by playing a central role in donor coordination, policy dialogue, and institution building. • The (domestic) private sector plays an important role in FCV countries but faces significant constraints. Support to economic opportunities and jobs has been 9 challenging because of a lack of an effective framework for inclusive growth and jobs in FCV and insufficient adaptation of Bank Group approaches and tools to the needs and circumstances of the private sector in FCV. Despite the introduction of some products (for example, the Private Sector Window), the lack of “bankable projects” meeting International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency standards and requirements is a main constraint for scaling up International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency support in FCV. • Mainstreaming gender issues in FCV is feasible, but in countries where conflict affects women and girls disproportionately, targeted Bank Group programs can address the social and economic consequences of conflict. Achieving relevant, deep, impactful, and sustainable change to advance gender equality in fragile environments requires a comprehensive country engagement approach. However, few projects involved integrated and comprehensive approaches to women’s economic empowerment and to addressing gender-based violence. Sources: Independent Evaluation Group evaluations: World Bank 2016b, World Bank Group 2014, The World Bank Group Experience with the Private Sector Window—An Early Stage Assessment (2021), Enhancing the Effectiveness of the World Bank’s Global Footprint (2022), World Bank Engagement in Situations of Conflict (2021), IFC’s and MIGA’s Support to Private Investment in FCS (2022), Addressing Gender Inequalities in Countries Affected by FCV (2024), and Somalia Country Program Evaluation (2025, forthcoming). 1.17 Higher-level objectives in terms of what the “success” of Bank Group engagements looks like in FCS contexts remain challenging to define and measure. Such objectives often refer to creating more inclusive institutions, promoting cohesion, or rebuilding the social contract. Yet, the results frameworks of Bank Group strategies do not capture FCV-related outcomes well at the country level. Engaging effectively in FCS requires adaptations to the Bank Group’s operational framework, as operations are more resource intensive, requiring longer time frames and partnerships with diverse sets of stakeholders. The private sector is an important actor in FCS, but Bank Group support for private sector–led inclusive growth has faced challenges. 2. Objectives, Scope, and Audience 2.1 The evaluation responds to a request by the Bank Group Boards of Directors to inform the development of a new Bank Group FCV strategy. It seeks to distill findings and lessons from the Bank Group experience with the implementation of the 2020–25 FCV strategy to inform the preparation of a new Bank Group FCV strategy. Given this objective and to optimize IEG’s value add, this evaluation is focused on providing timely findings and lessons for the new strategy. 2.2 The evaluation is part of an ongoing series of IEG evaluations on FCV issues, reflecting their growing importance in Bank Group engagements. The evaluation builds on the rich evaluative evidence and insights generated in previous IEG evaluations (box 1.2) and responds to the learning needs and knowledge gaps of key stakeholders about Bank Group engagement in FCV. 10 2.3 This evaluation seeks to assess the extent to which the key elements of the FCV strategy have enhanced the World Bank Group engagement in countries affected by FCV. It will focus on the relevance, implementation, and achievement of objectives of the FCV strategy and the Bank Group’s operational framework along the dimensions of programming, personnel, partnerships, and policies. A future second-phase evaluation by IEG will investigate the effectiveness of Bank Group operational engagements in FCV, country-level outcomes, and factors determining performance in more depth. This follow-up study will also seek to address the relevance and effectiveness of operations in the strategy’s four pillars of engagement. 2.4 Consistent with this objective, the evaluation will cover the Bank Group’s operational framework in FCV systematically and will develop its findings by examining a broad set of FCV challenges and diverse country contexts. The evaluation will cover all pillars identified by the FCS strategy to develop findings from diverse Bank Group approaches to FCV challenges and country experiences, excepting regional spillovers (forced displacement), for all countries classified as FCS during FY15–25. Notably, the evaluation will distill findings related to experiences with preventing conflict and violence and remaining engaged. This broad scope ensures coverage of most recipients of the IDA FCV Envelope. This includes all recipients of the IDA19 and 20 Prevention and Resilience Allocations, Remaining Engaged in Conflict Allocations, Turn Around Allocations, and most Window for Host Communities and Refugees. It also includes most of the IDA 18 Turnaround Regime and Risk Mitigation Regime recipients. The evaluation will also include small island states (SIS) classified as FCS in its analyses of the universe of FCS data and portfolio only, without conducting further in-depth analysis.1 Figure 2.1 maps the scope of the countries included in the evaluation (green circle) and the FCV allocations, which align with the FCV strategy. 2.5 The evaluation covers 42 FCS countries. The primary unit of analysis of the evaluation is the 42 countries classified as experiencing conflict or institutional fragility by the Bank Group FCS list during any year in the FY15–25 period 2.6 The evaluation period will be FY15–25. This encompasses the period of changes to the Bank Group’s evolving role and instruments implemented after a 2014 IEG evaluation up to the implementation of the Bank Group FCV strategy 2020–25. This will allow us to observe broader changes in implementation over time. 11 Figure 2.1 Evaluation Universe Sources: World Bank and Independent Evaluation Group. Note: IDA = International Development Association; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; RMR = Risk Mitigation Regime; RECA = Remaining Engaged in Conflict Allocation; TAR = Turn Around Regime; TAA = Turn Around Allocation; PRA = Prevention and Resilience Allocation; WHR = Window for Host Communities and Refugees; SIS = small island states. 2.7 The evaluation focuses on FCV in FCS countries and does not cover FCV characteristics that are not captured by the FCS list. Therefore, we will not cover crime and violence. Nonconflict-related crime and violence are predominantly prominent challenges in countries not on the FCS list and therefore require a different scope and methods. The evaluation also does not cover subnational conflict, regional spillover effects in non-FCS such as forced displacements, or any other FCV characteristics not captured by the FCS list. 12 2.8 The evaluation covers the Bank Group but will focus new analysis on the World Bank while building on previous IFC and MIGA evaluations. The 2020 FCV strategy applied to the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA. Therefore, this evaluation covers all Bank Group institutions. However, IEG last evaluated IFC’s and MIGA’s support to private investment in FCS in 2022. This evaluation will not duplicate those efforts but leverage the existing evaluation evidence, updating core metrics such as IFC and MIGA commitments and development effectiveness ratings, as well as distilling new evidence on approaches for engaging with the private sector through country deep dives. 2.9 The primary audiences for this evaluation will be the Bank Group Executive Directors and Bank Group management working on FCV issues, particularly those engaged in developing the new FCV strategy. Members of the Committee on Development Effectiveness and the Board of Directors will use the evaluation to provide guidance to Bank Group management for future efforts to strengthen the Bank Group’s effectiveness in addressing the challenges of FCV. Emerging findings and lessons will be shared during the evaluation process with Bank Group staff and management working on designing the new FCV strategy. The findings will also be relevant for staff and managers working on FCV countries and for the design of future FCV engagements. 2.10 External stakeholders will be consulted during the evaluation and will be important audiences as well. We will disseminate the evaluation’s findings widely to relevant external stakeholders, including development partners, client country government officials, and civil society representatives, to stimulate an exchange of ideas. 3. Evaluation Framework and Questions 3.1 IEG developed a conceptual framework for this evaluation that links challenges to Bank Group engagement in FCV with elements of the FCV strategy and implied outcomes (figure 3.1). The conceptual framework is positioned within the context of exogenous FCV country constraints and global FCV constraints, which provide the context and operating environment for the Bank Group’s engagement in FCV (column 1). Country context and external factors play major intertwined roles in both how the country can transition from FCV and how the Bank Group can impact this change. The FCV country constraints include high risks from insecurity and perceived inequalities, weak regulations and weak governance, and insufficient infrastructure, services, and resource access. The global FCV challenges (derived from a review of literature and the Bank Group FCV strategy) include the increased concentration of the world’s poor people in FCV; worsening fragility in low- and middle-income countries; global shocks (such as the COVID-19 pandemic, debt crises, and the effects of climate change), which are upending development progress; and the increasing levels of forced displacement, violence, and conflict fatalities. 