An Evaluation of the World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence, 2020–25
Chapter 1 | Fragility, Conflict, and Violence and the World Bank Group Approach
Highlights
Situations of fragility and conflict threaten global progress in poverty reduction and underscore the need for the World Bank Group to work effectively in these challenging environments to achieve its development objectives.
The Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) 2020–25 aimed to strengthen the Bank Group’s assistance to affected countries by adjusting its operational approaches to make its engagement in countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations more effective.
The evaluation assesses the relevance, implementation, and achievement of objectives of the 2020–25 FCV strategy in relation to the Bank Group’s operational framework for FCV, focusing on the aspects of programming, personnel, partnerships, policies, and financing instruments.
This evaluation seeks to inform the new FCV strategy by integrating insights and lessons learned from the 2020–25 strategy.
Development Under Fragility, Conflict, and Violence
Situations of fragility and conflict are widespread and have intensified over the past decade, threatening global goals of poverty reduction. The world has experienced a record number of documented violent conflicts since 1946 (figure 1.1), with annual battle-related deaths increasing from 33,717 (2003–13) to 114,143 (2013–23; Our World in Data n.d.). As a result, forced displacements have reached record highs, with 117.3 million people displaced in 2023, up from 44 million in 2010 (UNHCR 2023). Forced displacement has slowed global poverty reduction and shared prosperity (World Bank 2024a). Extreme poverty worldwide has increased beyond its 2018 level, raising concerns about whether the World Bank Group’s target of ending extreme poverty by 2030 can be achieved.
The Bank Group’s capacity to work effectively in conflict-affected environments is becoming increasingly critical for advancing its development objectives. In 2023, about 1.06 billion people lived in countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). As of 2025, more than half of all people living in extreme poverty globally are in countries classified as FCS by the Bank Group.1 This figure is expected to rise to 59 percent by 2030. Conflict and violence in many middle-income countries that are non-FCS also challenge development (World Bank 2022c). The number of countries classified as FCS by the Bank Group has increased from 33 in 2015 to 39 in 2024. Among the 25 countries rated as the most vulnerable to climate change, 15 are FCS; 9 of these are also food insecurity hot spots, which are of the most concern.2 FCS face compounding challenges such as high poverty and weak institutions, leading to lower human capital, inadequate socioeconomic progress, and heightened vulnerability to climate change and other risks (World Bank 2023h).
Figure 1.1. Number of Violent Conflicts Internationally, 1945–2023
Figure 1.1. Number of Violent Conflicts Internationally, 1945–2023
Source: PRIO 2024.
The World Bank Group’s Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Strategy 2020–25
In February 2020, the Bank Group launched the Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–25 to improve its own effectiveness in assisting countries with tackling the causes and consequences of fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV; World Bank 2020). In addition to strengthening institutional effectiveness through policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships, the strategy has four pillars: preventing violence, staying engaged during crises, supporting transitions from fragility, and mitigating FCV spillovers (figure 1.2). The strategy sought to adjust the Bank Group’s own operational approaches and make the Bank Group’s engagement in FCS more effective.
The strategy underscores the importance of long-term approaches, giving precedence to inclusion, institutional legitimacy, and private sector engagement. It is particularly focused on supporting vulnerable populations and safeguarding institutional capacity to facilitate recovery in postconflict settings. The strategy makes the case that even in the toughest environments during conflict, the Bank Group can meaningfully engage to preserve institutional capacity and human capital, which will be critical for the country’s future recovery, and that when signs of recovery emerge, the Bank Group can support governments that are attempting transformational change. The strategy also emphasizes the importance of partnerships to leverage complementary strengths, share knowledge, and ensure coordinated efforts. Its guiding principles highlight the need for (i) a differentiated approach by which the Bank Group’s assistance is tailored to specific country contexts; (ii) consideration of inclusion and the needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups and individuals; (iii) support for the legitimacy, transparency, and accountability of institutions; and (iv) a scale-up of private sector engagements. The strategy identified operational measures for private solutions in FCV environments that the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) are expected to implement, recognizing that engaging the (domestic) private sector requires holistic approaches.
