Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Risk Mitigation Matrix for KP EDUCATION Program

Risk ID Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action By Likelihood Consequence Severity
R1. Kidnapping -Loss of human resource -Restrict travel at night -All staff

3 4 H
-Loss of time -Low or guarded movement in high members
-Financial loss in terms of risk areas -Security
insurance -Keep a low profile team SCRP
-Low morale of staff - Concealment of staff’s identity when -Senior
-disgruntled staff/insecure staff in field, no personal data or staff’s Management
-Adverse effect on performance data in mobile devices etc. Team (SMT)
of staff -Preamble before field
- Adverse program -Employ local people
implementation in terms of -Hostile environment awareness
provision of adequate security- training of staff
perception
R2 Break-ins, -Loss of assets -Protection of vulnerable points -Security

2 3 M
robbery, -Information leak -Deployment of trained guard force team SCRP
wreckage at the -Plan/Strategy Leak??? -CCTV cameras in and outside
Security Risks

premises periphery of offices

-Financial loss -Installation of security alarms
-Loss of resources -Securing of assets, safes etc.
R3 Insurgents -Delay in program -Involve local authorities -Provincial

4 4 H
preventing -Loss of resources -Increase local public participation management
contractors from - Discouraging other contractors -Employ effective guard force team (PMT)
working/ to participate negatively -Avoid working in high risk areas if -Security
travelling affecting quality of available possible team SCRP
resources

R4 Political -Programme put on hold -Understanding of political dynamics -SMT

3 5 E
instability causing delays of areas before intervention and plan -PMT
-Loss of financial and other accordingly -Social/
resources -Review the political situation during Community
-Programme delays Repeat? the implementation phase mobilisers
- Lack of interest of various -Engagement with local influential
developing partners to initiate people
similar initiatives in affected -Seek protection from law
areas enforcement agencies

1
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Risk ID Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action By Likelihood Consequence Severity

R5 Terrorist attacks -Delay in implementation -Provide HEAT training - Security

4 5 E
-Loss of manpower -Provide First Aid training team SCRP
-Loss of resources -Provide Defensive training to people -PMT
-Bad/negative publicity leading working in field -SMT
to lack of interest of potential -Engage Highly trained security
contractors guards
-Termination from project -Set in yourself with local authorities
to minimize exposure as a foreign
organization
R6 Information Leak -Exposed identities of staff -.Keep low profile -Security

-Increased threat of attack to
programme staff
-Intimidation / threats by people
to benefit them in terms of
money or jobs
R7. School - No electricity without solar
1 3 L
-.Thorough background and security team SCRP
checks on employees -PMT
-.Employees must not carry an
identity while in the field ????
- Anti-theft program training for PTCs -IMC

3 2 M
equipment being panels (if installed) and - Security system installed on sites -NESPAK
stolen or otherwise - Security should be provided by -SCRP
vandalism - Loss of technical SCRP during implementation phase
equipment?? - Involvement of local community and
- Financial loss PTCs to ensure security and create
- Delay in programme ownership.
- Poor education environment
- Learning outcomes being
affected
R8. Lack of Support -Programme delay -.Coordinate and understand local -SMT

3 4 H
from Provincial & -Waste of Resources government requirements and work -PMT
Communication Risks

District -Negative perception of project with them from inception phase

Governments by people
- Lack of community
participation resulting in slow
progress due to lack of interest
-.Try to align local government
expectations with the programme
deliverable in inception phase
-.Keep local authorities involved in
the selection criteria
-.Engage DFID and provincial
governmental authorities to smooth
out any ambiguity
-.Promotion of local economy
- Engage in regular sensitization
activity to passively upgrade their
capacity for better service delivery

2
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Risk ID Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action By Likelihood Consequence Severity

