A Development Approach to Conflict-Induced Internal Displacement 2 © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some Rights Reserved This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights & Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution — 2021. "A Development Approach to Conflict-Induced Internal Displacement." World Bank, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO Translations — If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations — If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-Party Content — The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to re-use a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. 3 Table of Contents: List of Acronyms 4 List of Figures 5 Executive Summary 6 1. Consolidating a World Bank Group approach to conflict-induced internal displacement 9 2. Overview of the issue 13 3. World Bank Group Approach 19 4. An agenda for strengthening the World Bank Group’s contribution to internal displacement crises 22 Country level engagement 25 Organizational response 34 Global engagement 41 5. Managing risks 44 Annex 1: Overview of Portfolio – WBG Lending Projects with an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) Focus, 2000 – 2020 46 Annex 2: WBG Portfolio of Lending Projects with an IDP Focus, 2000 – 2020 49 Photography Accreditation 55 This work is part of the Prospects Partnership program funded through the Multi Donor Trust Fund for Forced Displacement (FDTF) administered by the World Bank. It has benefited from consultations with a range of partners and civil society organizations (CSOs.) 4 List of Acronyms: CPF Country Partnership Framework ESCR Economic, Social & Cultural Rights ESF Environmental & Social Framework ESS Environmental & Social Standards DPO Development Policy Operations FCV Fragility, Conflict & Violence IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee IDA19 International Development Association, 19th Replenishment IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre IDP Internally Displaced Person IOM International Organization for Migration JDC WBG-UNHCR Joint Data Center on Forced Displacement JIPS Joint IDP Profiling Service NSAG Non-State Armed Groups RECA Remaining Engaged in Conflict Allocation SCD Systematic Country Diagnostics UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees WBG World Bank Group 5 List of Figures: Figure 1: Principles of WBG Approach to IDPs Figure 2: Top 10 Countries with Highest Number of Conflict-Induced IDPs Figure 3: Conflict Dynamics and Displacement Phases Figure 4: Number of IDP Projects in WBG Lending Portfolio Figure 5: Number of WBG-Financed IDP-Focused Projects Per Global Practice 6 Executive Summary The approach paper provides the rationale for further integration of conflict-induced internally displaced persons (IDPs) into World Bank Group (WBG) programming based on its commitment to vulnerable and marginalized populations. It highlights the conflict- sensitive engagement required to address the needs of these populations. This paper has been prepared in the context of the first World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV), which was endorsed by the WBG Boards of Directors in February, 2020 and complements the “Forced Displacement and Development” paper that was discussed by the Development Committee in the Spring of 2016. By the end of 2019, an estimated 45.7 million people were internally displaced as a result of conflict and violence; three-quarters of these were in just 10 countries. Available survey data and empirical literature on conflict-induced displacement indicate that IDPs frequently suffer from increased vulnerability compared to other groups, while potentially also facing discrimination in their access to development opportunities, even in cases of protracted displacement. Addressing the needs of IDPs and their hosts is a development issue directly relevant to the WBG mission, and operational engagement on the issue is not new. The WBG has increasingly engaged in research, data collection, and investment projects covering IDPs. In the period between 2000–2019, World Bank financed 85 projects that had IDPs as direct beneficiaries or had the presence of IDPs within a community as a criterion for site selection. As the WBG increases its engagement in IDPs, this paper highlights a number of recommendations to maximize the benefits of development finance, i.e., using a development approach that emphasizes sustainability and aims to address IDP-related issues within the broader context of the needs of the country’s conflict-affected population in general, and of the importance of mitigating the risk of future conflict. The approach encompasses the following recommendations (see Figure 1): • Recognize the centrality of the political economy and links to the broader conflict context. A key challenge for the WBG in addressing IDP situations through a government-led approach is that the same country is both the producer and host of the displaced population. Given the close links between the underlying conflict and the displacement situation, the World Bank’s support to IDPs needs to be designed in a manner that can contribute to stabilizing the overall situation and does not inadvertently cause harm. 7 • Base interventions on a solid understanding of the affected populations and their environments in order to facilitate sustainable solutions. This entails further investments in socioeconomic studies of IDPs and their hosts, as well as seeing their development needs as just one share of those for the entire country. Promoting sustainable solutions must also be based on understanding the environments to which IDPs will be integrated or returned. • Design interventions that encompass conflict and displacement dimensions. From a development perspective, the end of internal displacement is not necessarily returning, but rather the reduction of the specific traits that make IDPs more vulnerable to poverty regardless of where they end up living. In this context, a satisfactory outcome of WBG engagement in IDP situations is helping IDPs reach a “level playing field” with the non- displaced and paving the way for better development opportunities for the displaced and non- displaced. But this may mean very different engagement depending on the intensity of the crisis (e.g., high intensity conflict vs. a stable situation) and the phase(s) of displacement (e.g., ongoing displacement vs. protracted situations in ceased conflicts) or a combination of several phases. • Use the WBG’s tools and expertise on exclusion and marginalization to support inclusion of IDPs in diagnostic work and strategy development. In particular, the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) is a powerful tool that can be leveraged to ensure that IDPs do not face discrimination and exclusion in their access to development benefits. Consistently applied, the ESF can help underscore the need for significant amounts of development funding to be channeled to vulnerable IDPs. • Systematically include IDPs in development operations. This paper does not call for the establishment of earmarked funds for IDPs, as was done for refugees and their hosts, but rather for applying an “IDP lens” (including through the ESF) across the entire WBG portfolio. • Engage in efforts to advance the global response to situations of internal displacement, building on the WBG’s comparative advantages. The WBG can apply its experience using a government-led approach to address the needs of marginalized people. With its reliance on and investments in socioeconomic data, the WBG can play an important role in supporting the harmonization of definitions and counting methodologies for IDPs. • Work in partnerships to ensure complementarity. The WBG’s ability to deliver effective support in IDP situations is dependent on strong partnerships. This may require building tailored approaches at both country and global levels, as no single international organization holds a formal mandate to lead and assist responses or solutions for IDPs. 8 Figure 1: Principles of WBG Approach to IDPs PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE WORLD BANK ENGAGEMENT Sustain a development IDPs as a distinct population Promote whole-of-government Include a strong focus on approach that focuses on group are of concern when they approaches and focus on host communities and medium to long-term have specific vulnerabilities institutions and policies local authorities socio-economic aspects of displacement PRINCIPLES FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL ENGAGEMENT Recognize the centrality of the Base interventions on a solid Design interventions that political economy and links to understanding of the encompass conflict and the broader conflict context affected populations and displacement dimensions their environments PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE Use the WBG’s tools and expertise on Systematically include IDPs in exclusion and marginalization & development operations Leveraging analytical Targeting IDPs as beneficiaries Leverage the ESF to inform Support IDPs through tools to inform operations, in core WB operations that project design and address existing financing tools, such as poverty and increase access to markets, IDP discrimination and prioritizing at country level vulnerability assessments, services, safety nets, and support exclusion risks and Risk and to private sector development Resilience Assessments GLOBAL ENGAGEMENTG Engage in efforts to advance the Work in partnerships with humanitarian, peace, development, global response to situations of and private sector actors to ensure complementarity and internal displacement maximize impact 9 Consolidating a World Bank Group 1. approach to conflict-induced internal displacement 10 In conflict situations, people are frequently forced to flee. Some cross borders, some do not. Internally displaced persons are those that flee their residence due to conflict or violence but remain within their own country’s borders. They are among the world’s most vulnerable people. The purpose of this approach paper is to highlight the key principles for World Bank Group (WBG) engagement to address conflict-induced internal displacement. It provides the rationale for inclusion of IDPs in WBG programming based on its commitment to vulnerable and marginalized populations, while highlighting the conflict-sensitive engagement required to address the needs of these populations. The new World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV), endorsed in February 2020, identifies support to situations of internal displacement as a priority area. This approach paper is written primarily for World Bank staff working in countries with internally displaced populations, focusing on either the overall country engagement or the operational portfolio. The paper will clarify the opportunities and challenges for applying the World Bank Group’s development response to conflict-induced internal displacement, focusing on (i) decision-making around both if and when to engage and with what objective; (ii) the complex political contexts within which engagement takes place; (iii) striving for equity in data- poor environments; and (iv) engagement with key partners to strengthen complementarity and enhance impact. This paper complements the “Forced Displacement and Development” paper that was endorsed by the Development Committee in April 2016. It also builds on the analysis presented in the 2017 report, Forcibly Displaced: Towards a Development Approach Supporting Refugees, the Internally Displaced, and Their Hosts. These two documents consolidated the WBG’s development approach to conflict-induced displacement and have provided the framework through which interventions have been designed, whether financed through the Global Concessional Financing Facility, earmarked financing under IDA, the regular Performance-Based Allocation system, or Trust Funds. This approach paper is also situated in the broader context of the WBG agenda to support people on the move due to urbanization and economic migration, as well as those displaced due to natural disasters and the effects of climate change. 