Evaluation Scope, Objectives, and Limitations
The Bank Group’s Board of Executive Directors requested an evaluation to guide the development of a new FCV strategy, integrating insights and lessons learned from the implementation of the 2020–25 FCV strategy. This evaluation focuses on whether the strategy’s commitments to change the Bank Group’s operational approach to its engagement with FCS countries have had a measurable impact on the way the Bank Group operates. In a second phase to this evaluation, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) will deliver in FY 2027 its findings on outcomes of the Bank Group’s operational engagements in FCV environments by reflecting on the relevance and effectiveness of operations in the strategy’s four pillars of engagement (figure 1.3).
Figure 1.2. Core Elements of the 2020–25 Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Strategy
Figure 1.2. Core Elements of the 2020–25 Fragility, Conflict, and Violence Strategy
Source: World Bank 2020.
Note: CRW = Crisis Response Window; ERF = early response financing; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IBRD = International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; IDA = International Development Association; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; PBA = performance-based allocation; PSW = Private Sector Window; TF = trust fund.
Figure 1.3. Evaluation Framework
Figure 1.3. Evaluation Framework
Source: Independent Evaluation Group.
Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; IFC = International Finance Corporation; LIC = low-income country; MIC = middle-income country; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; RRA = Risk and Resilience Assessment.
This evaluation examined the relevance, implementation, and achievement of the objectives of the FCV strategy in relation to the operational framework of programming, personnel, partnerships, policies, and financing tools. The strategy introduced operational measures to ensure that the Bank Group’s policies, processes, and practices would be fit for purpose, simplified, streamlined, and flexible and that projects and programs would be monitored and evaluated to encourage greater realism and adaptability. Programming should systematically address the drivers of FCV in operations and ensure coordinated approaches across the Bank Group’s institutions. The Bank Group aimed to enhance its partnerships with humanitarian, development, peace building, security, and private sector actors to maximize impacts in FCS. It also sought to increase personnel in the field and invest in relevant skills, knowledge, and incentives to support engagements in FCS. The framework includes scaling up financing by the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA as a precondition to engage in FCS and to achieve sustained impact.
The evaluation assessed the extent to which these elements of the strategy have enhanced engagement in FCV-affected countries by answering two evaluation questions:
- How relevant has the 2020–25 FCV strategy been in addressing the Bank Group’s operational challenges in FCS? Specifically, has it helped the Bank Group to
a. Deploy strategies and programs that are tailored to the drivers of FCV?
b. Adapt its policies, processes, resources, incentives, and staffing for FCS?
c. Form effective partnerships targeted to FCS, consistent with the Bank Group’s mandate?
2. To what extent have the changes introduced by the 2020–25 FCV strategy had demonstrable effects on Bank Group operational engagements in FCS? Specifically, have they led to
a. Anticipated increases in the volume and shifts in the composition and risk profile of the World Bank portfolio?
b. Improvements in project efficacy or the ability to deliver on project objectives?
The scope of the evaluation included the Bank Group operational framework and its immediate effects across 42 countries classified as FCS in the FY15–24 period. The evaluation focused on all four Ps of the operational framework (policies, programming, personnel, and partnerships) and distilled its findings across the FCV strategy pillars—except the pillar on mitigating spillovers—for all countries classified as FCS during FY15–25. This focus encompasses the period after a 2014 IEG evaluation up until the implementation of the 2020–25 FCV strategy. This broad country scope ensures coverage of all recipients of FCV Envelope allocations (Prevention and Resilience Allocation [PRA], Remaining Engaged during Conflict Allocation [RECA], and Turn Around Allocation [TAA]). The evaluation included small island states classified as FCS in its analyses of the universe of the FCS data and portfolio, but it does not offer an in-depth analysis of those states.3 Appendix A lists the countries included in the evaluation.
The evaluation covered countries included on the FCS list but does not cover all FCV contexts. The evaluation does not focus on crime and violence in non-FCS because crime and violence unrelated to conflict require a different scope and methods. The evaluation also does not cover subnational conflict; regional spillover effects in non-FCS, such as forced displacements; or any other FCV characteristics not captured by the FCS list.