R9. Conflict of -Lack of support by community - Capacity building of PTCs -IMC

4 4 H
interest with local -Biased selection of Head - Establish a feedback mechanism -DFID
elders and teacher of PTCs -Complaint mechanism -Community
philosophical -Manipulations including -Engagement of influential & Social
conflict with budgets, capacity building and personalities from communities in mobilizers
religious leaders. sustenance ability of PTCs whole process to make them aware -SMT
-Delay in implementation of hindrances
process -Awareness campaigns for
- Questionable representation community
and composition of the PTCs -Start a complaint redresal
-Deserving schools with mechanism for common people
potential of rehabilitation might - Initiate dialogue with religious
be skipped under influence leaders and local influential elders
-Delays in awareness
campaigns
-Lack of support from
community (repeat point
mentioned above)
-Opposition of child enrollment,
specially girl child in formal
schools
-Programme intervention may
not achieve the desired targets
R10. Effluent water is -Environmental hazard -Ensure proper drainage system for -IMC

3 2 M
not properly -Unhygienic environment waste water e.g. from hand washing -NESPAK
Hygiene & Sanitation

drained or -Low levels of hygiene Repeat Ensure design of proper soak away -PTCs
disposed of point for effluent from septic tank
- Negative public opinion of -NESPAK responsible for robust
SCRP intervention design and construction to ensure
-Spread of contagious diseases easy maintenance
Risks

- Chance of affecting the -Ensure the effluent wasted disposed

underground water table further
affecting drinking water quality
of properly
-Explore alternative design or
treatment options (e.g. reed beds)
-Ensure proper training of PTCs for
maintenance
-Ensure proper design of drainage
soakaway system

3
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Risk ID Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action By Likelihood Consequence Severity

R11. Local water -Costly water supply -Allow provision for contingencies in -SCRP

3 1 L
supply / source -Construction difficulties due to budget -NESPAK
becomes lack of water -Investigate low operational cost
problematic -Undermines WASH impact pumping options e.g. solar
-Negative health impacts esp. -Ensure water quality testing
on children -Investigate alternative water sources
-High cost for school to sustain or treatment options
future water supply (pumping -Incorporate cost-sharing options into
etc.) design of water supply schemes in
cases where community is also
expected to have improved access

R12. Full septic tank -Tank emptiers face Explore alternative design or -SCRP

(i.e. need to unacceptable health impacts
empty) when emptying the tank
-Failure of latrines if tank not
emptied
- Chance of affecting
underground water table
3 1 L
treatment options (e.g. twin pits) -NESPAK
Ensure contractors employ
appropriate tank emptying
procedures (during construction)
Investigate encouraging private
sector engagement in ‘Vacu-Tug’

R13. PTCs do not -No improvement in sanitation -Make School WASH Strategy (SWS) -SCRP

3 1 L
prioritize or is an essential component of School - -PTCs
WASH Hygiene -Development Plan (SDP) -SMT
- No impact on health -Ensure adequate capacity building -Community
-Existing environmental risks on WASH issues prior to SDP Mobilisers
remains
-Reduced impact on girls
enrolment and retention
R14. Air, water and -Spills of equipment lubricants -Install noise and air pollution control -IMC
Environmen

2 2 L
noise pollution and fuels kit on heavy machinery -NESPAK
tal Risks

from construction -Exposure of nearby residents
site and camps to fumes of paints and
chemicals
-Unhealthy environment
- Proper disposal of waste oils and
recycling facilities.
- Installation of temporary sanitation
facilities
- Provide sealed portable toilets

4
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Risk ID Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action By Likelihood Consequence Severity

R15. Natural -Infrastructure gets destroyed -Earthquake resilient lightweight roofs -IMC

3 5 E
calamities, -Loss of human life and other structures -NESPAK
earthquakes, -Social Impacts on workers -Ensure adequate supervision of -PDMA
Landslide and Contractors
floods -Take Local authorities on board with
design plan and construction
-Installation of emergency exits in
schools to avoid human loss
-Strong and broad foundations to
prevent structure from collapse
-Use of steel in walls and foundations
to avoid collapse
-Raised structures in flood prone
areas
R16. Early age girls -Reduced number of girl -Awareness of possible health risks -IMC