11 The approach covers conflict-induced IDPs, IDP returnees, and their host communities, as well as returning refugees to the extent that they may face secondary displacement upon returning to their country of origin. The approach highlights how the WBG can support IDPs whose experiences of conflict and violence create particular vulnerabilities, including the persistent effects of psychological trauma. The approach, anchored firmly in the FCV Strategy, also recognizes that internal displacement crises and resolutions are shaped by the political economy of conflict in affected countries. While recognizing the linkages between climate, conflict, and forced displacement in many contexts, this paper does not specifically address displacement caused by natural disasters, which has a distinct character, and which is already covered as part of the World Bank’s work on disaster risk management. Neither does the paper cover other forms of human migration, including economic migration, urbanization, or displacement due to development projects. The WBG’s approach to conflict-induced internal displacement does, however, recognize the points of convergence, and emphasize synergies with other WBG approaches and instruments that address these related, and sometimes overlapping, forms of migration and displacement. This paper will provide the broader approach to conflict-induced displacement, with further operational guidance envisioned as a next step. This will include work on an ESF Good Practice Note for staff, and World Bank Guidance on forced displacement in the context of an update of Operational Policy 2.30. In addition, sector-specific needs that are continuously elaborated in collaboration with relevant Global Practices, and a continually updated knowledge and learning program, will aim to ensure timely dissemination of lessons and useful experiences. 12 Glossary of Key Concepts Internally Displaced Person (IDP): The UN’s Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement defines internally displaced persons as “persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.” This definition has been widely endorsed and underpins the World Bank’s understanding of the issue. Refugee: The 1951 Convention defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution. People who fulfill this definition are entitled to their rights and bound by the duties contained in the 1951 Convention. Returnee: A (former) IDP who has reintegrated at the place of origin. Can also refer to refugee returnees, in which case it relates to reintegration into the country of origin. Durable Solutions: A durable solution is achieved when former IDPs no longer have specific assistance and protection needs linked to their displacement, and such persons can enjoy their human rights without discrimination resulting from their displacement. A durable solution can be achieved through: sustainable reintegration at the place of origin (“return”); sustainable local integration in areas where internally displaced persons take refuge (“local integration”); or sustainable integration in another part of the country (“resettlement”). Development Approach: The World Bank Group characterizes a development approach to forced displacement as one that is complementary to humanitarian efforts; focuses on medium-term socioeconomic aspects; is government led and places particular attention to institutions and policies; aims to build partnerships with and between governments, the private sector, and civil society; and includes a strong focus on host communities. 13 2. Overview of the issue 14 The number of violent conflicts globally has tripled since 2010, and this—along with a rise in other forms of violence, political instability, and violent extremism—is reflected in a rising number of IDPs. An estimated 8.5 million persons were newly displaced in 2019 alone. In some contexts, fragility and conflict are not simply a symptom of weak states and institutions but are exacerbated by ideological divides and external interests that are hard to reconcile. Fragile situations can also be found in middle-income countries, especially in the Middle East, Latin America, and parts of Asia. Subnational conflicts in otherwise stable countries with relatively strong institutions force people to flee in significant numbers. And high levels of interpersonal and criminal violence, for example in Central America, also result in significant internal displacement. Global estimates indicate that 45.7 million people were internally displaced as a result of violence and conflict at the end of 2019. IDPs were recorded in 61 countries and territories in 2019, with three-quarters of conflict-induced IDPs (34.5 million people) located in just 10 countries (see figure 2). The main causes were armed conflict, communal violence, political violence, and criminal violence. While some IDPs may only leave their homes for a relatively short period of time, repeated or cyclical displacement can still have a devastating impact on welfare for individuals and households. Figure 2: Top 10 Countries with Highest Number of Conflict-Induced IDPs Estimated Number of IDPs 7,000,000 6,495,000 6,000,000 5,576,000 5,512,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,635,000 2,993,000 3,000,000 2,648,000 2,583,000 2,134,000 2,000,000 1,555,000 1,414,000 1,000,000 - a q ia an an ria bia ria C en DR ali Ira op is t d Sy ge m lom m Su hi an Ni Ye So Et Co gh Af 15 In addition to conflict-induced IDPs, there are millions of people displaced each year by disasters. In 2019 more than 24.9 million people were displaced due to approximately 1,900 disasters the majority of which were weather related, and much of this displacement occurred in the form of pre-emptive evacuations. The frequency and scale of displacements due to sudden weather-related disasters are likely to increase in the future due to the effects of climate change. In addition, slow-onset disasters due to climate change, such as rising temperatures and protracted droughts, can exacerbate drivers of fragility, conflict, and forced displacement by increasing tensions over scarce natural resources and discontent over government responses. Climate change and its adverse effects on agricultural livelihoods and household incomes are also driving a harsh and desperate form of economic migration that might be characterized as migration under duress. In many fragile and conflict-affected settings, there are overlapping causes of vulnerability and displacement, as climate shocks diminish resilience to conflict and vice versa. In Somalia, for example, protracted conflict has aggravated the impacts of climate change and intensified economic hardship. Despite the overlapping characteristics of different types of forced displacement and migration under duress, there are nevertheless salient differences, including political economy dimensions and protection concerns, that necessitate specific development approaches. Forced displacement is not the only reason people migrate within their countries. People also move in search of better employment opportunities, services, and living conditions. In low- and middle-income countries in particular, a large proportion of internal migration occurs from rural to urban areas as industrial and service sectors emerge and grow. Globally, urbanization has led to an increase in the proportion of people living in urban areas from 30 percent in 1950 to 55 percent in 2018, and the proportion of people in urban areas is projected to increase substantially to 68 percent by 2050. Economic migrants, including those migrating from rural to urban areas, may use the same routes as IDPs, settle alongside IDPs, and share many of the same socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Conflict-induced internal displacement is characterized by the presence of security risks. These risks have become more complex and fluid since the end of the Cold War, with an increase in non-state armed groups (NSAGs) as key actors and perpetrators of violence and the deliberate targeting of civilians for political or strategic gains by both states and NSAGs. As a result, in Colombia, 78 percent of registered IDPs moved after having been direct victims of violence. Witnessing violence as well as the expectation of violence also drives large numbers of people to flee. As such, displacement does not come from the free will of the concerned person, but is imposed by the situation and the circumstances, and the threat of danger to life and security. 16 The factors causing displacement in the first place also form the key considerations for people to return. The reestablishment of safety tends to top the list of conditions IDPs require in order to return to their location of origin, while the availability of services and economic opportunities and ability to regain land and property also play important roles. However, studies on return intentions also show that this is a highly complex process that goes beyond a simple situational cost-benefit analysis. In some cases, increased well-being of the displaced in his/her host location may actually increase the likelihood of their return to their habitual location. And in others, the modalities linked to compensation may also influence incentives for return versus integration. In addition, the intersectionality of conflict drivers with those linked to climate change may also further complicate mobility patterns. Increasingly, cities are the preferred destination for IDPs, with more than half currently estimated to be living in urban areas. However, the variation in the rural-urban composition of IDP populations between countries is significant, reflecting both general urbanization rates as well as differing conflict characteristics. For people already on the move, urban centers often offer better economic opportunities and services, although rural displaced persons may not always have the skills required for urban jobs. Displacement to urban settings presents specific challenges which need to be considered in tailoring an appropriate response both in the emergency and recovery phases. IDPs are more likely to settle in peripheral, unplanned, insecure, or hazard-prone areas, which can hinder their ability to access livelihood opportunities and services and may increase their exposure to crime and violence. Once in urban settings, many IDPs — particularly women and youth — may be reluctant to return to rural areas if they have adopted income-generating strategies and benefited from improved access to services. Displaced children may never have known and may have no connection to the location of their parents’ habitual residence (including children who fled to another country). A proportion of IDPs comprise refugee returnees, who, upon return, are unable or unwilling to go back to their areas of origin. They may have lost access to land and/or property, there may not be adequate security conditions or services, or infrastructure and economic opportunities may still be lacking. In countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan, and Nigeria, these populations often add to the complexity and scale of an existing internal displacement crisis. At the analytical level, it is important to understand what the obstacles to returning are; the social, economic, or legal conditions that need to be in place for returning to take place; and the concerns related to security. Not only can the lack of such conditions hinder returning for those who wish to do so, but for those who do return, new rounds of displacement may reoccur, as returnees are at a risk of using displacement as a coping mechanism in response to deteriorating circumstances. 