13 Figure 3.1. Conceptual Framework for the Evaluation Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The red box indicates areas covered by this evaluation. CPF = Country Partnership Framework; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; RRA = Risk and Resilience Assessment. 3.2 The conceptual framework depicts the potential contribution and role the FCV strategy can have in helping countries address these challenges (figure 3.1). The second column identifies the specific Bank Group challenges of engaging effectively in FCV based on the FCV strategy (World Bank 2020) and previous IEG evaluation work. These challenges emphasize a lack of adaptation and tailoring of Bank Group policies, Country Partnership Frameworks, and operations and operational framework to be fit for purpose to operate in FCV contexts. The strategy also notes a lack of sufficient staffing (with the right skills and incentives), risk appetite, and budgets to be able to address FCV issues at scale. 3.3 The FCV strategy identifies what it calls the four “Ps” of policies, programming, partnerships, and personnel (column three) as operational measures to address Bank Group challenges of engaging effectively in FCV. The strategy acknowledges that the Bank Group’s policies, processes, and practices need to be fit for purpose, simplified, streamlined, and flexible, and projects and programs should be monitored and evaluated to encourage greater realism and adaptability. Programming needs to systematically address the drivers of FCV in Bank Group operations and ensure coordinated approaches across its institutions. The Bank Group should enhance its partnerships with humanitarian, development, peace building, security, and private sector actors to maximize impacts in FCV countries. It should also increase personnel in the field and invest in the skills, knowledge, and incentives needed in FCV. The framework includes capacity building or strengthening and scaling up financing by the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA as a precondition to engage in FCV and for sustained impacts in the field. 3.4 The FCV strategy outlines four pillars of engagement to increase the Bank Group’s impact in FCV. The four pillars, shown in column three of the conceptual framework, are conflict prevention, remaining engaged, transitioning out of fragility, and mitigating spillovers. The last column of figure 3.1 lists the outcomes to which the strategy aims to contribute. 3.5 As it is too early to assess the FCV strategy’s impact on FCV prevention and reduction, this evaluation focuses on whether the strategy’s commitments have been successfully implemented. Given the scale and complexities of FCV challenges, the long time frames for the institutional changes required, and the many exogenous factors outside of development assistance that cause FCV, no measurable impact on national or global FCV levels can be attributed to the adoption of the 2020 FCV strategy. For this reason and to inform the upcoming FCV strategy, in line with the Board’s request, this evaluation focuses not on operational outcomes but on whether the FCV strategy’s 15 commitments to change the Bank Group’s approach to FCV and to its engagement with FCS countries have had a measurable impact on the way the Bank Group operates. Evaluation Questions 3.6 The evaluation will assess the extent to which key elements of the FCV strategy have enabled enhanced engagement in countries affected by FCV. IEG will seek to answer the following two evaluation questions, which are derived from the conceptual framework developed for this evaluation: 1. How relevant has the 2020 FCV strategy been in addressing the Bank Group operational challenges in FCS countries? Specifically, has it helped the Bank Group to a. Deploy strategies and programs that are tailored to the drivers of FCV? b. Adapt its policies, processes, resources, incentives, and staffing for FCS? c. Form effective partnerships targeted to FCS contexts consistent with the Bank Group’s mandate? 2. To what extent have the changes introduced by the 2020 FCV strategy had demonstrable effects on Bank Group operational engagements in FCS countries? Specifically, have they led to a. Anticipated increases in the volume and shifts in the composition and risk profile of the World Bank portfolio? b. Improvements in project efficacy or the ability to deliver on their objectives? 3.7 Consequently, the scope of the evaluation is focused on the Bank Group operational framework and its immediate effects. The evaluation focuses on the third column of the conceptual framework (figure 3.1), examining all four “Ps” of the operational framework while distilling its findings across the range of the FCV strategy pillars (column 4), except the pillar on mitigating spillovers. 4. Evaluation Design and Methods 4.1 We will use a mixed-methods approach to answer the evaluation questions. To assess the extent to which key elements of the FCV strategy have enabled enhanced engagement in countries affected by FCV, we will apply and triangulate several quantitative and qualitative methods adapted to the specific circumstances of evidence gathering and analysis from FCV contexts. Appendix A provides an evaluation design matrix that maps the evaluation questions to the building blocks and information needs, 16 illustrating how the evaluation’s questions and methods are aligned. Appendix B provides a detailed description of all methods. 4.2 Evaluation question 1 will be operationalized along the four Ps of policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships. The FCV strategy is operationalized across the four Ps. Based on the strategy and previous evaluation insights, we preliminarily identified the following criteria for assessing the impact of the strategy on the Bank Group’s operational framework as affecting (i) the consistency of Country Partnership Frameworks, programs, and projects with drivers of fragility and conflict as identified in such documents as the Risk and Resilience Assessments and other FCV analytics, as well as the extent to which programs are designed in a fragility-sensitive manner, for example, by avoiding harm or exacerbating FCV drivers; (ii) enhanced adaptability introduced in policies, including the updated OP 2.30, procedures, and practices, including evidence of more effective and relevant engagements in FCV countries; (iii) increased administrative budget resources available for design and implementation in FCV compared with non-FCV environments as well as overall lending volumes and distribution among instruments and trends in FCV; (iv) the number and quality of staff, for example, their qualifications, years in grade level, staff typology, and years working in FCV or working on FCV; and (v) the number, sector, and country distribution and effectiveness of third-party implementation of projects as well as perceptions of the relevance and effectiveness of partnership arrangements among partner organizations and Bank Group staff and management. 4.3 To further answer evaluation question 1, we will leverage triangulated quantitative and qualitative methods. The systematic portfolio analysis and document review will examine World Bank strategies and operations to first identify required adaptations to country-specific characteristics and FCV circumstances and then assess whether differentiated strategies and programming tailored to specific country contexts have been effectively employed to address core drivers of fragility. The analyses will use a counterfactual perspective by comparing project data and impact before and after the introduction and implementation of the FCV strategy to determine if changes in project design and execution reflect more adaptive policies, processes, and practices. Additional analysis on staffing, human resources, and budget data will help evaluate whether corporate incentives, financial resources, and staffing align with the objectives of the FCV strategy and whether adequate presence in the field and enhanced staff capacity have materialized. A review of projects employing direct or indirect third-party implementation and semistructured interviews with internal and external stakeholders will provide insights into the perceived effectiveness of the FCV strategy in adopting key partnerships to address the main challenges. Country deep dives will offer in-depth qualitative evidence on the practical application of the FCV strategy in different country 17 contexts. Lastly, a synthesis of past IEG evaluations and validations and updated insights from the annual Management Action Record process will provide context and additional evidence to support findings, ensuring a robust triangulation of data to comprehensively answer evaluation question 1. 4.4 Evaluation question 2 will be answered primarily through existing Bank Group data and portfolio analyses supplemented with complementary insights from deep-dive work. For question 2, we will use existing institutional databases as benchmarks to gauge the volume, characteristics, and performance patterns of Bank Group FCV country-level engagements. 