An initial risk analysis has been undertaken, as presented in the table below, and discussed with key stakeholders. This includes our strategy for managing, monitoring and mitigating project risks. This will be monitored and shared with CDKN on a quarterly basis to ensure that appropriate actions are taken if any of the risks identified were to occur.
| Risk | Mitigation measure |
| Scale of project means that some differences between regions or types of irrigation are not detectedReliability of data collected is uncertainLimited data availability and variability between regions makes recommendations too crude or genericCommunities and local stakeholders unwilling to participate
Conflict with other plans and initiatives for climate-compatible irrigation Unable to influence plans at local or district level Unable to get ‘buy-in’ for policy level recommendations DOI weak institutional capacity, limited resources and inability to institutionalize framework Poor security situation and bandhs limit ability to access sites The recent earthquake diverts interest away from the study, through changed priorities and the need to focus on recovery and restoration of damaged infrastructure and livelihoods |
Literature review and consultations to ensure that we focus on the most vulnerable types and locationsTriangulation of data with other studies, and sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of inaccurate or incomplete data.Identification of critical gaps for further investigations risk-based approach to recommendations which summarises the available information and makes clear the areas of uncertainty
Local best practice in participatory methodology for fieldwork (using combination of technical and participation experts) Identification of ongoing initiatives, close coordination with other programmes, use of team who are already well connected with current activities Communication strategy designed and agreed early on Integration of local studies with work at policy level from the outset, Recommend continued support through other programmes Engagement with politicians as well as professionals Use local staff, with careful choice of sample locations Coordination with relief and reconstruction efforts, incorporation of earthquake risks in resilience framework Flexible approach, consideration of a changed programme Assumption Action |
| Assumption | Action |
| Irrigation systems can be categorised in a to makes systematic guidelines possibleLocal authorities willing to modify current practicesHigher-level authorities will see the need to strengthen policy and provide implementation guidelines | Development of an irrigation classification system at the outset and agree with key stakeholdersGuidelines are prioritised to distinguish essential and desirable actions, and reflect local practice in a typical as well as ideal situationExtensive stakeholder consultation at all levels, including typical local implementers (communities, builders, planners, etc.)
Communication strategy designed and agreed at early stage Issue Action |
| Issue | Action |
| Understanding of risk and of climate change, at all levelsUncertainty of local climate changeNeed to plan management and allocation of water at river basin | Development of PRA tools for field work which explore attitudes and understanding of riskCoordination with ongoing programmes on climate predictions, and their impact on low flows, flood risk, etc.Identification of actions appropriate at local level
Coordination with river basin and higher level stakeholders to encourage coherent response at all levels |
| Challenge | Action |
| Gaining buy-in for an independent studyGender sensitivityDistilling complex situation into implementable recommendations
Ensuring recommendations are put into both policy and practice |
Careful designed engagement strategyAppropriate participatory tools, with gender-balanced teamGender-sensitive consultationsLocal studies, synthesised with global best practice
Linking field studies to policy recommendations to ensure that they are both practicable and acceptable |