17 Available survey data and empirical literature on conflict-induced displacement indicate that IDPs frequently suffer from increased vulnerability and discrimination compared to other groups. Displacement leads to a substantial loss of assets, income, and access to services. The data and empirical literature consistently show poorer labor market outcomes for IDPs relative to other groups. With limited access to basic services, IDP youth and children frequently have lower school attendance rates and lower literacy levels compared to other groups. Poor health is a source of considerable vulnerability for IDP populations, exacerbated by difficulties accessing health care due to financial constraints, lack of adequate health care facilities, or restricted health insurance coverage. Importantly, individual and household characteristics may be more influential in determining social and economic vulnerability than the displacement situation. For example, in some settings household size, demographic composition, and personal characteristics, such as levels of education or employment status, may be more strongly correlated with vulnerability when compared with non-displaced populations. Moreover, a close look at the microdata on IDPs reveals significant variations within IDP populations in a given country. These can be related to such factors as cause of displacement, length of displacement, number of times a household has been displaced, urban versus rural background of IDPs, type of accommodation, whether IDPs are in camps or host community settlements, urban versus rural displacement location, locations, in the capital city versus other cities and districts, and the existence of social networks in displacement locations. There is also a significant gender dimension, including the gender of the head of household, as well as other core demographic characteristics such as age and disability. While analyses of the impact of refugee flows on host communities is available, little is known about the positive or negative impact of IDP inflows on host communities. Limited empirical research suggests that IDP inflows are associated with changes in food prices, increases in low-income rental prices (and decreases in high-income rental prices), and unfulfilled basic needs. The presence of IDPs can have adverse impacts on wages and employment opportunities for workers, particularly the low-skilled and those working in the informal sector. IDP inflows have in some situations also been shown to have a detrimental impact on educational attainment of students in displacement locations and can lead to land use changes that are detrimental for vegetation. There is no global legally binding framework on IDPs. The 1998 UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (Guiding Principles) established a normative framework that provides standards and recommendations, but they are not legally binding. The 2009 African Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons (Kampala Convention) is the 18 only regional binding legal framework. In 2010, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) adopted a Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons that aims to provide clarity on what constitutes a durable solution. A multi-stakeholder Plan of Action was launched at the 20th anniversary of the Guiding Principles (GP20). Nevertheless, the international human rights framework is relevant to the plight of IDPs—unlike refugees, IDPs have not crossed an international border and are citizens still within the territory of their home countries. As such they possess rights that their governments are legally obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill. Although human rights treaties do not contain explicit provisions on IDPs, they protect people against different forms of discrimination, exclusion, and heightened vulnerabilities, which are especially relevant to IDPs. Human rights treaties also protect a range of economic, social, and cultural rights to which all citizens, including IDPs, are entitled. These rights provide a relevant frame of reference when analyzing inclusive and non-discriminatory access to project benefits. Finally, during times of conflict IDPs, like all civilians, are entitled to the protections provided by international humanitarian law. The legal protection and assistance accorded to IDPs by individual states varies considerably across countries and regions. However, the number of countries that have developed national laws or policies in accordance with international standards continues to grow. Eighty-six countries currently have IDP laws and policies or are in the process of developing instruments for the prevention of, response to, and solutions for internal displacement. Approximately half of those countries are high- or middle-income countries, while half are low-income countries. There are essentially two main options for states to regulate their response to internal displacement — the adoption of stand-alone laws or policies specifically focused on IDPs, or alternatively, addressing internal displacement in broader legislation. Understanding the global scale and nature of internal displacement is complicated by both definitional and methodological challenges. The definition of IDPs in the Guiding Principles and mirrored in regional and national frameworks does not confer a legal status that is granted and eventually revoked, and so there is no explicit guidance for defining when internal displacement ends. As such, it is essentially a discretionary determination exercised by states. Aggregate estimates of IDP numbers are based on national definitions and hence not directly comparable. What it means to be an IDP varies significantly across countries. Some governments carry out periodic registration exercises, and IDPs are identified as individuals with specific rights, entitlements, and/or obligations deriving from their situation. In other contexts, IDP numbers mainly refer to broad estimates of the number of people who have been forced to leave their residences, with no clear identification of specific individuals. For example, there is no consensus on how far a person must flee in order to be considered internally displaced, the definition of internal displacement for nomadic populations, or whether children born to IDPs in displacement are themselves counted as IDPs. 19 3. World Bank Group Approach 20 The WBG has significantly expanded its analytical work on internal displacement, particularly since the endorsement of the development approach to forced displacement in 2016. Regional analyses have identified cross-border phenomena affecting conflict, as well as displacement dynamics. Social and socioeconomic assessments have aimed at gathering better evidence on the impact of displacement on displaced individuals and households. Political economy and conflict analyses have helped situate the issue within broader contextual challenges, enabling teams to better navigate the complex topic in a more comprehensive manner. The World Bank’s analytical work has also changed in nature, shifting from diagnostic work aimed at exploring WBG engagement, to a more sectoral analysis informing operations. Increased investment in data collection and analysis has strengthened the understanding of the nature of internal displacement. In the 14 countries where they have been undertaken, microdata surveys carried out since the early 2000s provide important information on the socioeconomic situation of IDPs. Over time, these surveys have broadened in scope to include the collection of comparable data across populations, rather than focusing exclusively on IDPs or comparisons between groups of IDPs. The recent World Bank harmonized surveys in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan provide a rich source of recent data and an extensive analysis on the socioeconomic status of both IDPs and host communities. Operational engagement on internal displacement is not new for the WBG. In the period between 2000–2020, the WBG financed 85 “IDP-inclusive projects.” These projects either had IDPs as direct beneficiaries, or the presence of IDPs within a community was a criterion for site selection. More than half of these projects are being/were implemented in the Africa region, with an additional portfolio in the Middle East and North Africa region and Europe and Central Asia regions, and with only a few activities in Latin America, the South Asia Region, and East Asia. Only a few projects have exclusively targeted IDPs and their hosts. Rather, most projects have taken an “inclusion approach,” seeking to address the needs of vulnerable populations, including IDPs. In some cases, the distribution of IDPs is used to prioritize areas of intervention, as was done in Yemen for a number of projects that were financed during the height of the conflict. In other cases, the projects target conflict-affected areas with a view to support conflict- and displacement-affected populations, such as the Multi-Sectoral Crisis Recovery Project for North Eastern Nigeria. The focus of WBG projects to date has been on service delivery, reconstruction, economic opportunities, and community development, with a limited amount of engagement in capacity building or policy reform. 21 Enhancing Economic and Job Opportunities in Cities with a High Influx of IDPs and Returnees The Eshteghal Zaiee-Karmondena (EZ-Kar) Project aims to strengthen the enabling environment for economic opportunities in cities that experience a high influx of displaced people—both refugee returnees and IDPs—in a context marked by unprecedented economic, demographic, fiscal, and environmental challenges for both displaced and non-displaced persons. The project works toward increasing the displacement-affected population's access to civil documents, providing short-term employment opportunities, improving market enabling infrastructure, and supporting investor friendly regulatory reforms. The project targets communities as a whole, rather than exclusively targeting IDPs and returnees, and places the emphasis on medium- to long-term development, rather than short-term humanitarian assistance. There is not always a clear link between analytics, planning, and programmatic and policy responses. The issue of internal displacement has not been addressed uniformly across such planning instruments such as Systematic Country Diagnostics (SCD) and Country Partnership Frameworks (CPFs). A background portfolio review to this paper covering 15 countries found that information on internal displacement in either the SCD or CPF did not always translate into a set of recommendations or dedicated operational responses. The availability of stand-alone analytical reports or surveys on IDPs did increase the level that information was captured at in diagnostic and strategy documents. Policy discussions and capacity building are taking place in about one-third of the countries reviewed, a reflection of the challenging political economy in many fragile states. 22 An agenda for strengthening the 4. World Bank Group’s contribution to internal displacement crises 23 The current international IDP framework is crucial for ensuring protection and assistance for IDPs in crisis situations but falls short in terms of providing medium-term socioeconomic approaches. International consensus is that “durable solutions” include return and reintegration, sustainable local integration in areas of refuge, or sustainable integration elsewhere in the country. In practice, these solutions have proved difficult to attain since they can imply establishing conditions that can be very difficult to realize, particularly in unstable, conflict-affected situations. Moreover, such comprehensive criteria for durable solutions often go beyond the development opportunities afforded to non-displaced households. As such, they may impede the emergence of more achievable socioeconomic improvements for both populations. A development approach to conflict-induced internal displacement needs to be broad so that it encompasses the needs of the country’s conflict-affected populations in general and have a longer horizon with a view to mitigate the risk of future conflict. A comprehensive response must take into consideration a combination of factors related to the needs of the displaced themselves, the non-displaced population, and the present conflict dynamics and potential drivers of future conflict. This requires that different actors across the humanitarian, development, security, and political spheres use their comparative advantages to analyze and respond to the challenges posed by the causes and consequences of internal displacement. The WBG has the scope and tools to address some of the areas that may prove more challenging for many humanitarian actors. By taking medium-term socioeconomic aspects of internal displacement into consideration, it can support activities that have a sustainable impact over time. Because of its reach across governments and sectors, the WBG can promote whole-of-government approaches and focus on institutions and policies. In IDP situations, however, the government-led approach can set limits on the reach of actors such as the WBG. This is true when governments are the enablers of displacement or when there is little political will to recognize and address the displacement. However, development assistance has also been used effectively to advance agendas (e.g., climate change and gender equality) in ways that stress shared benefits and allow governments to lead the national response. When feasible, such an approach not only strengthens national ownership and sustainability, but also helps minimize the establishment of parallel systems and dependency. 