The evaluation built on previous evaluations. The 2020–25 FCV strategy applied to the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA. However, IEG evaluated IFC’s and MIGA’s support to private investment in FCS in 2022. This evaluation did not duplicate those efforts but used the existing evaluation evidence, updating core metrics such as IFC and MIGA commitments and development effectiveness ratings, as well as distilling new evidence on approaches for engaging with the private sector through country deep dives.
Previous IEG evaluations in FCS indicated the lack of a systematic and differentiated approach to FCV contexts (box 1.1). These evaluations highlighted progress in improving the identification of fragility and conflict drivers in FCS and the use of fragility diagnostics but noted that the World Bank has yet to systematically link improved analytics to addressing the drivers of fragility and conflict in operational programs or to sufficiently adapt its operational framework to FCV contexts.
Box 1.1. Findings from Previous Independent Evaluation Group Evaluations
Past Independent Evaluation Group evaluations have generated rich evaluative insights into various aspects of World Bank Group engagements in countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS).
- Country strategies and programs in FCS are more relevant and realistic if they integrate diagnostics of the drivers of fragility and conflict and adapt the design and implementation of programs accordingly.
- The Bank Group has improved the identification and analysis of fragility factors and conflict drivers. However, although country programs have increased their discussion of fragility, they have yet to systematically link conflict analysis to fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV)–informed program priorities.
- Helping countries emerge from fragility requires a focus on complex objectives, such as creating more inclusive institutions and promoting social cohesion, which are hard to define and measure.
- Results frameworks do not capture the World Bank’s contributions to conflict-related country outcomes well.
- FCS are constrained by weak capacity, infrastructure, and services. Support for state building needs to be sustained through careful sequencing, use of political economy analysis, and prioritization of long-term reforms.
- FCV operations are more resource intensive, but enhanced financial and staff resources and managerial attention can lead to better performance. Multidonor trust funds can be more than a source of funding and are central to donor coordination, policy dialogue, and institution building.
- The (domestic) private sector, although important in FCS, faces significant constraints. Support for economic opportunities and jobs has been challenging due to the lack of an effective framework for inclusive growth and jobs in FCV contexts and insufficient adaptation of Bank Group approaches and tools to the needs and circumstances of the private sector in FCS. Despite the introduction of some products (for example, the Private Sector Window), the lack of bankable projects that meet International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency standards and requirements is a major constraint for scaling up support from these institutions in FCV contexts.
- Mainstreaming the inclusion of gender operations in FCV contexts is feasible; in countries where conflict disproportionately affects women and girls, targeted Bank Group programs can address the social and economic consequences of conflict. Achieving relevant, deep, impactful, and sustainable changes to advance gender equality in fragile environments requires a comprehensive country engagement approach. However, few projects involved integrated and comprehensive approaches to women’s economic empowerment and to addressing gender-based violence.
Sources: World Bank 2014, 2016c, 2021d, 2021f, 2022a, 2022b, 2023a, forthcoming-b.
- The Bank Group uses two terms related to fragility and conflict. Fragile and conflict-affected situations (abbreviated FCS) refers to a group of countries included in the FCS list (World Bank Group 2023e), whereas fragility, conflict, and violence refers to a set of vulnerabilities, irrespective of whether a country is classified as FCS (including instances of subnational or transnational conflict, forced displacement, gender-based violence, and urban violence).
- Data are from the latest ND-GAIN Vulnerability Index, most recently updated by the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative, University of Notre Dame, as well as from the Bank Group, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the World Food Programme (FAO and WFP 2023; Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative n.d.; World Bank 2023c).
- The small island states classified as experiencing institutional fragility on the Bank Group FCS list during any year in the FY15–25 period are Comoros, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Tuvalu (figure A.2). As uniquely small and remote countries, small island states face inherent service provision, climate vulnerability, human capital, and government capacity challenges that contribute significantly to their fragility. Lessons from this group of countries are therefore less generalizable to other fragile countries.