3 1 L
marriages students for secondary or -Awareness of importance of formal -PAIMAN
middle school education -ISAPS
-Parent engagement and awareness
programs
R17. Harassment of -Reduced number of girl -PTCs training to minimize the -PAIMAN

3 2 M
girl child students in secondary or middle probability of harassment -ISAPS
school -Parent and student awareness -SCRP
-Less friendly and comfortable programs
school environment
Cultural Risks

R18. Tribal mind set -Girls will not be sent to school -Awareness campaigns -IMC

3 2 M
preventing girl -Low enrollment -If public is illiterate, use illustrative -PAIMAN
child from techniques -KESP
attending school -Help them understand the -Community
importance of education for girls & Social
-Consultation with project partners for mobilization
awareness programs

R19. Religious -More enrollment of students in -Helping them understand the -PAIMAN

3 2 M
education Madrassah importance of formal education in -IMC
preference in -Less students in school today’s world -Community
local -Make the community realize that & Social
communities religious education is also a part of Mobilization
reduces National curriculum pointers
importance of -Community involvement in
formal schools implementation phase

5
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Risk ID Risk Potential Impact Mitigating Action By Likelihood Consequence Severity

R20. Sustainability of -Project maintenance and -Involve local body governments to -Provincial or

4 2 M
schools and management once completed overview the schools -District level
associated -Carelessness of PTCs -Build a feedback mechanism education
infrastructure -Lack of interest of students -Setup a complaint mechanism to be department
-Poor O & M aware of progress
-Less enrollment of students -Supervision
-Retention of -Proper utilization of resources
resources/Monetary funds
-Poor sanitation facilities
R21. Underperforming -Unlikely completion of project -Supervision from IMC Head Office -IMC
Management Risks

3 3 M
management by -Corruption -Internal and external audits to Worldwide
IMC-Pakistan -Mismanagement of plan ensure transparency -DFID
-Annual reviews of progress sent to -SCRP
donor organizations and IMC
worldwide

R22. Implementing -Delayed project -Capacity building of implementing -SCRP

3 4 H
partners fail to -Targets not achieved partners and contractors -IMC
perform -Loss of funds and resources -Thorough assessment of partner’s
previous work records

R23 Improper support -Under performance and low -Capacity building of relevant district -PAIMAN

3 3 M
and monitoring quality infrastructure inputs level stake holders in providing -SCRP
from district -Lack of interest and ownership services to local area schools
authorities by authorities once project will
DEOs/DDEOs, be handover by SCRP
EDOs etc.

6

Risk ID Risks Potential Impacts
R24. Contractors Influenced by -Misuse of funds
local elders -Substandard
construction
R25. Contractors stop working -Financial loss
-Loss of time
-Programme delay
-Loss of community
Construction Risks
Fiduciary Risks
confidence
-Could also affect the
credibility of organization
R26. Insufficient financial -Programme might stop
resources -More funds will be
required to complete the
agenda
-Sub-optimum
rehabilitation of schools
-Target might not be
reached
Draft as per 13-06- 2014
Mitigating Actions By Likelihood Consequence Severity
-Supervise field work as -IMC
2 2 M
well as paper work -NESPAK
-Community participation -PTCs
should minimize the
influence thereby
reducing the chances of
corruption
-Supervision must be -IMC
3 3 M
done by organizations -NESPAK
involved -PTCs
-Hire local contractors
from same community to
minimize the risk of any
fraud
-Maximum involvement of
PTCs to ensure the
process keeps on going
-Have a legal contract
signed between the
parties for assurance
-A surety bond from a
bank to cover financial
losses
-Cost management by -DFID
1 5 H
keeping in view the trends -IMC
of inflation that could -SCRP
hinder the process -SMT
-Revision of targets in
order to allocate major
amount where it is
required the most
7
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

R27. Sub-standard material use -Unsafe buildings - Clear specifications for -SCRP