24 For the WBG, IDPs as a distinct population group are of concern when they have specific vulnerabilities that affect their ability to seize economic opportunities available to other nationals. This often results in a poverty trap. When such vulnerabilities are specific to the IDPs, and traditional poverty reduction efforts may not suffice or be accessible, tailored interventions may be needed. While the socioeconomic profile of IDPs varies across displacement situations, those with preexisting vulnerabilities will have lower levels of resilience to the additional shock of displacement. For example, displaced men and women, and boys and girls experience and face different types of risks and have different short-term and long-term needs based on their different roles and responsibilities in the households and in communities. The development response aims to overcome such vulnerabilities with a view to enabling IDPs to benefit from the same opportunities as the non-displaced. Development approaches also include a strong focus on host communities and local authorities. The arrival and inclusion of large numbers of people in specific locales is often a demographic shock that While this paper focuses on conflict-induced internal displacement, strong linkages exist with other related phenomena where collaboration must continue. Whether on climate-induced migration, urbanization, economic migration under duress, or the broader work on addressing conflicts, a number of global challenges and international agendas are of relevance to a development response to internal displacement. Using its broad, multisectoral development mandate, the WBG will continue to work across the institution to ensure coherence, learning, and interoperability, as well as engage with partners that are also effectively advancing these agendas. 25 creates both risks and opportunities for host communities. In most situations it transforms the environment in which poverty reduction efforts are being designed and implemented. For development actors, the goal is to help host communities and local authorities deal with these new circumstances and continue to make progress toward poverty reduction and shared prosperity in a transformed context, while providing an accepting environment for IDPs. Such an approach should not prescribe whether individuals integrate into their new location or return to their community of origin, but rather should support people in making their own choices based on existing conditions. Following are a number of overall recommendations for maximizing the WBG’s development contribution for IDPs and their hosts at country and organizational levels, as well as a discussion on financing and how the WBG leverages its global partnerships. It will offer entry points for WBG engagement in situations characterized by internal displacement as well as highlight some the parameters likely to define that scale and type of engagement. Country level engagement Recognize the Centrality of the Political Economy and Links to the Broader Conflict Context A key challenge for the WBG in addressing IDP situations through a government-led approach is that the same country is both the producer and host of the displaced population. Conflict-induced internal displacement is in most cases caused by endogenous drivers. As such, displacement cannot be addressed in isolation from the very same dynamics that caused it in the first place. In some instances, the government—and, hence, the World Bank client—may even be a critical actor in producing or exacerbating the violence and displacement. Some governments seek to minimize the gravity of a conflict to internal and/or international audiences, and consequently deny the existence or needs of IDPs. In other countries, long-standing territorial claims have led to the entrenchment of the displacement situation through the establishment of hurdles for local integration of IDPs, as they remain a key rationale for the continuous claim. In some instances, internal displacement may have broad implications for the demographic distribution of key groups (e.g., ethnic, socioeconomic, religious), which can impact electoral registries and constituencies. Both the distribution 26 and change in constituencies may impact national political balances and need to be understood before engaging with the client. Some governments resist using development resources to address IDP situations. While in many countries the government is keen to improve the situation of IDPs and considers this a key feature of its recovery and development priorities, critical resource constraints can limit responses. In some situations, the country is trying to address a multitude of different challenges and needs stemming from the conflict, and highlighting the needs of one group over others can be difficult to justify, particularly where there is insufficient information to determine what specific needs IDPs have relative to an overall impoverished host population. In other situations, the displaced population is perceived to be associated with opposition groups and is therefore not prioritized when resources are distributed. Designing an adequate and comprehensive response therefore requires a thorough understanding of the broader context within which support is provided beyond purely technical considerations. Given the close links between the underlying conflict and the displacement situation, engagement in the latter has the potential of aggravating the former, and hence carries a risk of doing harm. The driving forces behind a government’s plan for promoting either return, local integration, or settlement elsewhere in the country can be based on considerations beyond the interests of the displaced or their hosts. At the same time, retaining a short-term focus on the immediate humanitarian needs of these populations has often led to a consolidation of a path dependency that could be detrimental to the long-term effort of stabilization and reconciliation. Including such reflections will be critical for development interventions to support achieving not only sustainable solutions, but also to contribute to the prevention of a relapse into conflict. Where available, Risk and Resilience Assessments can be used to help understand the conflict context. 27 Understanding the Impact of Conflict and Internal Displacement on the WBG Portfolio in Ethiopia Since 2016, Ethiopia has witnessed increased tension and violence, and consequently a large increase in the number of IDPs in several of the country’s regions. In addition to their effects on lives and livelihoods, both conflict and displacement have impacted development outcomes and WBG-supported development projects. As a result, the Ethiopia WBG team undertook a study aimed at supporting conflict and displacement-sensitive program and project design, implementation, and preparation of supervision tools for the country portfolio. In addition to providing a granular understanding of the drivers and nature of the conflicts and displacement, the study also developed guidance for task teams to ensure that current and future WBG projects proactively manage the significant risks of operating in violence-prone IDP sending, hosting, and returning areas, and do not further exacerbate conflict. Base Interventions on a Solid Understanding of the Affected Populations and Their Environments Aggregated numbers hide some fundamental variations across situations that impact what an adequate response should look like. As a way to designate a group of people who share key socioeconomic characteristics that distinguish them from others, the concept of “IDP” is not particularly instructive: it aggregates situations that have little in common, from people surviving in the midst of ongoing violence in Syria to people who have been rebuilding their lives in the slums of Bogota for over a generation. These people may have more in common with people living near them than with each other. A better understanding of the displaced and their hosts is fundamental to address the needs of these vulnerable populations. For example, understanding the link between displacement and residency patterns, or a household-level analysis highlighting the different impact of displacement on members, will impact needs, policy requirements, and hence planned interventions. The WBG should continue to further roll out its efforts to collect and 28 analyze socioeconomic data on mobile populations, including IDPs. The WBG-UNHCR Joint Data Center on Forced Displacement supports countries’ efforts to improve socioeconomic data on the affected populations with the expanded use of surveys and statistics. In addition, stand- alone surveys or inclusion of displacement situations in national household surveys or a census can provide valuable data to governments to inform policy and development planning. Disaggregated Poverty Assessments The 2019 Somalia Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment describes poverty in Somalia in detail, including geographical variation, based on the Somali High Frequency Survey 2017, Wave 2 with a view to inform long-term development policies and programs. In addition to other groupings, the data are disaggregated by displaced/non-displaced persons, allowing for a thorough understanding of the challenges faced by rural and urban IDPs in comparison with the non-displaced Somalis. In addition to being a rich source on issues such as poverty and access to services, it also provides insights into the drivers of displacement and intentions for return. Source: World Bank 2019: Somalia Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment. Promoting sustainable solutions must also be based on an understanding of the environments in which IDPs are to integrate or return to. Calls to transform assistance from humanitarian to development approaches in makeshift or camp environments, for example, can create risks of entrenching settlements in what are basically economically or environmentally unsustainable environments. Sparsely populated land is often so for a reason, and the lack of available land or fragile or unproductive ecosystems could complicate efforts to more permanently settle the displaced in rural settings. Similarly, not all urban areas will be able to provide conditions for longer-term integration. IDPs often move only as far as needed to keep linkages with their home region as much as possible, and then move again if the conflict moves closer. This dynamic can make it more difficult to look at long-term solutions if the conflict persists. A dynamic approach that considers forward-looking trends rather than “what was” is critical to ensure sustainability. The intertwining conditions that drove the displacement, including conflict, environmental, and economic, have also impacted the overall environment within which solutions will have to be found. Infrastructure damage assessments and needs assessments may mainly capture yesterday’s or immediate needs, but not the extent to which 29 they are suited to circumstances altered by the conflict, demographic or environmental changes, or a new policy environment. Attention must be paid to how a country’s broader policy framework can prove either supportive of IDPs and hosts or detrimental to them. Even with a good IDP policy framework in place, other types of policies, rules, or regulations that were not designed with IDPs in mind can effectively have an outsized impact on IDPs and their decision on where to locate. For example, policies that are location specific—for obtaining/renewal of documentation, payment of salaries/safety nets, etc.—need to be taken into account in the design of interventions aimed at the inclusion of IDPs. In addition, the responsibility for delivering on or enforcing national policies often lies with local governments in conflict-affected countries that may be severely constrained by weak technical, financial, and/or human resources, or where local views of the displaced may influence efforts. More evidence on what works is needed to inform policy recommendations, develop sound interventions, and to enable effective synergies between humanitarian and development actors. Lessons from the WBG’s and other actors’ efforts to address, for example, the challenges stemming from urbanization, disaster-induced displacement, marginalization, and refugee situations can inform the approach to conflict-induced IDP situations. This could include responses and delivery mechanisms that have been able to deliver results ranging from the extension of existing social safety net programs to employment policy changes that allow the displaced to use their skills and boost the local economy, providing effective education solutions or strengthening social cohesion. The WBG has launched a significant effort to strengthen analytics through a series of impact evaluations, and it is committed to further expand this work. 30 Integrating Displacement and Conflict Economic Analysis The 2021 Economic Recovery in Eastern Ukraine report aims to inform policy decisions by national authorities and international partners by generating an evidence base rooted in economic principles. It combines an understanding of the economic and social trends in Donbas in the run-up to the conflict in 2014, with an analysis of the mechanisms through which the conflict has changed these dynamics a key one being the deepening demographic ageing caused by displacing a large number of people, especially those who are young and economically active. The disproportionate displacement of younger generations toward other places in Ukraine, and the low likelihood of returning by many of them, have consequences both for the efforts to promote post-conflict economic growth in the region as well as policies aimed at finding durable solutions for the displaced. Taking these constraints into account, the report analyzes the effectiveness of different policy interventions under various conflict continuation scenarios. Design Interventions that Encompass Conflict and Displacement Dimensions For development actors designing projects, the critical dimensions to be taken into consideration are associated with two inter-linked aspects—the conflict dynamics leading to the displacement and the various phases of displacement. It is important to note that several different conflict dynamics can be at play simultaneously in the same country and may not fall neatly into the categories outlined in Figure 3. Similarly, different displacement phases can also be present at the same time, as conflicts go through waves of intensity or geographical reach. 