4.5 We will deploy a two-level mixed-methods approach to collect evidence and triangulate our findings. Methods will be applied at the level of the entire FCS portfolio and the country level. The FCS portfolio level will include analyzing portfolio data and patterns (including on commitments, disbursements, supervision, and evaluation ratings), analyzing available Bank and external databases (for example, for staffing, operational budgets, conflict indicators, and financial flows), conducting and analyzing interviews and focus groups with broad sets of stakeholders, and synthesizing IEG’s and external evaluative insights. At the country level, we will build on IEG evidence by distilling evidence on the relevance and effectiveness of the Bank Group’s operational framework in FCS, analyzing six existing or forthcoming FCS Country Program Evaluations and IEG Completion and Learning Review Validations prepared at the end of each Country Program Framework period,6 which are available for 20 of the 42 FCS countries covered by the evaluation. The examination of existing country-level evidence will be complemented with original country deep dives for up to eight countries, which will permit deeper analysis and insights by exploring the implementation of the Bank Group’s operational framework and its effects and the factors and drivers of performance, through documentary review of Bank Group operations, interviews with key stakeholders, and some fieldwork. The entire FCS portfolio and the country-level analyses will complement each other to permit the synthesis of findings and lessons beyond individual cases while guarding against broad generalizations of findings from a single country to all FCS countries, given variations in country circumstances. 4.6 Specifically, we will use the methods outlined in table 4.1. A more detailed description of the evaluation components is provided in appendix B. Table 4.1. Evaluation Methods Evaluation Component Description Level Systematic An analysis of existing project data such as project development objectives, All FY 2015–25 FCS portfolio analysis theme codes, project preparation times, project restructuring, and project projects and document ratings will be conducted for the entire FCV project portfolio. 18 Evaluation Component Description Level reviews of samples A more detailed portfolio analysis involving document reviews will be of lending, conducted for country deep dives (see below). advisory, investment portfolios Analysis of World IEG will analyze data related to conflict, aid flows to FCS countries, staffing, All FCS countries Bank Group data operational budgets in FCS, financing, and instrument selection. An analysis (for example, of staffing and HR data aims to identify whether the Bank Group has staffing and enhanced staffing numbers and qualifications in FCS countries (EQ 1.b). budgets) and other Project implementation budget data will be analyzed to study the trends of secondary data project implementation budgets and whether these are sufficient to meet the higher cost of designing and supervising operations in FCS countries (EQ 1.b). Geospatial analysis The analysis will identify overlaps among project sites and conflict event Deep-dive countries locations for the deep-dive countries, providing insights into which projects are most exposed to conflict risks and trends of engagement and disengagement in conflict-affected areas (EQ 1.a). Stakeholder IEG will conduct semistructured interviews with Bank Group staff and All 42 non-SIS FCS interviews external key informants to validate emerging findings. Staff include task countries team leaders of FCS operations, Country Management Unit staff, and other key personnel involved in the implementation of the FCV strategy. Key external informants include government officials, academics, civil society representatives, partners, private sector representatives, and project beneficiaries, where feasible, to collect qualitative data to flesh out preliminary findings from the data and content analysis. The evaluation will complement interviews with a survey to assess perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the Bank Group operational framework in FCS. Country deep dives The deep dives will be based on a focused, streamlined questionnaire Deep-dive countries aligned with the evaluation questions. They will include a more detailed review of strategy, diagnostic, FCV Envelope allocation, and project documents, and a portfolio and secondary data analysis. They will also include additional semistructured interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups of actors selected through a stakeholder analysis covering the evaluation period (for example, key Bank Group staff, UN, and humanitarian agency partners) as well as clients and beneficiaries (mainly limited to government clients), to corroborate and deepen the information gathered through the document analysis. The deep dives will be desk-based with a subset involving fieldwork, as feasible given learning needs, timing, and security considerations. Systematic This includes document reviews of Bank Group strategic and policy All 42 non-SIS FCS document reviews documents, fragility diagnostics, country strategies, FCV Envelope countries of strategy, allocations, and country-level programs using systematic template country, and questionnaires for the countries covered by deep dives. IEG will examine project documents fragility diagnostics, CPFs, and operational documents to assess the identification and integration of relevant drivers of fragility and sources of resilience and the extent to which these drivers are reflected in tailored strategies and programming (EQ 1.a). Secondary analysis IEG will distill evidence from existing country-level evaluative and validation All 42 non-SIS FCS of FCV CLRs, documents by applying a systematic template, augmenting the evidence countries CLRVs, and CPEs where required to fill gaps. The evaluation will also synthesize findings from and existing IEG existing IEG thematic evaluations covering FCV topics as background and evaluative baseline information. 19 Evaluation Component Description Level evidence from thematic FCV evaluations Review of external The evaluation will conduct a structured literature review analyzing the FCV All FCS countries literature approaches of other international financial institutions, development partners, and multilateral development system organizations. This review will also capture the lessons and experience of development partners in partnering with the Bank Group. Sources: World Bank and Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The Completion and Learning Review Validation (CLRV) was called the Completion and Learning Review Review (CLRR) before May 1, 2023. No change was made to the methodology. CLR = Completion and Learning Review; CLRV = Completion and Learning Review Validation; CPE = Country Program Evaluation; CPF = Country Partnership Framework; EQ = evaluation question; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; HR = human resources; IEG = Independent Evaluation Group; SIS = small island states. Evaluative Limitations and Their Mitigation 4.7 The most prominent limitation of this evaluation is the lack of observable impact attributable to the strategy itself, given its relatively short implementation period. As the FCV strategy was introduced in 2020, it is early for impacts to have emerged, making it challenging to comprehensively assess the long-term impact of the strategy and its components. To mitigate this, the evaluation period has been extended to include the five fiscal years before the launch of the strategy. This allows us to capture trends that, although formalized by the strategy, started before 2020, and it facilitates pre- and postcomparisons for measures introduced by the strategy, allowing some counterfactual perspective. Even with this extended period, however, isolating the specific impacts of the FCV strategy operational measures remains a challenge, and some impacts will not have materialized yet. 4.8 The evaluation will face various methodological challenges in attributing observed changes directly to the FCV strategy because of the complexity and volatility of country-level FCS engagements. The complex and dynamic nature of FCS circumstances, generally characterized by simultaneous overlapping interventions and external shocks (for example, COVID-19, debt crises, and climate change), makes it challenging to establish clear causal links between the Bank Group’s interventions and observed impact. This complexity will limit the evaluation’s ability to attribute changes directly to the FCV strategy, ultimately affecting the generalizability of country findings to other FCS contexts. To mitigate this, we will use a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods such as stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and surveys to provide a more complete assessment. The scope and depth of these methods may be constrained by access to stakeholders, particularly in countries where security concerns limit the ability to conduct fieldwork or engage with project beneficiaries. 20 4.9 Data availability and quality can present a significant challenge. High-quality data are generally less available and more challenging to generate for FCV environments. The evaluation will also require access to robust, historical information on country-level decision-making, lending, and nonlending activities. Although lending data are generally available, the documentation for nonlending activities is often incomplete, and these activities are infrequently evaluated, hampering a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness and impact. We will seek to mitigate this gap with complementary sources of evidence, including secondary data, literature, and perceptions of key experts. The evaluation will also rely on secondary data sources, such as CLRs, Completion and Learning Review Validations, and Country Program Evaluations. The completeness and quality of these documents can vary, which could affect the consistency and quality of the findings. Similarly, the evaluation’s systematic portfolio analysis will also rely on the availability and quality of data across various Bank Group operations, which may lead to variability in the depth and granularity of the analysis. 4.10 Security concerns in FCS countries can significantly hinder access to relevant stakeholders and data collection in the field. FCS contexts are often highly dynamic, with security conditions changing quickly. This can make reaching key informants such as government officials, development partners, and project beneficiaries challenging and can especially impact the country deep dives. In some cases, we may need to rely more heavily on secondary data sources or remote data-collection methods. This may in turn impact the depth and quality of the qualitative data obtained. 