3 4 H
in construction -Unsustainable construction design and -NESPAK
structures materials to be used -PTCs
- Effective monitoring and
reporting arrangements
in place from the start
- Capacity building of
contractors and PTCs
where needed on
applying standards in
procurement,
construction and
inspection of works
- Availability of technical
expertise by SCRP
when needed
R28. Over specification of -Purchase of -Monitor the quantity -SCRP

3 3 M
Construction material unnecessary/ over survey process -NESPAK
specified construction -If necessary, SCRP can
material leading to run quantity surveys
financial loss independently for cross
checking purpose
-Supervise the
procurement and
construction process
throughout to ensure
transparency
R29. Nepotism in terms of -Substandard material -Spot checking on -SCRP

3 3 M
purchasing and acquisition purchasing procurement manager’s -NESPAK
of services -Incompetent staff activities
Procurement Risks

-High chances of -Standard operating

corruption procedures must be
-Credibility of followed for hiring of new
organization could be at staff
stake -Cross check the prices
with market rates and
analyze the differences
-Audits must be done to
ensure transparency

8

R30. Impractical timeframe -Inadequate responses
from tenderers
-Project delayed
R31. Procurement manager -Achieving higher market
lacking the negotiation rates for goods and
abilities services
-Increase in project cost
-Waste of money on
substandard material
R32. Risk of Collusion in market -Contractors purchasing
substandard material
from relatives or friends
-Compromised quality of
work
- Less cost effective
tenders
-Costly contracts leading
to financial loss
-Poor quality work
-Incompetent or unskilled
labor
R33. Lack of operational -Lack of appropriate
procedures management in offices
as well as fields
-Loss of Data
-Incompetence of staff
Operations Risks
-Corruption leading to
financial losses
Day to day
-Lack of authentic
organizational data to
ensure transparency by
internal and external
audits
- Unauthorized use of
vehicles or falsification of
log books to obtain funds
from fuel purchase
Draft as per 13-06- 2014
-Improvement of -SCRP
3 3 M
forecasting, planning and -NESPAK
consultation
-Improve communication
with potential tenderers
-Implementation of best -SCRP
2 2 M
practice policies and -NESPAK
guidelines to be followed
-Improve training of
personnel
-Thorough background -SCRP
3 3 M
check should be run on -NESPAK
procurement manager
-Appoint a supervisor to
ensure that market has
not been fixed
-Run advertisements in
regional and national
newspapers to attract
genuinely interested and
larger contracting firms
-Combined lots of 2-3 or
3-4 districts to make ads
effective
-Formulation of Standard -IMC
3 3 M
Operating Procedures to -SCRP
ensure management of
day to day operations
-Detailed job descriptions
for all the staff positions
and hiring according to
criteria and competence
-Financial as well as all
other records must be
kept safe in order to
ensure transparency by
internal and external
audits
9
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

1. Consequence of occurrence, according to the following table.

Consequence

Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Very
M H H E E
likely (5)

Likely
M M M H E
(4)

Possible
L M M H E
(3)

Unlikely
L M M H H
(2)

Rare
L L L M H
(1)

10
 Draft as per 13-06- 2014

Each risk is coloured according to the scheme below with those coloured red requiring the most urgent attention. Risk
severity is described as follows:
2. Example measures of consequences are:

Insignificant Minimal financial or delay implications; no loss of resources or assets possible; no effect on outputs
or outcomes of the project.

Minor Low financial or delay implications; minor injury or loss of resources or assets possible; negligible
effect on outputs or outcomes of the project.

Moderate Medium financial or delay implications; moderate loss of resources or assets possible; some
adverse effect on outputs or outcomes of the project.

Major High financial or delay implications; major loss of resources or assets possible; significant adverse
effect on outputs or outcomes of the project.

Catastrophic Huge financial or delay implications including cancellation of Project; major loss of asset or
resources; major adverse effect on outputs or outcomes of the project.

3. Each risk is coloured according to the scheme below with those coloured red requiring the most urgent attention. Risk severity is
described as follows:

L Low risk. Manage by routine procedures

M Moderate risk. Monitoring required

H High risk. Senior management attention required

E Extreme risk. Immediate action required

11