31 Figure 3: Conflict Dynamics and Displacement Phases The Conflict Dynamics The Phases of Displacement • Active conflicts with high levels of violence and • Acute displacement situations with widespread general insecurity, which affects the whole or large movements and regular new flows of people part(s) of a country, and where there is little room for characterized by an imminent need for basic development interventions; necessities, such as food, shelter, and basic services such as water and sanitation and health; • Conflicts with lower levels of hostilities or sporadic violence, often with localized insecurity and where • Stable displacement situations in relative safety development interventions exist or can be envisaged characterized by a continuation of temporary for the population as a whole; and measures and parallel services provisions, but with no sustainable solutions in sight; and • Ceased conflicts with limited violence but yet unresolved issues related to the conflict or the • Transition to sustainable situations characterized by displaced themselves and where development the removal of the vulnerabilities associated with interventions exist or can be envisaged for the displacement through further inclusion into host population as a whole communities, relocation, or return to location of origin Engagement in IDP situations requires objectives that reflect both the relevant political economy and the specific vulnerabilities of the displacement-affected populations and their hosts. Defining clear priorities and realistic development objectives are critical to ensure not only effectiveness in the delivery of interventions, but that engagement is not detrimental to other national and international efforts to reduce conflict and violence in the country. In some contexts, pressures to continue humanitarian engagement in “the development phase” may be high, but may not be appropriate from a sustainability perspective that also has to take into account factors such as the characteristics of the underlying conflict, the needs of the non- displaced in addition to those displaced, and the wider political economy and government position. Despite an international consensus on the need to find “durable solutions” to IDP situations, what constitutes the “end” of internal displacement can be difficult to identify at the country level. Particularly in the earlier phases of displacement, there tends to be a strong focus on return as the optimal resolution to the displacement situations, whether by the displaced themselves, their host communities, governments, or international actors. However, as the displacement situation becomes more protracted, the ambiguity around the concepts of durable solutions increases. For example, in the case of urbanized IDPs who are not able or willing to return to rural areas, when does one cease to be an IDP? Some of the commonly 32 used definitions—for example, when people no longer have needs arising from their forced displacement—place the bar so high that it is almost impossible to reach in many developing countries, which partly explains the continued rise in the number of IDPs worldwide. A satisfactory outcome of WBG engagement in IDP situations is helping IDPs reach a “level playing field” with the non-displaced. This would entail focusing on the specific vulnerabilities of the displaced, as well as working toward policies, institutions, and operational interventions that do not—willingly or unwillingly—discriminate against mobile populations. Helping the IDPs mitigate the negative displacement-related impacts on their situation, but without further promoting status-based interventions, would allow IDPs to benefit from regular development opportunities and provide agency to their lives after displacement. Interventions should thus avoid addressing the needs of the displaced population in isolation from other vulnerable groups, whether conflict affected or not. In contexts characterized by active conflict and acute displacement, the fluidity of the context and high levels of insecurity will necessarily limit the scope and reach of development interventions. The conditions for addressing the medium-term dimensions of the crisis will not be in place, and access for development actors will be limited. Engagement in these situations should therefore be seen within the WBG’s overall efforts to ensure that its interventions in active conflict situations add value and minimize harm, e.g., by focusing on shorter-term objectives such as the preservation of human or institutional capital. The WBG has gained valuable experience in Yemen and South Sudan, including the use of third-party implementation modalities as well as the application of the ESF. The establishment of the Remaining Engaged in Conflict Allocation (RECA) under IDA19 has further institutionalized the intention to remain relevant in such difficult contexts. While considerations for laying the foundation for sustainable solutions and peace building may come into play, priority is likely to be on the preservation and strengthening of basic services such as health and education. Interventions could thus focus on critical service delivery, benefiting conflict-affected populations more broadly, including IDPs. In lower intensity or localized conflicts with a mix of acute and stable displacement situations, but where significant development activities are ongoing, the WBG can apply its comparative advantages to focus on the medium- to long-term socioeconomic aspects of the displacement situation. These types of situations are often characterized by concurrent humanitarian and development needs, for both displaced and host populations. In the context of a thorough assessment of the political economy and needs of affected populations, objectives can focus on mitigating the negative impacts of displacement, assisting people in need, or supporting the achievement of durable solutions, whether related to return or 33 local inclusion. Many displacement challenges can be addressed through several of the WBG’s core operations related to economic and social well-being, such as increasing access to markets or services, or support to private sector development. Interventions aimed at addressing policy or institutional shortcomings can also leverage the comparative advantages of the WBG, complementing the efforts of humanitarian and peace building actors. In ceased conflicts with stable displacement situations, WBG objectives should focus on sustainable socioeconomic solutions with a focus on policy reform and institutional capacity building. Where national policies result in keeping affected populations vulnerable or disadvantaged, the WBG can support pragmatic interventions that build on the existing country program and dialogue. Dedicated analytical work can provide the basis for a better understanding of the specific needs of IDPs and help inform dialogue with government and the design of operations. National programs could further ensure IDPs are included as dedicated beneficiaries and recognize that they may have additional difficulties accessing services and economic opportunities, as well as define the burden on host communities. Entry points for institutional capacity building can include strengthening dedicated agencies or leveraging international lessons learned in existing line ministries or agencies. Finally, more detailed monitoring of IDPs as a separate beneficiary category can help ensure inclusive access to program benefits, while providing information on any specific risks they may face or relations with host communities. Lessons learned can further help inform policy dialogue. Supporting Government Leadership to Address the Development Impacts of Conflict and Internal Displacement in Ukraine World Bank (WB) support to the Government of Ukraine’s IDP response reflects a gradual approach where WB comparative advantages and partnerships have played a key role. The outbreak of hostilities in the Donbas region and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 resulted in more than 1.5 million IDPs. While humanitarian organizations and bilateral development partners have provided on the ground support in the east of the country, the WB has focused on building knowledge and institutional capacity at the national level, which are key building blocks for a medium-term socioeconomic development response. The World Bank has helped reinforce national outreach and support to eastern populations by building the capacity of a new Ministry for Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally Displaced Persons to address the development impacts of the conflict. 34 Organizational response Use the WBG’s Tools and Expertise on Exclusion and Marginalization The WBG’s analytical expertise on marginalized groups can inform WBG diagnostic work and strategies on internal displacement. The WBG has rapidly increased its ability to include mobile populations, including IDPs, in its survey work by tailoring its sampling methodology to account for displaced populations and conducting displacement-focused surveys, among other things. For example, the extensively disaggregated data of the 2019 Somalia Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment provide a rich and nuanced picture of poverty and vulnerability of IDPs in settlements relative to other groups. Lessons on women’s inclusion and disability show that such in-depth data not only help in the design of the operational response but also support a dialogue with government regarding prioritization of engagement and the need to apply a broad spectrum of operational and policy responses. Valuable operational experience on the inclusion of marginalized groups can be applied to displacement situations. In many instances, stand-alone operations focused exclusively on IDPs may not be the most appropriate or effective way to support displacement-affected populations. Identifying the ways in which internally displaced groups are excluded from development assistance and supporting measures to overcome these obstacles can be a more effective way to increase international assistance for IDPs. Using an exclusion lens may in certain instances help overcome the reluctance to address displacement with development finance. Studies show that exclusion is costly. While measuring the cost of exclusion is far from straightforward, in displacement contexts, the social, political, and economic costs are likely to be substantial. Focusing on the domains associated with inclusion, such as access to markets, can help guide potential WBG engagement. The critical challenge here is to overcome a tendency to view displacement in temporary terms, which hinders addressing key underlying policies and institutional issues before ad hoc projects are implemented. Markets encompass land, housing, labor, and credit—all areas where IDPs tend to fare worse than non-displaced, and all areas where the WBG has significant experience and a comparative advantage. Addressing issues of land and property is crucial to mitigate the risk of future grievances and conflict. The provision of adequate and affordable housing for both IDPs and host communities is a key priority in many displacement crises. In general, many countries are unable to keep up demand, particularly in urban settings, resulting in expanding areas of informal housing, overcrowding, and slums. 