| Explanation of Risk | Potential impactHigh/Medium/Low | Probability High/Medium/Low | Mitigation measures |
| Community may not respond/ be interested in engaging E | High | Low | Develop the project in line with requests from the community |
| Health staff atthe community clinics may be disinterested or disallowed from engaging with the project E | High | Low | Ensure health staff understand the benefits and identify means to motivate them |
| Increased demand cannot be met adequately at health facilities E | High | Medium | Advocate for improved quality services. Collect community data to enable facilities to respond better to community needs |
| PCP staff turnover may be high I | Medium | Low | Ensure adequate budget for recruitment, orientation, training and follow up e health facilities to respond better to community |
| PCP staff may be exposed to hostility from healthcare providers for advocating on behalf of communities I | Medium | Low | Ensure staff are well versed with messaging to justify their work |
| Community health committees may be unreceptive to women’s group member participation I | Medium | Low | Maximise opportunities through strong supportive individual members |
| Changes in the political environment including general strikescausing disruptionE | Medium | Medium | Strengthen existing structures which will remain in place despite political changes and allow sufficient time to implement project activities accounting for scheduling changes |
| Seasonal and weather disruption e.g. flooding E | Medium | Medium | Allow sufficient time to implement project activities accounting for scheduling changes |
Written by ngos