Handle with Care: Resilience to Vulnerability, Conflict, and Violence (FCV Resilience) (Eng) 2026

© 2026 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank1818 H Street NWWashington DC 20433Telephone: 202-473-1000 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. Thefindings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the dataincluded in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, ordiscrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to usethe information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon orwaiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encouragesdissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, fornoncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.Any queries on rightsand licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, •FCV Resilience places several key considerations front and center.First, conflict andviolence have a unique effect on people’s lives, and FCV and resilience can co-exist at thesame time (and through the same forces). FCV Resilience also recognizes, more explicitlythan other types of resilience, that outcomes will only be positive if they respond to driversand impacts of FCV without expecting individuals to bear the burden of addressing FCV or toaccept unacceptable daily conditions. And while resilience in any context can also contribute •This framing of FCV Resilience requires further nuancing of common frameworks andnotions associated with resilience.For instance, the notion of absorb, adapt, and transformtakes on a different connotation when what is being absorbed is violence, when adaptationis forced and resented, and when positive transformation would first necessitate shifts to •One of the foremost challenges with resilience as applied to FCV is that its contextspecificity, invisibility, dynamism, and interdependency can be overwhelming bothanalytically and operationally.This can stymie efforts to faithfully categorize andsystematize resilience. It can also reinforce a default mode of generalization, leading •In terms of temporality, resilience is often thought of as being durable and steady overtime.It is a label placed on certain countries, governments, or societies under the assumptionthat it will last forever. But resilience is a process, not a static state, so it is shortsighted tocapture it as only as one snapshot in time. Consultations for this study instead made it clear •In fact, when it comes to FCV, finding resilience factors that are universally seenas positive tends to be the exception rather than the rule.That is one reason whyunderstanding of FCV Resilience needs to be approached with more pragmatism andcircumspection, acknowledging that there can be difficult trade-offs as well as winners and •With these distinctions in mind, it is not surprising that consultations for this studyrevealed serious ethical concerns with how the label of resilience can be used andalso strong pushback on applying the term, especially by outsiders, to populationsexperiencing FCV.In FCV settings, what is termed resilience can be confused with people •Relatedly, resilience can be viewed by people as a mandatory reaction, or an obligationto be self-sufficient, due to the absence of or perceived abandonment by the state.Inthese settings, crises and prolonged economic inertia can result in societal stagnation thatbenefits certain powerful actors and patronage systems. Serious questions should also be •While even the most FCV-affected environments exhibit elements of resilience, there isno one-to-one ratio of risks or drivers to resilience in the manner of a balance sheet or aseesaw.In fact, the danger of a linear framing is that resilience can erroneously be equatedwith stability, or the relative absence of violence can be seen as a successful end goal. But •While these considerations are all crucial components of the framing of FCV Resilience,they should not obscure the many ways in which positive resilience also functionsand the critical difference it makes in people’s lives.Acknowledging the need to bringgreater refinement and specificity to understandings of FCV Resilience and to account for