35 Access to services is another area where discrimination can undermine the value of development interventions for IDPs. Here again, the perceived temporary nature of the displacement, lack of funds, and inelastic supply can hinder the expansion of infrastructure and services in areas hosting IDPs. But other complex issues may also be at play, including, for example, a reluctance to provide incentives for IDPs to stay, the requirement of IDs to access services, or linguistic barriers. The WBG can leverage its long-standing relationships with line ministries that are involved in the key areas of intervention of importance to IDPs, returnees, and hosts (including social safety nets, agriculture, schools, health care, social cohesion, etc.) to ensure that these populations are included in sectoral policies and interventions. Addressing complex exclusion and marginalization situations has taught development actors the value of multisectoral approaches and the need to work with a variety of actors. The WBG’s deep engagement in many of the sectors that are critical to addressing the needs of IDPs and their hosts—whether in the early onset, or during or after displacement— places it in a good position to take a holistic approach at both operational and policy levels. The WBG has also built a body of experience on preparedness and shock responses—albeit focused primarily on disasters—by working with both national and local authorities. Where relevant, lessons from these experiences may be applied in IDP contexts, including the use of adaptive social safety nets, contingency planning, and so forth. The WBG also has extensive experience working with local authorities, who are often the “first responders” shouldering the burden of responding to IDP situations. The WBG could thus play an important role in strengthening the ability of local governments to deal with inflows of IDPs—whether related to planning or establishing flexible funding, or allowing for sudden changes in populations and a demand for services. 36 Supporting Returnees and IDPs in Sri Lanka The 20-year civil conflict in Sri Lanka led to the displacement of 800,000 persons and widespread destruction of infrastructure. After a cease-fire agreement was signed in 2002, over 60 percent of the displaced families returned to their homes in the northeastern region. In 2005 the World Bank supported the Government of Sri Lanka with the North East Housing Reconstruction Program to support the affected and returning population by providing housing support cash grants and regularization of land titles to targeted beneficiaries. For selected populations unable or unwilling to return, the Puttalam Housing Project supported their integration by providing housing, drinking water, and sanitation facilities to both IDPs and a limited number of select non-IDPs in host communities, and rehabilitating selected internal roads. The North East Housing Reconstruction Unit established under the project continued to function even after the completion of World Bank projects to help other international and government agencies to provide housing and local infrastructure development support for IDP families in the North and the East. on the affected populations with the expanded use of surveys and statistics. In addition, stand- alone surveys or inclusion of displacement situations in national household surveys or a census can provide valuable data to governments to inform policy and development planning. The WBG can do more to build an understanding of how its interventions in traditional and emerging sectors can be used to address the specific vulnerabilities of the internally displaced. This could be done through a more concerted effort to examine how internal displacement may hinder equal access to and full benefit from operations in each sector. In addition, further work should also be done to continuously identify the lessons of previous experiences and good practices in real time. With respect to investment projects, the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) is a powerful tool that can be leveraged to help IDPs that face discrimination and exclusion in their access to development benefits. The application of the ESF can help to ensure that IDPs are not adversely impacted by WBG operations. Moreover, going beyond ‘do no harm,’ the ESF aims to maximize development gains. In its vision statement, the ESF emphasizes the WBG’s commitment to inclusion, meaning empowering all people to participate in and benefit 37 from the development process. Beyond risk mitigation, the ESF must be used as a vehicle to address and minimize obstacles to IDPs benefiting from WBG financed operations—whether those obstacles stem from the policy, institutional, or design levels. When prepared upstream, ESF assessments and analyses can thoroughly inform project design. While inclusion and equity are at the core of the ESF, it also provides guidance on the different types of analyses for understanding socioeconomic factors, and political and conflict dynamics—the types of assessments that are important for engaging in IDP issues. Through WBG due diligence and risk assessments, the context, stakeholders, and beneficiaries, including the most vulnerable, are identified. The ESF calls for the integration of meaningful consultation, stakeholder engagement, and grievance mechanisms which are key to addressing potential risks such as discrimination, access, and inequity, which could support inclusion of IDPs regardless of the status provided by the government. Consistently applied, the ESF could help ensure that significant amounts of development funding are properly applied in projects designed to assist vulnerable IDPs. While not being easily identified as “IDP funding” per se, securing access by vulnerable IDP populations to WBG operations in such critical areas as service delivery, economic opportunities, housing, land, and property could bring much needed international development financing into the international IDP response. At the same time, it would not be prescriptive about what constitutes durable solutions for the affected individuals, nor would it necessarily give privileged access linked to an individual’s designation as an IDP. Importantly, the WBG also has valuable experience in addressing the demographic shocks affecting host communities. Existing interventions (e.g., service delivery or social protection projects) can be diverted toward areas that have come under pressure to increase the absorptive capacity of host communities. For example, the WBG in Cameroon is preparing an education project that is building on an existing refugee and host community project to build capacity in the regions and absorbing a large number of IDPs. 38 The Role of the Private Sector in Internal Displacement Situations As articulated in the WBG’s FCV Strategy, the private sector can play an important role in responding to forced displacement situations by serving as a key source of growth, jobs, and resilience. However, it is important to contextualize the role the private sector can play in specific displacement situations and recognize that internal displacement poses some particular challenges. Similar to the overall approach, government willingness to address the issue is critical. Without addressing and overcoming government reluctance for delivering private sector solutions in the context of internal displacement in specific countries, it might be difficult for private sector actors and development partners promoting private sector solutions for IDPs to engage in the internal displacement situations in the short term. While there is a growing understanding of the impact of the flow of forcibly displaced persons on host communities, there is still a pressing need for further evidence and data on the impact of private sector efforts that would benefit IDPs and their host communities. Such new data or further evidence would help to strengthen understanding of the overall market potential for private sector engagement in addressing the displacement situations. To illustrate, the Global Protection Cluster’s “GP20 Compilation of National Practices to Prevent, Address and Find Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement” showcases a few examples of collaboration with/and the role the private sector plays in internal displacement contexts (e.g., in Afghanistan and Somalia) to support livelihoods, and employment and access to jobs for IDPs. These examples, albeit limited, could further inform private sector interventions and address enabling environments conducive to private sector development in the internal displacement context. The support to IDPs through the private sector should be framed as part of a broader developmental response supporting IDPs, as well as host and vulnerable communities in specific displacement contexts. Therefore, an “inclusive business lens” could be adopted to highlight opportunities for the private sector to generate jobs that lead to rising incomes and livelihoods while benefiting the IDPs, and to contribute to levelling the playing field for IDPs with non-displaced/host communities. Opportunities for potential private sector interventions in internal displacement situations are likely in the areas of access to finance and mobile money, affordable housing, provision of goods and services, and livelihoods, as well as the inclusion or integration of IDPs into local value chains. However, it is critical to contextualize the role private sector can play in specific displacement situations to identify the areas where private sector engagement can create the most impact. 39 Systematically Include IDPs in Development Operations The continuous increase in the global number of IDPs, in combination with a humanitarian system under pressure from a multitude of crises, strengthens the argument for increased development resources to be directed toward internal displacement situations. The creation of dedicated financing for refugees and their hosts under IDA18 and IDA 19 has, to some extent, increased expectations that displaced populations—whether or not they have crossed a border—warrant the allocation of additional resources compared to the host client. However, the rationale for the establishment of such earmarked funds was the lack of incentives for refugee hosting countries to use their finite development resources for noncitizens, a rationale that does not apply to IDP situations. In fact, linking the provision of additional resources to the number of IDPs in a given country could create counterproductive incentives. Determining whether (and by how much) displaced persons should be given priority over other groups of vulnerable and poor people is a decision that is best made at the country level. IDPs are nationals of their countries, and any prioritization of needs and assistance among nationals is a politically loaded decision, especially in fragile contexts. Having access to credible socioeconomic data on both displaced and non-displaced groups plays a crucial role in determining the optimal use of country allocations. The prioritization of needs and target beneficiaries should be done within allocated country envelopes and allocations, and efforts should focus on ensuring they are large enough to accommodate the considerable needs in conflict-affected countries rather than establishing earmarked allocations. The creation of the FCV envelope under IDA19 significantly increases the allocations for low-income countries most affected by violent conflict—and also some of the largest producers (and hosts) of internally displaced people. The Remaining Engaged in Conflict Allocation (RECA) will provide a base level of support to countries in high-intensity conflict, allowing the WBG to continue development activities that preserve institutions and human capital. Building on the experience in Yemen from IDA18, where the portfolio of emergency projects uses the intensity of displacement to prioritize areas of intervention, similar models could be used for RECA recipients under IDA19. The Prevention and Resilience Allocation will allow countries in medium-intensity conflict to receive up to 75 percent of their performance- based allocation to prevent the escalation of conflict by addressing the drivers of the conflict. This provides an opportunity to assess the role of internal displacement as a consequence of conflict and as an obstacle to peace. Finally, countries coming out of conflict will also be able to access the Turn-Around Allocation aimed at stabilizing and escaping the conflict trap. For all 40 three allocations, the eligibility process and annual monitoring will allow for a thorough discussion of the displacement