4.11 There are limitations to the generalizability of the country deep-dive findings. The evaluation will select a sample of six to eight FCS countries for in-depth deep dives. Although these deep dives are intended to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of the Bank Group’s engagement in different FCS typologies, the diversity of FCS country contexts means that some findings from the selected country deep dives may not be easily generalizable to other contexts. The evaluation will take care to caveat findings appropriately and clearly connect findings to the relevant country typologies. 5. Quality Assurance Process 5.1 The evaluation will follow IEG’s standard quality assurance processes, including a review by IEG management and peer reviewers. It will also benefit from advice from IEG’s methods team throughout the preparation of the evaluation. The peer reviewers are Joel Hellman, dean of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and distinguished professor in the Practice of Development, Georgetown University and former World Bank director, Center for Conflict, Security, and Development, Nairobi; 21 Anne Kabagambe, independent director, former member of the Board of Directors, World Bank Group; and Khalid Payenda, adjunct professor, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, and former finance minister, Afghanistan. 6. Outputs, Timeline, Budget, and Team 6.1 IEG will prepare an evaluation report with key findings and lessons expected to be submitted to the Committee on Development Effectiveness in the first quarter of FY26. Before submission, the draft report will be shared with Bank Group management for comments according to normal practice. Sharing of the draft report is expected to be in time to inform the next FCV strategy. The proposed overall budget is US$807,000. 6.2 The evaluation will be prepared by a core team led by Stephan Wegner and Mees van der Werf and comprising IEG staff and consultants, including Patricia Acevedo, Sakuntala Akmeemana, Anis Dani, Mitko Grigorov, Yarin Kiroglu, Yulia Krylova, and Marwane Zouaidi. It will be prepared under the guidance of Birgit Hansl (manager), Theo Thomas (director), and Sabine Bernabè (vice president and Director-General, Evaluation). We will seek to disseminate our findings to multiple audiences. A communications and influence strategy will be developed with IEG’s Knowledge and Communications team. 1 The World Bank Group uses two terms related to fragility and conflict. “Fragile and conflict - affected situations” (FCS) refers to a group of countries included in the FCS list (World Bank Group 2023), whereas “fragility, conflict, and violence” refers to a set of vulnerabilities, irrespective of whether a country is classified as FCS (including instances of subnational or transnational conflict, forced displacement, gender-based violence, and urban violence). 2Data are from the latest ND-GAIN Vulnerability Index, most recently updated by the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative 2023; World Bank Group 2023; and FAO and WFP 2023). 3The Fragility Forum is a biennial conference hosted by the Bank Group that brings together policy makers and practitioners from humanitarian, development, and peace and security communities to share practical solutions and explore innovative ways to improve development approaches to foster peace and stability. 4 The World Bank, together with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, prepared the flagship report Forcibly Displaced: Toward a Development Approach Supporting Refugees, the Internally Displaced, and Their Hosts (World Bank 2017). The concept of the humanitarian–development nexus gained prominence during the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, which was convened by the World Bank, aiming to ensure that both immediate humanitarian needs and longer-term 22 development efforts are addressed simultaneously. The Bank Group also worked on the Global Compact for Refugees, which the UN General Assembly adopted in 2018. At the operational level, the World Bank established the Global Concessional Financing Facility to provide concessional financing to middle-income countries hosting large numbers of refugees, and a special IDA Window for Host Communities and Refugees. 5Small island states that were classified as experiencing institutional fragility by the Bank Group FCS list during any year in the FY 2015–25 period are Comoros, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Tuvalu (appendix C). As uniquely small and remote countries, SIS face inherent service provision, climate vulnerability, human capital, and government capacity challenges that contribute significantly to their fragility. Lessons from this group of countries therefore are less generalizable to other fragile countries. 6The Independent Evaluation Group has prepared Country Program Evaluations on six FCS countries since FY20: Chad (FY22), Ethiopia (forthcoming, FY25), Madagascar (FY23), Mozambique (FY23), Papua New Guinea (FY24), and Somalia (forthcoming, FY25). 23 Bibliography Barnes, Nicolas. 2017. “Criminal Politics: An Integrated Approach to the Study of Organized Crime, Politics, and Violence.” Perspectives on Politics 15 (4): 967–87. Charles, Sarah, Megan Doherty, Cindy Huang, Jeremy Konyndyk, Jon Kurtz, and Lauren Post. 2019. “The Role of the World Bank in Fragile and Conflict -Affected Situations.” Center for Global Development. https://www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/document/4291/theroleoftheworldbankinfragil eandconflict-affectedsituations-002.pdf. Chin, J. John, and Haleigh Bartos. 2024. “Rethinking Africa Policy amid Changing Geopolitical Realities.” Texas National Security Review 7 (2): 114–32. FAO and WFP (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Food Programme). 2023. “Hunger Hotspots FAO‑WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity.” FAO and WFP. https://www.wfp.org/publications/hunger-hotspots-fao-wfp- early-warnings-acute-food-insecurity-november-2023-april-2024. Kishi, Roudabeh. 2023. “A Quantitative Look at Global Conflict Trends.” World Bank Group and United Nations. Mahler, D., N. Yonzan, and C. Lakner. 2022. “The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Inequality and Poverty.” International Association for Research in Income and Wealth. https://iariw.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Mahler-Yonzan-Lakner-IARIW-2022.pdf. Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative. 2023. “ND-GAIN Vulnerability Index [Data set].” University of Notre Dame. Retrieved August 16, 2024, from https://gain.nd.edu/our- work/country-index. Our World in Data. 2024. “Number of State-Based Conflicts.” Retrieved August 16, 2024, from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-state-based-conflicts. PRIO (Peace Research Institute Oslo). 2024. “Conflict Trends: A Global Overview, 1946–2023.” PRIO. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2023. “Mid-Year Trends 2023.” UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/mid-year-trends-report-2023. Uppsala University. 2023. “Uppsala Conflict Data Program.” Retrieved August 16 from https://ucdp.uu.se/. Vines, A. 2024. “Understanding Africa’s Coups.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 4:13. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/04/13/understanding-africas-coups/. World Bank. 1998. “Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of the World Bank.” World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/175771468198561613/pdf/multi-page.pdf. 24 World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8439-8. World Bank. 2016a. “IDA18 Overarching Theme—Towards 2030: Investing in Growth, Resilience and Opportunity.” World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/471761467993490105/ida18-ida18-overarching-theme-towards- 2030-investing-in-growth-resilience-and-opportunity. World Bank. 2016b. World Bank Group Engagement in Situations of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/fragility-conflict-violence. World Bank. 2017. Forcibly Displaced: Toward a Development Approach Supporting Refugees, the Internally Displaced, and Their Hosts. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/25016. World Bank. 2018. Recent World Bank Experience with RRAs and Operational Programming in FCV Countries. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/reports/RRAs_FCVs_Stocktaking. pdf. World Bank. 2019. Learning from IDA Experience: Lessons from IEG Evaluations, with a Focus on IDA Special Themes and Development Effectiveness. Synthesis Report. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/reports/syn_idalearning.pdf. World Bank. 2020a. “IDA19: Ten Years to 2030: Growth, People, Resilience.” International Development Association. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/459531582153485508/additions-to-ida-resources-nineteenth- replenishment-ten-years-to-2030-growth-people-resilience. World Bank. 2020b. World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020 –2025. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/844591582815510521/world-bank-group-strategy-for-fragility- conflict-and-violence-2020-2025. World Bank. 2023a. “Ending Poverty on a Livable Planet: Report to Governors on World Bank Evolution.” Development Committee, World Bank. https://www.devcommittee.org/content/dam/sites/devcommittee/doc/documents/2023/Fi nal%20Updated%20Evolution%20Paper%20DC2023-0003.pdf. World Bank. 2023c. “Mid-Term Review of the World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (2020–2025).” World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099102523150028132/pdf/BOSIB00eef97e2 08a0937700f5b7e85e393.pdf. 25 World Bank. 2024a. “From Vision to Impact: Implementing the World Bank Group Evolution” Development Committee, World Bank. https://www.devcommittee.org/content/dam/sites/devcommittee/doc/documents/2024/Fi nal_DC2024-0002.pdf. World Bank. 2024b. World Bank. 2024. Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report 2024: Pathways Out of the Polycrisis. World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-2123-3. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. World Bank Group. 2014. World Bank Group Assistance to Low-Income Fragile and Conflict-Affected States. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank Group. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/fcs_eval.pdf. World Bank Group. 2017. World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017. World Bank Group. 2021. Updated Bank Policy: Development Cooperation and Fragility, Conflict, and Violence. World Bank Group. https://documentsinternal.worldbank.org/search/33340040. World Bank. 2021b. World Bank Engagement in Situations of Conflict. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/world-bank- engagement-situations-conflict. World Bank Group. 2022. IFC’s and MIGA’s Support to Private Investment in Fragile and Conflict - Affected Situations. World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2024. “FY24 Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FCS) List.” World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/3d4356ac2aee9f0b2db90ae9ce49f639- 0090082024/original/FCSList-FY06toFY24.pdf. World Bank and United Nations. 2018. Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/4c36fca6-c7e0-5927-b171- 468b0b236b59 26 Appendix A. Evaluation Design Matrix Table A.1 indicates the key questions with descriptions of the analysis, methods, and sources of data collection and information. Table A.1. Evaluation Design Matrix Question Description Methods Sources of Information EQ 1. How relevant has the 2020 FCV strategy been in addressing the World Bank Group’s operational challenges in FCS countries? 1.a. Has the 1. Evaluate to what extent and how 1. Review of fragility diagnostics, CPFs, and operational 1. Fragility diagnostics (RRAs, RPBAs, RDNAs, PDNAs, strategy helped successfully CPFs and programs using a systematic template questionnaire to conflict lenses, and so on) the Bank Group projects/programs systematically assess: (i) the identification and integration of the relevant 2. Bank Group country strategy documents (CASs, CPFs, to deploy identify and integrate or address drivers of fragility and sources of resilience; (ii) the CENs, PLRs, CPSDs, IFC Country Strategies) strategies and the relevant drivers of fragility and incorporation of principles of adapting to FCV such as 3. Documents related to OP 7.30 and FCV allocations and programs that are sources of resilience, how well adaptive management, flexible design, “do no harm,” FCV- additional data from the FCV Group tailored to the projects/programs adapt to FCV, sensitive monitoring, and simple project design. drivers of fragility, and their (early) results. 4. Bank Group country-level evaluative documents (CLRs, 2. Analysis of Bank Group strategic documents to identify conflict, and CLRVs, and CPEs) 2. Which patterns and drivers of motivating factors for engagement and disengagement violence? performance emerge? decisions. 5. Project-level documents (for a sample of projects): PADs, 3. Analysis of strategies and projects’ performance along MTRs, restructuring papers, ICRs, ICRRs, PPARs, and IFC their results frameworks and additional conflict indicators investment and advisory documents to assess the degree of adaptation and flexibility in 6. Country data and statistics programming, implementation, and monitoring to assess 7. Interviews with key informants of the Bank Group and course correction due to shifting circumstances. relevant country actors (representatives of the 4. Semistructured interviews to identify factors influencing government, implementing agencies, civil society, donors, the above-mentioned dimensions. and researchers; for country deep dives only) 5. Country deep dives to evaluate in detail the above dimensions for specific countries. 27 Question Description Methods Sources of Information 1.b. Has the 1. Evaluate to what extent aspects 1. A mapping of changes made to policies, processes, and 1. Bank Group institutional, strategy, and policy documents strategy helped of the World Bank’s policies and practices, including the update of OP 2.30. 2. Bank Group country-level evaluative documents (CLRs, the Bank Group operating model and the incentives 2. Analysis of projects through a pre- and post comparison CLRVs, and CPEs) to adapt its and practices that flow from that of the use of enhanced operational flexibilities1 and their 3. Project-level documents (for a sample of projects): PADs, policies, enable or constrain the Bank impact on projects’ development effectiveness. processes, Group’s development effectiveness MTRs, restructuring papers, ICRs, ICRRs, PPARs, and IFC 3. Analysis of projects to compare administrative budget investment and advisory documents (for country deep resources, in FCV. resources available for design and implementation in FCV dives only) incentives, and 2. Evaluate the impacts of the with non-FCV environments versus costs. staffing for FCS introduction of the FCV Envelope. 4. FCV Envelope allocation (PRA, RECA, TAA, and TAR) 4. Analysis of project budget data. documents situations? 3. Evaluate to what extent project 5. Comparison of World Bank and partner budget implementation budgets are 5. Project meta budget data coefficients. sufficient to account for the higher 6. Partner budget data 6. Analysis of FCV Envelope allocations’ effectiveness in cost of designing and supervising 7. HR and staffing data achieving their stated goals including the milestones, operations in FCV. portfolio recalibration and government engagement, as 8. Training data from OLC and HR 4. Evaluate to what extent the Bank described in related documentation. Group has strengthened incentives 9. Interviews with key informants of the Bank Group and 7. Analysis of HR, training, and staffing data to assess the relevant country actors (representatives of the for staff to work in FCV contexts. World Bank’s operational framework as it pertains to government, implementing agencies, civil society, donors, 5. Evaluate to what extent the Bank staffing, talent retention, incentives, impact, and outcome. research community, and so on; for country deep dives Group has expanded its contingent 8. Analysis of HR and staffing data to map trends in only) of FCV staff and increased its qualification, years in grade level, and staff typology of FCV presence in the field by deploying staff. more seasoned professional staff to FCS. 9. Surveys to identify perceptions of changes in staffing. 6. Evaluate to what extent the FCV 10. Semistructured interviews to identify approaches and Group advanced the FCV agenda experiences of development partners and factors and enabled support to CMUs and influencing the above-mentioned dimensions. TTLs in deep-dive countries and the 11. Semistructured interviews to gather perceptions of (i) strategy’s perceived strengths and staff and management regarding appropriateness of weaknesses. budget resources to design and implement projects, (ii) staff, management, and donors regarding what drives lending volumes, (iii) incentives for staff to work in FCV, (iv) the qualifications, skills, and experience of staff in FCV, (v) the strengths and weaknesses of the FCV Group model, and (vi) perceptions of the relevance and effectiveness of 28 Question Description Methods Sources of Information partnerships to identify factors influencing the above- mentioned dimensions. 12. Country deep dives to evaluate in detail (i) the extent to which flexible policies, processes, and practices are being implemented, how they are perceived by staff in the field, clients, partners, and other actors, and factors facilitating or constraining the development effectiveness in FCV; and (ii) perceptions related to the changes in staff composition and capabilities after the strategy, and how those changes influence projects’ outcomes 1.c. To what 1. Evaluate under what conditions 1. Analysis of projects to (i) identify under what conditions 1. Data on third-party implementation of World Bank extent has the the World Bank partners with the World Bank partners with other organizations, (ii) projects Bank Group’s humanitarian, development, assess the development effectiveness of these 2. Data on trust fund support support been security, peace building, and civil partnerships, (iii) identify the role of trust fund–supported 3. Project-level documents (for a sample of projects): PADs, appropriately society actors in deep-dive projects in FCV, and (iv) assess their contribution to MTRs, restructuring papers, ICRs, ICRRs, PPARs, and IFC enhanced countries at the country level and country-level program effectiveness and changes in investment and advisory documents (for country deep through how has this changed. partnership diversity before and after the strategy. dives only) partnerships with 2. Evaluate to what extent and 2. Semistructured interviews with staff, management, and 4. Bank Group country strategies (CASs, CPFs, CENs, PLRs, more diverse under which circumstances these partners to gather perceptions of relevance and CPSDs, IFC Country Strategies) stakeholders partnerships have enhanced the effectiveness of partnerships to identify factors influencing consistent with performance of operations in the the above-mentioned dimensions. 5. Bank Group country-level evaluative documents (CLRs, the Bank Group’s field at the project and country 3. Country deep dives to evaluate in detail the CLRVs, and CPEs) development level. effectiveness of partnerships. 6. Interviews with key informants of the Bank Group and mandate? 