situation in the country and its centrality in the WBG approach to address the diverse manifestations of violent conflict. For middle-income countries and low-income countries with lower levels of conflict, additional resources may not be available to address the multitudes of conflict impacts. Here, using the same principles to assess the priority of IDP needs in comparison with those of other vulnerable populations will guide resource allocation. At the country level, this includes making a broad assessment of needs across conflict-affected populations. At the project level, the ESF can help minimize barriers for displaced populations’ access to development opportunities provided within regular the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA) allocations. A systematic inclusion of an “IDP lens” in affected countries could go beyond regular investment financing to maximize impact. In contexts open to policy interventions related to internal displacement, development policy operations (DPOs) can provide an entry point for addressing the legal framework, obstacles to access, or potential protection issues. Other funding streams may also widen the possibilities for IDP-friendly initiatives. As an example, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to pose additional challenges for IDPs, but could also create opportunities to advance solutions. Pandemic response funds that support national and local authorities implementing various economic, infrastructure, or services should therefore include measures to account for the vulnerabilities or obstacles faced by internally displaced populations. Using DPOs to support the integration of IDPs into the social protection systems Facing a rapidly increasing internal displacement crisis, two DPOs in Burkina Faso support the establishment of a robust social protection system and explicitly provide for the inclusion of IDPs in this system. The Second Fiscal Management, Sustainable Growth and Health Service Delivery Development Policy Operation includes a trigger on the adoption of subsidy mechanisms to cover the needs of the most vulnerable populations, including eligible internally displaced persons. Similarly, as part of the Burkina Faso COVID-19 Crisis-Response Development Policy Financing, one of the Prior Actions provides ID credentials to indigent individuals. It explicitly includes eligible IDPs: of the target group to whom an identity credential adapted to the foundational ID platform will be issued, 30 percent will be IDPs. 41 With a focus on a needs-based engagement, certain situations may warrant IDP-focused interventions from the WBG. Such situations could include engagement in the early stages of a displacement crisis where the WBG has an opportunity to add a development perspective to the immediate response, e.g., through supporting reforms or institutions. Here, as for all WBG engagement, attention should be paid to the political economy of the displacement situation as well as potential protection concerns. Global engagement Engage in Efforts to Advance the Global Response to Situations of Internal Displacement Based on its comparative advantages, the WBG is part of a global effort to rethink the existing approach to situations of internal displacement. The UN Secretary General has recently established a High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement, which is working to identify innovative and concrete solutions, including specific recommendations for affected states and other relevant stakeholders. The WGB is providing input and advice stemming from its extensive development experience, including lessons drawn from addressing the needs of vulnerable and/or marginalized populations through government-led approaches. Where appropriate, the WBG will use its convening power to support other global or regional initiatives aimed at an improved development response to conflict-induced internal displacement. This could include support to the domestication and implementation of the Kampala Convention, or policy initiatives at the global level. With its expertise on socioeconomic data, the WBG can play an important role in supporting the harmonization of definitions and statistical methodologies. In addition to providing valuable guidance on the production of high quality data, the work on establishing the International Recommendations on IDP Statistics has advanced the dialogue on how to define internal displacement. The work of the Expert Group on Refugee and IDP Statistics (EGRIS), established by the UN Statistical Commission, will now focus on the implementation of the recommendations through capacity building and other efforts over the next three to five years. The WBG has engaged actively in this process to offer its expertise, where relevant, as well as to benefit from the outcomes. 42 The WBG-UNHCR Joint Data Center on Forced Displacement (JDC) will be a key element in the WBG’s effort to strengthen this harmonization. The JDC is also set up to support countries to improve socioeconomic data on affected populations, with an aim to expand the use of surveys and statistics, building on work already completed by EGRIS. This work will complement the critical work done by other organizations supporting the understanding and data collection on internal displacement, such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and their Displacement Tracking Matrix, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC), and the Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS). Work in Partnership to Ensure Complementarity The WBG’s ability to deliver effective support in IDP situations is dependent on strong collaboration with other partners, whether multilateral or bilateral, civil society, or the private sector. Partnerships are critical to ensure that the World Bank and its partners leverage their areas of comparative advantage and respect the distinct but complementary roles they each play, particularly in contexts where development agendas are subsumed by political negotiations and security concerns. Ideally, these partnerships represent an optimal triangulation between the humanitarian concerns of IDPs, the development concerns of the entire population, and the mitigation of future conflict. Ensuring the adequate protection of IDPs requires support from more specialized agencies. Governments retain the primary responsibility for IDP protection consistent with their international human rights obligations. Governments are required to take action to progressively realize economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR), such as the right to education and health and to do so in a non-discriminatory way.19 ESCR substantially overlaps with development activities in that they share significant subject matter coverage. Given the limitation of the WBG mandate with respect to human rights, the role of partnerships may be helpful in this context. Current international arrangements for IDPs are organized on a collective basis, with individual organizations or agencies responsible for coordinating sectoral interventions.20 The WBG’s engagement on refugees has been greatly facilitated by a strong partnership with UNHCR, which covers both legal and protection aspects of refugees, as well as the operational humanitarian and development response. The more complex system in place for IDPs can make it harder to engage in countries where internal displacement is a new issue for the WBG or where donor coordination mechanisms on the issue are weak or lacking. It can also make it more challenging to find complementary partners to address issues where the WBG has less experience and/or mandate, for example, on issues such as protection. 43 With its sectoral expertise and strong engagement with affected governments, the WBG should continue to engage in these and other forums to help strengthen the development elements of sustainable solutions. Effective synergies require building on each entity’s mandates and comparative advantages and ensuring that high-level strategic partnerships translate into concrete cooperation at the operational level. But incentives, processes, and budget cycles are not always aligned, and may complicate cooperation. Notably, cooperation tends to be smoother in contexts of emergency or in very fragile situations, and more difficult in situations where fragility and displacement are not a major part of the World Bank’s core policy dialogue with authorities. In any event, effective collaboration requires a substantive up-front investment in building links across institutions, as approaches are often fragmented with parallel projects in both development and humanitarian communities, which duplicate efforts and deplete the capacity of governments to manage. A critical assessment needs to be done in each case that aims to maximize complementarity and synergies with humanitarian actors, while ensuring that short-term objectives do not undermine a comprehensive and conflict-sensitive development approach. At times, humanitarian and development objectives do not easily align. Most humanitarian agencies address the critical short- to medium-term needs without taking the wider context into consideration. In most cases, this is not at odds with a medium- to long-term horizon; however, sometimes it may be at odds. 44 5. Managing risks 45 The risks associated with engagement with IDPs are significant for the WBG. Political considerations are often an essential component of fragility and conflict-induced internal displacement, as described above—yet the WBG is limited in its role and mandate in dealing with such issues. WBG support to displaced people can thus be interpreted as a political position. For this reason, the WBG plays the most effective role as part of a broader coalition by working in close partnership with the UN and key bilateral partners. Many displacement situations are situated in fragile environments—environments that are inherently complex. In contexts characterized by high levels of conflict, strengthening WBG engagement in such situations—whether to help reduce fragility risks or to support IDPs and host communities—comes with security risks. It has to strike a balance between expectations that the WBG expand its engagement in fragile situations and, while ensuring the safety of staff and consultants. To date, this has been managed by carefully balancing the need to expand footprint while also investing heavily in security and protection of staff, and by relying on third-party monitoring to limit exposure. Operational risks tend to be high in fragile situations. Expectations are high, and national institutional capacity in these settings tends to be weak. Moreover, the recovery from fragility is typically a complex, fluctuating process. A key challenge for the WBG is to ensure that risks are managed to enable continued and steady involvement. In addition, efforts are needed to ensure that interventions are appropriately designed at both the program level (to effectively address fragility risks) and the project level, for example with expanded use of fragility assessments to diagnose risks and opportunities. This also requires allowing for adequate WBG support for policy dialogue and project preparation and implementation; staffing (in terms of numbers, skills mix, and location) and the availability of adequate budget resources are the critical factors in this context. 46 Annex 1: Overview of Portfolio — WBG Lending Projects with an IDP Focus, 2000–2020 & Annex 2: WBG Portfolio of Lending Projects with an IDP Focus, 2000–2020 47 Annex 1: Overview of Portfolio — WBG Lending Projects with an IDP Focus, 2000 – 2020 At the end of fiscal year 2020, 84 closed or ongoing projects distributed in 31 countries included a focus on IDPs. More than half (54%) were in the African region, followed by the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) and the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) regions with, respectively, 15 percent and 14 percent of the WBG operational portfolio with an IDP focus (see Figure 4). Figure 4: Number of IDP Projects in WBG Lending Portfolio REGION NUMBER OF IDP PROJECTS PER REGION Africa 46 East Asia & Pacific 4 Europe & Central Asia 12 Latin America & Caribbean 3 Middle East & North Africa 13 South Asia 7 GRAND TOTAL 85 Source: Portfolio review based on the World Bank Operations Portal. 48 Almost a third of the projects are mapped to the Social Protection and Jobs (32%), followed by Social Sustainability and Inclusion (20%), Health, Nutrition and Population (17%) and Urban, Resilience and Land (15%). However, projects across a broad range of Global Practices included components that focused on benefiting IDPs as indicated in Figure 5. Figure 5: Number of WBG-Financed IDP-Focused Projects Per Global Practice IDP Focused Projects Per Global Practice SPJ 27 SOC 17 HNP 14 URL 13 EDU 4 FCI 3 AG 3 GOV 2 MTI 1 Figure 5: List of Acronyms SPJ Social Protection & Jobs SOC Social Sustainability & Inclusion HNP Health, Nutrition & Population URL Urban, Resilience & Land EDU Education FCI Finance, Competitiveness & Innovation AG Agriculture GOV Governance MTI Macroeconomics, Trade & Investment Source: Portfolio review based on the World Bank Operations Portal. 49 Annex 2: WBG Portfolio of Lending Projects with an IDP Focus, 2000 – 2020 Project Fiscal Agreement Project Country Region Sector Budget Name Year Type Herat Electrification Social Sustainability P162022 Afghanistan 2017 South Asia IDA $60,000,000 Project & Inclusion Citizens' Charter Afghanistan Project — Emergency Social Sustainability P163468 Afghanistan Regional 2017 South Asia IDA $172,000,000 & Inclusion Displacement Response Additional Financing Afghanistan: Eshteghal Zaiee Social Sustainability P166127 Afghanistan 2018 South Asia IDA $150,000,000 — Karmondena & Inclusion (EZ-Kar) Project Great Lakes Initiative Health, Nutrition P080413 Africa on HIV/AIDS (GLIA) 2005 Africa IDA $20,000,000 & Population Support Regional HIV/AIDS Health, Nutrition P104523 Africa 2007 Africa RETF $22,324,914 Partnership Program & Population Structural Europe & P055131 Azerbaijan 2002 Governance IDA $60,000,000 Adjustment Credit 2 Central Asia IDP Economic Europe & Social Sustainability P089751 Azerbaijan Development 2005 IDA $26,407,064 Central Asia & Inclusion Support Project Judicial Europe & P099201 Azerbaijan 2006 Governance IDA $55,000,000 Modernization Central Asia IDP Living Standards Europe & Social Sustainability P122943 Azerbaijan 2012 IBRD $116,700,000 & Livelihoods Project Central Asia & Inclusion Employment Support Europe & Social Protection P171250 Azerbaijan 2020 IBRD $100,000,000 Project Central Asia & Jobs Finance, Bosnia and Local Initiatives Europe & P066169 2001 Competitiveness IDA $20,000,000 Herzegovina (Microfinance) 2 Central Asia & Innovation Second Social Social Protection P064510 Burundi 2000 Africa IDA $26,200,000 Action Project & Jobs 50 Project Fiscal Agreement Project Country Region Sector Budget Name Year Type Emergency Finance, P064556 Burundi Economic Recovery 2000 Africa Competitiveness IDA $35,000,000 Credit Project & Innovation Public Works & Urban, Resilience P064961 Burundi Employment 2001 Africa IDA $70,600,000 & Land Creation Project Agriculture Rehabilitation & Agriculture $35,000,000 P064558 Burundi 2005 Africa IDA Sustainable Land & Food - Management Social Community & Social P095211 Burundi 2007 Africa Sustainability IDA $40,000,000 Development Project & Inclusion Food Crisis Macroeconomics, Response P113438 Burundi 2009 Africa Trade IDA $10,000,000 Development & Investment Policy Grant Emergency Food Central African Crisis Response Agriculture P149512 2014 Africa IDA $20,000,000 Republic & Agricultural & Food Re-Launch Central African Health System Health, Nutrition P153030 2015 Africa IDA $12,000,000 Republic Support AF & Population Service Delivery & Support to Social Central African P161591 Communities 2017 Africa Sustainability IDA $28,000,000 Republic Affected by & Inclusion Displacement Project Productive Latin America Urban, Resilience P041642 Colombia Partnerships 2002 IBRD $22,000,000 & Caribbean & Land Support Project Social Sector Latin America Social Protection P069861 Colombia Adjustment Loan 2003 IBRD $155,000,000 & Caribbean & Jobs Project Social Peace & Latin America P051306 Colombia 2004 Sustainability IBRD $37,407,854 Development Project & Caribbean & Inclusion Congo, Eastern Recovery Social Protection P145196 Democratic 2014 Africa IDA $129,100,000 Project & Jobs Republic of Congo, Eastern Recovery Social Protection P157303 Democratic 2016 Africa IDA $50,000,000 AF & Jobs Republic of Congo, Health, Nutrition P077513 HIV/AIDS & Health 2004 Africa IDA $22,000,000 Republic of & Population 51 Project Fiscal Agreement Project Country Region Sector Budget Name Year Type Congo, Commercial Agriculture P159979 2018 Africa IDA $100,000,000 Republic of Agriculture Project & Food Emergency Multi- Health, Nutrition P071631 Côte d'Ivoire Sector HIV/AIDS 2008 Africa IDA $20,000,000 & Population Project Emergency Post- Urban, Resilience P082817 Côte d'Ivoire Conflict Assistance 2008 Africa IDA $149,500,000 & Land Project Social & Economic Europe & Social Sustainability P076730 Croatia 2005 IBRD $45,542,826 Recovery Project Central Asia & Inclusion Finance, Emergency P044674 Eritrea 2001 Africa Competitiveness IDA $105,000,000 Reconstruction & Innovation Emergency Social Protection P073604 Eritrea Demobilization & 2002 Africa IDA $59,906,187 & Jobs Reintegration Emergency Social Sustainability P067084 Ethiopia Recovery & Rehab. 2001 Africa IDA $230,000,000 & Inclusion Project Multisectoral Health, Nutrition P069886 Ethiopia 2001 Africa IDA $59,463,944 HIV/AIDS Project & Population Regional & Municipal Europe & Urban, Resilience P110126 Georgia 2009 IDA $85,000,000 Infrastructure Central Asia & Land Emergency Operation for Middle East & Urban, Resilience P161515 Iraq Development 2018 IBRD $400,000,000 North Africa & Land Project—Additional Financing Promoting the Middle East & Social Sustainability P161654 Iraq Inclusion of Conflict 2017 RETF $2,750,000 North Africa & Inclusion Affected Iraqi Youth Emergency Social Middle East & Social Sustainability P165114 Iraq Stabilization & 2018 RETF $200,000,000 North Africa & Inclusion Resilience Project Municipalities for Europe & Social Sustainability P165485 Kosovo Youth in 2020 RETF $2,750,000 Central Asia & Inclusion Kosovo Project Community Social Protection P098266 Liberia 2005 Africa SPF $6,000,000 Empowerment & Jobs Emergency P123503 Mali 2013 Africa Education RETF $41,700,000 Education For All Emergency Safety Social Protection P127328 Mali Nets project 2013 Africa IDA $70,000,000 & Jobs (Jigiséméjiri) 52 Project Fiscal Agreement Project Country Region Sector Budget Name Year Type Healthcare System Europe & Health, Nutrition P082223 Montenegro 2004 IDA $13,957,650 Improvement Central Asia & Population Inclusive Access & P163389 Myanmar Quality Education 2020 East Asia & Pacific Education IDA $100,000,000 project Maternal & Child Cash Transfers Social Protection P164129 Myanmar 2020 East Asia & Pacific IDA $100,000,000 for Improved & Jobs Nutrition Project State Education P157890 Nigeria 2016 Africa Education IDA $100,000,000 Improvement AF Community & Social Social Sustainability P157898 Nigeria 2016 Africa IDA $75,000,000 Development AF & Inclusion Youth Employment & Social Sustainability P157899 Nigeria 2016 Africa IDA $100,000,000 Social Support AF & Inclusion State Health Health, Nutrition P157977 Nigeria 2016 Africa IDA $125,000,000 Investment AF & Population Multisectoral Crisis Urban, Resilience P157891 Nigeria Recovery for North 2017 Africa IDA $200,000,000 & Land Eastern Nigeria Multisectoral Crisis Urban, Resilience P173104 Nigeria Recovery for North 2020 Africa IDA $176,000,000 & Land Eastern Nigeria AF FATA Temporarily Displaced Persons Social Protection P154278 Pakistan 2016 South Asia IDA $189,000,000 Emergency & Jobs Recovery Project ARMM Social Urban, Resilience P073488 Philippines 2003 East Asia & Pacific IBRD $61,650,661 Fund Project & Land Delivery of Improved Europe & Social Protection P096823 Serbia Local Services 2008 IBRD $46,400,000 Central Asia & Jobs Project Serbia Real Estate Europe & Urban, Resilience P078311 (Serbia and Cadastre & 2004 IDA $30,000,000 Central Asia & Land Montenegro) Registration Project Community Social Protection P040649 Sierra Leone Reintegration 2000 Africa IDA $25,000,000 & Jobs & Rehabilitation HIV/AIDS Response Health, Nutrition P073883 Sierra Leone 2002 Africa IDA $14,470,924 Project & Population 53 Project Fiscal Agreement Project Country Region Sector Budget Name Year Type Rehabilitation of P074320 Sierra Leone 2003 Africa Education IDA $20,000,000 Basic Education National Social Social Protection P079335 Sierra Leone 2003 Africa IDA $35,000,000 Action & Jobs Somalia Inclusive Community Social Sustainability P157591 Somalia 2018 Africa RETF $1,200,000 Resilience & Inclusion & GBV Pilot Somalia Urban Urban, Resilience P163857 Somalia 2018 Africa RETF $9,000,000 Resilience Project & Land Somalia Urban Urban, Resilience P170922 Somalia 2020 Africa IDA 50,000,000 Resilience Project II & Land Shock Responsive Safety Net Social Protection P171346 Somalia 2020 Africa IDA $65,000,000 for Human & Jobs Capital Project Local Governance Urban, Resilience P127079 South Sudan & Service 2013 Africa IDA $50,000,000 & Land Delivery Project Safety Net & Skills Social Protection P143915 South Sudan 2013 Africa IDA $21,000,000 Development & Jobs Health Rapid Health, Nutrition P156917 South Sudan 2016 Africa IDA $40,000,000 Results AF & Population Provision of Health, Nutrition P168926 South Sudan Essential Health 2019 Africa IDA $105,400,000 & Population Services Project South Sudan Safety Social Protection P169082 South Sudan 2020 Africa IDA $40,000,000 Net Project (SSSNP) & Jobs Community Livelihoods in Social Protection P086747 Sri Lanka 2004 South Asia IDA $64,700,000 Conflict Affected & Jobs Areas Project—AF III North East Housing Urban, Resilience P083932 Sri Lanka Reconstruction 2005 South Asia IDA $118,000,000 & Land Program Puttalam Housing Urban, Resilience P100390 Sri Lanka 2007 South Asia IDA $22,798,264 Project & Land Shock Responsive Safety Net for Social Protection P171346 Somalia 2020 Africa IDA $65,000,000 Human Capital & Jobs Project Social Sustainability P116923 Sudan Abyei Start-Up 2009 Africa IDA $6,000,000 & Inclusion 54 Project Fiscal Agreement Project Country Region Sector Budget Name Year Type Sustainable Livelihoods for Displaced and Social Sustainability P158066 Sudan Vulnerable 2017 Africa IDA $ 4,285,000 & Inclusion Communities in Eastern Sudan: Phase 2 Community & Social Protection P069762 Timor-Leste 2000 East Asia & Pacific SPF $7,000,000 Local Governance & Jobs Northern Uganda Social Protection P002952 Uganda 2003 Africa IDA $200,000,000 Social Action Fund & Jobs Emergency Crisis Middle East & Social Protection P159053 Yemen 2017 IDA $500,000,000 Response Project North Africa & Jobs Emergency Crisis Middle East & Social Protection P161806 Yemen Response Project 2017 IDA $250,000,000 North Africa & Jobs Additional Financing Emergency Crisis Response Project— Middle East & Social Protection P163729 Yemen 2017 IDA $200,000,000 Second Additional North Africa & Jobs Financing Emergency Health Middle East & Health, Nutrition P163741 Yemen & Nutrition Project 2017 IDA $83,000,000 North Africa & Population Additional Financing Emergency Middle East & Social Protection P163777 Yemen Electricity Access 2018 IDA $50,000,000 North Africa & Jobs Project Integrated Urban Middle East & Urban, Resilience P164190 Yemen Services Emergency 2018 IDA $150,000,000 North Africa & Land Project Emergency Health & Nutrition Project Middle East & Health, Nutrition P164466 Yemen 2018 IDA $200,000,000 Second Additional North Africa & Population Financing Yemen Emergency Crisis Response Social Protection P164564 Yemen 2018 Middle East & IDA $140,000,000 Project—Third & Jobs North Africa Additional Financing Yemen Emergency Health & Nutrition Middle East & Health, Nutrition P167195 Yemen 2019 IDA $200,000,000 Project Third North Africa & Population Additional Financing Project Third Additional Financing Emergency Crisis Middle East & Social Protection P170241 Yemen 2019 IDA $200,000,000 Response Project North Africa & Jobs Fourth Additional Financing 55 Photography Accreditation © Sarah Farhat / World Bank © Jo Straube/ Norsk Folkehjelp Norwegian People's Aid https://www.flickr.com/photos/folkehjelp/13980714015/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ © Jo Straube/ Norsk Folkehjelp Norwegian People's Aid https://www.flickr.com/photos/folkehjelp/13977504172/in/album-72157644190924626/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ © Sarah Farhat / World Bank © Jo Straube/ Norsk Folkehjelp Norwegian People's Aid https://www.flickr.com/photos/folkehjelp/13957609176/in/album-72157644190924626/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ © Sarah Farhat / World Bank © Sarah Farhat / World Bank © Sarah Farhat /World Bank © Allison Kwesell / World Bank © Abdul Majeed Goraya / IRIN | www.irinnews.org https://www.flickr.com/photos/irinphotos/4194723438/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ © Albert Gonzalez Farran/UNAMID https://www.flickr.com/photos/unamid-photo/14422087011/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ A Development Approach to Conflict-Induced Internal Displacement