3. Evaluate to what extent these 4. A review of external literature assessing the experience relevant partner organizations partnerships have been consistent of partners in partnering with the World Bank and their with the World Bank’s role and lessons on addressing FCV. comparative advantage as a development institution. EQ 2. To what extent have the changes introduced by the 2020 FCV strategy had demonstrable effects on Bank Group operational engagements in FCS countries? 2.a. Have the 1. Evaluate what impact the FCV 1. Country-level analysis of financial flows and Bank Group 1. Data on international financial flows (ODA, FDI, changes strategy has had on the volume of portfolios to map trends in the volume and distribution of remittances) introduced by the financing. financing and other quantitative indicators of World Bank 2. Bank Group project data 2020 FCV strategy 2. Evaluate what impact the FCV engagement in FCV countries. 3. Project location data had demonstrable strategy has had on the type of FCV 2. Country-level project portfolio analysis covering all FCV 4. ACLED and UCDP conflict event data effects on engagements. countries to map changes in the nature of engagement in 29 Question Description Methods Sources of Information increases in the 3. Evaluate what impact the FCV FCV countries such as changes in instrument choice, 5. Interviews with key informants of the Bank Group and volume, and shifts strategy has had on the risk profile operation design, and operation objectives. relevant country actors (representatives of the in the of the World Bank portfolio. 3. Geospatial analysis of project sites and conflict event government, implementing agencies, civil society, donors, composition and locations to identify which projects are most exposed to research community, and so on) risk profile of the conflict risks and trends of engagement and World Bank disengagement in conflict-affected areas. portfolio? 4. Portfolio-level analysis of project ratings to map changes in standard effectiveness metrics. 5. Synthesis of performance and institutional effectiveness from recent IEG evaluations covering Bank Group support to the private sector. 6. Semistructured interviews to identify perceptions of impacts of the FCV strategy among staff. 7. Country deep dives to assess intermediate outcomes of programs based on documentary review, portfolio analysis, and interviews. 2.b. Have the 1. Evaluate what impacts the FCV 1. Portfolio-level analysis of project ratings to map changes 1. Bank Group Project data changes strategy has had on the in standard effectiveness metrics. 2. Interviews with key informants of the Bank Group and introduced by the development effectiveness of FCV 2. Synthesis of performance and institutional effectiveness relevant country actors (representatives of the 2020 FCV strategy operations. from recent IEG evaluations covering Bank Group support government, implementing agencies, civil society, donors, had demonstrable to the private sector. research community, and so on) effects on 3. Semistructured interviews to identify perceptions of improvements in impacts of the FCV strategy among staff. project efficacy? 4. Country deep dives to assess intermediate outcomes of programs and projects based on documentary review, portfolio analysis, and interviews. Sources: World Bank and Independent Evaluation Group. Note: ACLED = Armed Conflict Location and Event Data; CAS = Country Assistance Strategy; CEN = Country Engagement Note; CLRV = Completion and Learning Review Validation; CMU = Country Management Unit; CPE = Country Program Evaluation; CPF = Country Partnership Framework; CPSD = Country Private Sector Diagnostic; FCS = fragile and conflict- affected situations; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; FDI = foreign direct investment; HR = human resources; ICRs = Implementation Completion and Results Report; ICRRs = Implementation Completion and Results Report Review; IEG = Independent Evaluation Group; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MTR = Mid-Term Review; ODA = official development assistance; OLC = Online Learning Campus; OP = Operational Policy; PAD = Project Appraisal Document; PDNA = Post-Disaster Needs Assessment; PLR = Performance and Learning Review; PPAR = Project Performance Assessment Report; PRA = Prevention and Resilience Allocation; RECA = Remaining Engaged in Conflict Allocation; RRA = Risk and Resilience Assessment; RDNA = Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment: RPBA= Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment; TAA = Turn Around Allocation; TAR = Turn Around Regime; TTL = task team leader; UCDP = Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 30 Table A.2. Relevant Independent Evaluation Group Evaluations IFC’s and MIGA’s World Bank Recent World Support for Private A Focused Engagement in World Bank Group Bank Experience World Bank Investment in Assessment of Enhancing the Situations of Engagement in with RRAs & Group Assistance Fragile and the International Effectiveness of Conflict Situations of Operational to Low-Income Conflict-Affected Development the World Bank’s An Evaluation of Fragility, Conflict, Programming in Fragile and Situations Association’s Evaluation Global Footprint FY10–20 Experience and Violence FCV Countries Conflict-Affected Fiscal Years 2010– Private Sector Question (2022) (2022) (2016) (2018) States (2014) 21 (2022) Window (2022) EQ 1.a ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ EQ 1.b ✓ ✓ ✓ EQ 1.c ✓ ✓ EQ 2.a ✓ ✓ ✓ EQ 2.b ✓ ✓ ✓ Sources: World Bank and Independent Evaluation Group. Note: EQ = evaluation question; FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; PSW = Private Sector Window; RRA = Risk and Resilience Assessment. 31 1The “enhanced operational flexibilities” refers to flexibilities in procurement, the Environmental and Social Framework, and financial management in fragility, conflict, and violence settings (World Bank 2020b). 32 Appendix B. Detailed Methodology This evaluation will use the methods described below. • A systematic portfolio analysis and document reviews of samples of lending, advisory, and investment portfolios for country deep dives. The FY 2015–24 fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) portfolio encompasses 1,169 World Bank financing operations, 2,596 World Bank nonlending activities (advisory services and analytics), 262 International Finance Corporation (IFC) investment services projects, and 68 Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) guarantees (additional detail in appendix C). The analysis of existing project data, such as project development objectives, theme codes, project preparation times, project restructuring, project ratings, and so on, will be conducted for the entire FCV project portfolio. More specifically, descriptive statistical analysis (calculating averages, standard deviations, and frequencies) of data on associated theme codes, project ratings, and number of restructurings can help identify positive and negative commonalities or outliers within the portfolio. This analysis could also determine if operations in FCV contexts have been designed to address specific drivers and whether ratings suggest that differentiated strategies are effectively and successfully guiding the World Bank’s engagement. Furthermore, trend analysis of preparation times and restructuring frequencies before and after the implementation of the FCV strategy could help assess the flexibility of World Bank policies, processes, and practices. Trend analysis may also be conducted for funding allocations and project development objectives to better understand how financial resource allocations align with the strategy’s objectives and how a shift in priorities and objectives is being reflected in operational programming. These analyses will inform a categorization of the most relevant operations from which a sample for further study can be selected. Including five years of projects preceding the strategy in the portfolio will facilitate pre- and post-strategy counterfactual comparison of relevant indicators. • Analysis of World Bank Group data and other secondary data. The assessment will analyze data and trends pertaining to the 42 countries classified as FCS covered by this evaluation, including conflict-related data, data on aid flows to FCV, staffing, operational budgets in FCV, financing, and instrument selection. The data analysis will juxtapose longitudinal data of Bank Group lending and nonlending operations and activities with country-level conflict data, derived from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, and other databases, to understand how the Bank Group engages in conflict-affected and nonconflict areas during different periods of conflict 33 intensity and complexity. This analysis of Bank Group lending and nonlending operations can also help identify whether there has been a strategic shift toward tailored programming in countries with varying levels of conflict intensity. These global database analyses will help validate findings from the country-level assessments of the evaluation. They include the following: o Staffing and human resources data. Analysis of staffing and human resources data aims to identify whether the Bank Group has enhanced staffing numbers and qualifications in FCV countries. A descriptive analysis will map trends over time in staffing, such as changes in the distribution of staff across countries and changes in staffing and grade levels, years of experience, and other characteristics before and after the introduction of the FCV strategy. The evaluation will use this analysis to assess if staffing levels are aligned with the strategic needs identified in the strategy and whether staffing adjustments made under the FCV strategy have been effective in addressing the main personnel-related challenges. This analysis of staffing and human resources data in FCV countries can provide a granular understanding of augmented in-the-field presence and staff skills tailored specifically to the national context as well as the World Bank’s priorities in the country. o Budget analysis. Project implementation budget data will be analyzed to study trends in project implementation budgets and whether these are sufficient to meet the higher cost of designing and supervising operations in FCV countries. The evaluation will also map the consequences of any discrepancies between the financing needed and provided. This will include a comparison between similar projects where some benefited from additional trust fund resources for implementation and supervision and some did not to analyze any differences in project implementation and outcomes. We will rely on Bank Group operational budget databases as much as possible. • Geospatial analysis. The analysis will be used to identify overlaps between project sites and conflict event locations for the deep-dive countries, providing insights into which projects are most exposed to conflict risks and trends of engagement and disengagement in conflict-affected areas. This analysis can provide insight into whether differentiated strategies for FCV are designed to address core drivers of fragility and conflict based on the national context, for instance, rebuilding infrastructure or supporting community development in regions experiencing active conflict. 34 • Stakeholder interviews. The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) will conduct semistructured interviews with Bank Group staff and external key informants to validate emerging findings. Key informants include government officials, academics, civil society representatives, development partners, private sector representatives, and project beneficiaries, where feasible, to collect qualitative data to flesh out preliminary findings from the data and content analysis. These will surface areas of strengths or weaknesses in the institutional effectiveness of the Bank Group and of aspects of the operational framework in FCV. Relevant staff will be selected by identifying task team leaders who have implemented multiple FCV projects in the evaluation period and of which a representative sample will be selected, stratified by project theme code, to ensure variation of project intervention types. Country managers and country directors will be selected in a similar manner based on their years overseeing FCV countries. This will be supplemented with a comprehensive set of interviews conducted for deep-dive countries, involving relevant Country Management Unit staff, key task team leaders, and key partner and client stakeholders during the evaluation period. We will deploy a stakeholder analysis and comprehensive literature review to identify key experts outside of the World Bank, including development partners. • Staff surveys. Surveys will be deployed to assess perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the Bank Group operational framework in FCV, including incentives for staff to work on FCV, staff skills in FCV, the strengths and weaknesses of the FCV Group model, and perceptions of policies, processes, and practices for operations in FCV. • Country deep dives. IEG will conduct in-depth deep dives for six to eight FCS countries. IEG has identified 23 possible countries from among those that have been included in the FCS list for at least three years during the FY15–25 period, excluding small island states (which are outside the scope of the evaluation), countries with no operations or small operational portfolios, and those covered by recent IEG Country Program Evaluations (which will be reviewed as part of the secondary analysis of evaluative documents described below). Country deep- dive selection will use a simple country typology of conflict-affected countries and institutionally fragile countries. Countries will be assigned a category based on their most frequent position on the FCS list. From both categories, we will select a sample that represents the full range of the FCV strategy, especially in conflict prevention, remaining engaged, and transitioning out of fragility pillars, as well as the most common variations in country characteristics such as country size, income level, region, and length and timing of conflict. The deep dives will 35 be based on a focused, streamlined questionnaire aligned with the evaluation questions. It will include a review of strategy, diagnostic, FCV allocation, and project documents, and a portfolio and secondary data analysis. This more detailed portfolio analysis includes reviewing operations using a template questionnaire to assess the identification and integration of relevant drivers of fragility and sources of resilience, the incorporation of principles for adapting to FCV, and the use of operational flexibilities and the impact of these three factors on project effectiveness. It will also include analyzing projects’ performance along their results frameworks and additional conflict indicators, mapping the impacts of projects financed through FCV Envelope allocations, assessing the effectiveness of partnerships, and evaluating the role and contribution of trust fund–supported projects in FCV to country-level program effectiveness. It will also include additional semistructured interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups of actors selected through a stakeholder analysis (for example, key Bank Group staff, UN, and humanitarian agency partners), as well as beneficiaries (mainly limited to government clients), to corroborate and deepen the information gathered through the document analysis. The deep dives will be desk-based with a subset involving fieldwork, as feasible given learning needs, timing, and security considerations. This approach will align the deep-dive methodology with other evaluation components (the portfolio review, document reviews, and interviews, in particular) and leverage them to provide triangulation with those methods and add detail and nuance to findings. • Systematic document reviews of strategy, country, and project documents. This includes document reviews of Bank Group strategic and policy documents, fragility diagnostics, country strategies, FCV Envelope allocations, and country- level programs using systematic template questionnaires for the countries covered by deep dives. These reviews will distill patterns of consistency and coherence between diagnostic and strategy and program documents and enable us to gauge changes in the Bank Group’s approach to FCV over time. IEG will examine fragility diagnostics and Country Partnership Frameworks to assess the identification and integration of relevant drivers of fragility and sources of resilience and the extent to which these drivers are reflected in tailored strategies and programming. Additionally, the review involves analyzing strategies’ and FCV allocations’ results frameworks and the extent to which these identify and measure FCV-specific indicators. It also includes an analysis of Bank Group strategy documents to identify motivating factors for engagement and disengagement decisions. Finally, the analysis examines strategy and operational documents related to private sector development in FCV and specific 36 instruments to evaluate the relevance of Bank Group approaches and instruments for private sector support. • Secondary analysis of FCS Completion and Learning Reviews and their Completion and Learning Review Validations, Country Program Evaluations, and existing IEG evaluative evidence from thematic FCV evaluations. IEG will distill evidence from existing country-level evaluative and validation documents by applying a systematic template. This analysis will enable us to leverage existing evaluations to mitigate the modest number of new deep dives prepared. The analysis will focus on distilling findings on the Bank Group’s operational framework in FCV. The evaluation will include a synthesis of findings from existing IEG evaluations covering FCV topics to use as background and baseline information. Relevant IEG evaluations include the following: World Bank Assistance to Low-Income Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (2014), World Bank Group Engagement in Situations of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (2016), Recent World Bank Experience with Risk and Resilience Assessments (RRAs) & Operational Programming in FCV Countries (2018), World Bank Engagement in Situations of Conflict (2022), IFC’s and MIGA’s Support to Private Investment in FCS (2022), Enhancing the Effectiveness of the World Bank’s Global Footprint (2022), and Addressing Gender Inequalities in Countries Affected by FCV (2024). Review of external literature. The evaluation will conduct a structured literature review analyzing the FCV approaches of other international financial institutions, development partners, and multilateral development system organizations. This review will also capture the lessons and experience of development agencies in partnering with the World Bank Group. 37 Appendix C. Preliminary Portfolio Review The evaluation universe is based on the (harmonized) World Bank Group list of countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). The FCS list (which in FY 2025 includes 39 countries) comprised 50 countries during the evaluation, between FY15 and FY25 (see figure C.1; the third column lists the countries that were part of the FCS list in the evaluation period but are no longer part of it in FY25). The fourth column lists small island states. All but 11 of the 50 are International Development Association (IDA)-eligible countries, and more than half are in Sub-Saharan Africa (26 countries). Figure C.1. Countries on Harmonized Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situation List FY15– 25 Sources: World Bank and Independent Evaluation Group. Note: Green to red gradient indicates the number of years a country has been on the fragile and conflict-affected situations list in the FY 2015–25 period. Evolution of World Bank Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Financing The World Bank’s fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) financing has grown significantly—driven by three large FCV countries. World Bank financing support to FCV countries has expanded significantly since FY15 and especially since FY20. This is partly because of significant borrowers becoming FCS countries, especially Nigeria in 2020, Ethiopia in 2022, and Ukraine in 2023 (figure C.2). In FY24, these three countries accounted for 64 percent of all FCV commitments. Excluding these three countries, financing volumes to FCV increased by an average 7 percent annually between 2010 and 2024. Including Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine, this increase was 16 percent. Financing volumes in “legacy” FCS countries (excluding the three new countries) peaked in FY22, 38 coinciding with the final year of IDA19 and the COVID-19 response, but have since declined by about 50 percent. Figure C.2. World Bank Financing in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations Has Increased Mainly Driven by Three Countries, Commitment (FY10–24) 25 Average annual growth rate of FCS commitments excluding Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ukraine: 7% Commitment (US$, billions) Average growth rate including Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ukraine: 16% 20 15 3 12 3 10 10 3 11 12 5 9 7 6 6 7 6 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 -5 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year Total commitment Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine Trend commitment Trend with Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. The FCV Envelope and trust funds contributed to the increase in financing in FCV countries (figure C.3). This increase was also enabled by the IDA FCV Envelope and trust funds. In this context, FCS countries received 80 percent of total World Bank recipient-executed trust fund disbursements from FY19 to FY23, with Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the West Bank and Gaza as the top beneficiaries (World Bank 2023c). 39 Figure C.3. Contribution of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Envelope to Overall Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Commitments IDA 20 12.7 18.7 5.5 0.3 1.50.4 IDA 19 16.4 6.6 3.3 0.41.81.3 Period IDA 18 14.8 2.5 0.81.6 1.8 IDA 17 17.7 2010 –13 10.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Commitment (US$, billions) IPF, P4R, and DPF commitment (US$72.1B) Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ukraine IPF and P4R (US$27.8B) Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Ukraine DPF (US$5.5B) Prevention and Resilience Allocation (US$4.8B) Remaining Engaged During Conflict Allocation (US$660B) Risk Mitigation Regime (US$847B) Turn Around Allocation (US$2.2B) Turn Around Regime (US$1.6B) Window for Host Communities and Refugees (US$3.1B) Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. Note: IDA20 FCV Envelope commitments as of FY 2024 Q1.57 percent of the Window for Host Communities and Refugees commitments were in non-FCS countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IDA = International Development Association. Almost two-thirds of the World Bank FCS portfolio is in Sub-Saharan Africa. Three- quarters of lending is for investment project financing. The World Bank provided US$102.1 billion in financing to FCS countries in FY15–24, including trust-funded activities (figure C.4). It also prepared 1,916 advisory services and analytics activities in the same group of countries. Sixty-four percent of World Bank FCS financing is concentrated in Africa, with smaller lending shares in the Europe and Central Asia and Middle East and North Africa Regions. The most significant FCS borrowing countries were Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Ukraine. Together, these five countries account for 46 percent of total FCV financing. 40 Figure C.4. Distribution of World Bank FCS Financing by Instrument and Region a. World Bank lending commitment by instrument b. World Bank lending projects by instrument (US$ billion) PforR, 29 DPF, 110 PforR, 9 DPF, 17 IPF, 1,027 IPF, 76 c. World Bank lending commitment by region (US$ d. World Bank lending projects by region billion) SAR, 69, 6% SAR, 5 LCR, MNA, 12 45, LCR, 2 MNA, AFE, 313, 4% AFE, 30 155, 13% 27% ECA, 13 ECA, EAP, 165, EAP, 5 47, 14% 4% AFW, AFW, 36 375, 32% Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; DPF = development policy financing; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; IPF = investment project financing; LCR = Latin America and the Caribbean; MNA = Middle East and North Africa; PforR = Program-for-Results; SAR = South Asia. 41 Evaluated projects in IDA FCS countries perform below projects in non-FCS IDA countries (figure C.5). Of the 1,169 projects supported in FCS during FY15–24, 193 have been validated by the Independent Evaluation Group. Comparing project performance in countries with similar income levels, 70 percent of IDA FCS projects achieved ratings of mostly satisfactory or better in achieving their development objectives, below the performance of non-FCV IDA projects, where 87 percent achieve this benchmark. However, IDA FCS projects perform relatively well (83 percent) in the assessment of the World Bank’s own institutional performance in designing and implementing the project. Figure C.5. Ratings of Evaluated IDA Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situation and IDA Non-Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situation World Bank Operations (FY15–24) 100 92 89 87 83 85 90 82 Share rated MS+ (%) 77 80 70 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FCS (n = Non-FCS FCS (n = Non-FCS FCS (n = Non-FCS FCS (n = Non-FCS 179) (n = 106) 179) (n = 106) 136) (n = 73) 137) (n = 73) Development Overall Bank Quality of supervision Quality at entry outcome performance Category Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IDA = International Development Association. International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situation Engagements Overall, World Bank support dominates the Bank Group’s FCV engagement, but the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) have roles to play (figure C.6). 42 Figure C.6. World Bank Group FCS Financing Support by Institution a. FCS commitments (US$) b. FCS projects (no.) IFC MIGA MIGA (US$5.9 (US$4.2 (68) billion), billion), 4% 5% 5% IFC (262) 17% World World Bank Bank (US$102 (1,166) billion), 78% 91% Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. IFC investments and MIGA guarantees in FCS increased in recent years (figures C.7 and C.8). IFC has committed own account long-term finance of US$5.9 billion in FCS between FY15 and FY24, which represents about 4.6 percent of its total commitments. In terms of number of investment projects, IFC has committed 262 in FCS, or 9 percent of projects. With the addition of Nigeria to the FCS list, there is an upward trend in IFC investment volumes in FCS, which reached US$1.23 billion in commitments in FY24. MIGA issued guarantees in FCS for US$4.2 billion in FY15–24, or 8 percent of its guarantee volume and 18 percent of its guarantee projects during this period. But its engagements have fluctuated significantly year on year. 43 Figure C.7. International Finance Corporation Investment Commitments and Projects in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FY10–24) Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. Note: IFC commitment data and shares include own account long-term finance. The Independent Evaluation Group’s data excludes regional and global projects, a subset of which provide funding to FCS. FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IFC = International Finance Corporation. 44 Figure C.8. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Guarantee Issuance in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FY10–24) Source: Independent Evaluation Group staff calculations. Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. 45 Evaluated IFC investments in FCS countries perform below non-FCS comparators, whereas MIGA guarantees in FCS perform similarly to projects in non-FCS countries. One-third of IFC FCS investment operations evaluated in 2015–23 achieved ratings of mostly successful or higher for their development outcomes, compared with half of investments in non-FCS countries. Moreover, project performance in FCS has declined over this period, whereas non-FCS projects have performed more steadily. The 10 evaluated MIGA FCS guarantee projects did not perform differently from those in non- FCS countries (figures C.9 and C.10). Figure C.9. Development Outcome Ratings of International Finance Corporation Investment Projects, 3-Year Rolling Average (2015–23) 70 n = 13 62 n = 187 n = 166 n = 17 57n = 23 n = 176 60 n = 212 57 Share rated MS+ (%) 53 n = 22 57 55 50 n = 32 n = 213 48 n = 32 50 44 n = 215 47 50 n = 19 47 n = 36 40 n = 30 n = 27 42 43 40 33 n = 39 37 37 41 n = 24 29 33 30 n = 20 n= 20 20 18 17 n= 19… 10 0 2015–17 (n 2016–18 (n 2017–19 (n 2018–20 (n 2019–21 (n 2020–22 (n 2021–023 (n = 259) = 271) = 273) = 268) = 230) = 227) = 211) Fiscal years (n) FCS Non-FCS Regional FCS average Non-FCS average Regional average Source: Independent Evaluation Group database. Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MS+ = mostly successful or better. 46 Figure C.10. Development Outcomes of Evaluated Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Guarantees (FY15–23) n=8 76 75 74 n = 62 72 n = 10 71 n = 10 Share rated S (%) 70 70 70 70 n = 9 n = 70 n = 52 n = 57 68 67 67 67 68 67 66 64 62 FY15–20 (n = 81) FY16–21 (n = 72) FY17–22 (n = 67) FY18–23 (n = 60) Years FCS Non-FCS FCS average Non-FCS average Source: Independent Evaluation Group database Note: FCS = fragile and conflict-affected situations; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; S+ = satisfactory or better. 47