REPUBLIC OF KENYA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION STATE DEPARTMENT OF EARY LEARNING AND BASIC EDUCATION STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN KENYA PRIMARY EDUCATION EQUITY IN LEARNING PROGRAM (PEELP) October 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................1 1.2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................1 1.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................2 1.4 PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES .............................................................................................................................3 1.5 THE INVESTMENT PROJECT FINANCING (IPF) COMPONENT ..........................................................................3 1.6 WORLD BANK REQUIREMENTS FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..............................................................4 2. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 6 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE SEP....................................................................................................................................6 2.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THIS SEP ................................................................................................................6 2.3 PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................7 2.4 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ..............................................................8 • UNHCR ............................................................................................................................................................9 2.5 RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS ......................................................................12 3. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 13 3.1. PROGRAM STAKEHOLDERS .........................................................................................................................13 3.1.1 Program Affected Parties (PAP) – Same beneficiaries captured under the new scope. .........................13 3.1.2 Other Interested Parties (OIP) ................................................................................................................13 3.1.3 Vulnerable Individuals or Groups ...........................................................................................................13 3.2. APPROACHES TO STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT..........................................................................................15 3.3. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS .........................................................................................15 4. THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ............................................................................... 20 4.1. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT METHODS AND TOOLS.................................................................................20 4.2. STRATEGY FOR INCLUSION OF INDIGENOUS PERSONS (IPS) AND VULNERABLE GROUPS ............................23 5. APPROACH TO STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................. 25 6. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .......................... 28 6.1 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................28 6.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................................................28 6.3 PROPOSED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION STRATEGY ...............................................................................29 7. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM) .................................................................................... 31 8. STRATEGY FOR PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION WITH VULNERABLE AND MARGINALISED GROUPS ............................................................................................................................. 35 9. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REPORTING ............................................................................. 37 10. ESTIMATED BUDGET ........................................................................................................................ 39 ANNEX 1: RESULT AREAS AND KEY ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 40 ANNEX 2: IPF SUB-COMPONENT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 42 ANNEX 3: SEQIP GRM VALUE CHAIN ........................................................................................................ 45 ANNEX 4: CATEGORIES OF GRIEVANCES ................................................................................................ 49 i LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Level and Stakeholders Consulted .................................................................................................. 8 Table 2: Stakeholder groups, description, and potential concerns ............................................................ 16 Table 3: Stakeholder Engagement Plan ...................................................................................................... 20 Table 4: Approaches to Stakeholder Communication Activities................................................................. 25 Table 5: Strategy for involvement of vulnerable and marginalized groups................................................ 35 Table 6: Monitoring of the SEP ................................................................................................................... 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Process Flow of Stakeholder Engagement .............................................................................. 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CAJ Commission on Administrative Justice CEMASTEA Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology in Africa CSOs Civil Society Organizations DFID Department for International Development E&S Environmental and Social ESA Environmental and Social Assessment ESF Environmental and Social Framework ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESMS Environmental and Social Management System ESRS Environmental and Social Review Summary ESS Environmental and Social Standards FGD Focus Group Discussions FPIC Free Prior Informed Consent GBV/SEA-H Gender-based violence and sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEA-H) GRC’s Multi-Agency Grievance Redress Committees GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism GRS The World Bank Grievance Redress Service ICTA Information and Communication Technology Authority IP Indigenous Peoples IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Policy Framework IVA Independent Verification Agency KEMI Kenya Education Management Institute KEPSHA Kenya Primary Schools Head Teachers Association KESSHA Kenya Secondary Schools Head Teachers Association KICD Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development KISE Kenya Institute of Special Education KNCHR Kenya National Commission on Human Rights KNEC Kenya National Examinations Council M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies MIS Management Information System NACONEK National Council for Nomadic Education in Kenya NCPWD National Council For Persons With Disability NEMA National Environmental Management Authority NEMIS National Education Management Information System NEMIS National Education Management Information System NGEC National Gender Equality Commission NGO Non-Governmental Organization OIP Other Interested Parties PAF Project Affected Families PAP Program Action Plan PAP Project Affected Person Pas Program Agreements PDO Project Development Objective PforR Program-for-Results PID Project Identification Document PIM Project Implementation Manual POM Program Operation Manual PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio PTTCs Primary Teacher Training Colleges RAs Result Areas SAGAs Semi-Autonomous Government Agencies SAs Subsidiary Agreements SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SEPU School Equipment Production Unit SOPs Standard Operating Procedures TA Technical Assistance UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF The United Nations Children's Fund USAID The United States Agency for International Development VMGs Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups WBG World Bank Group WDR World Development Report WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization WHR Window for Host Communities and Refugees EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kenya (hereinafter the Ministry of Education) through the proposed Kenya Primary Education Equity in Learning Program (PEELP), is supported by the World Bank (hereinafter the Bank) in a hybrid Program for Results (PforR)1 and Investment Project Finance (IPF)2 operation. The programmatic engagement involves a series of integrated operations to holistically address the education sector issues. The Operation aims to reduce subnational disparities in learning outcomes, improve the retention of girls in upper primary education and strengthen systems at the national level. The overall objective of this SEP is to define a roadmap for stakeholder engagement, including public information disclosure and consultation, throughout the entire Program cycle. The SEP outlines ways in which communication with stakeholders will occur and includes a mechanism by which people can raise concerns, provide feedback, or make complaints about Program related activities. The involvement of the local persons and communities is essential to the success of this intervention to ensure smooth collaboration amongst stakeholders and to minimize and mitigate environmental and social risks appropriately. This Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) for the PEELP has been prepared to establish a functioning platform for effective interaction and meaningful consultations with potentially affected parties and persons, who have interests in the implementation, and outcomes of the Operation. With the conviction that effective stakeholder engagement is a prerequisite for the smooth implementation of the Program, the PEELP shall build trust with stakeholders through engagements on intervention activities, solicit feedback on implementation whilst managing beneficiaries’ expectations and interested parties, on outcomes. The SEP has reviewed existing laws and policy as well as Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 10 on Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure, of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF); outlined previous stakeholder engagement activities; and categorized the identified stakeholders into various groups based on their interests and influence on the intervention. In addition, the SEP has identified and analyzed the various stakeholders, incorporated key characteristics of vulnerable groups, including the Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups (VMGs) and Indigenous Peoples (IPs). A summary of the Program and responsible persons, procedures, and mechanisms to ensure effective and meaningful consultations with the stakeholders, and timely disclosure of information have been outlined. In addition, the SEP has proposed grievance redress mechanism (GRM) for PEELP which offers stakeholders an opportunity to seek and receive grievance redress, and strengthen Program’s team to identify, track, resolve and refer eligible grievances, thereby enhancing program’s efficiency and development results and outcomes. Resources required for implementing SEP activities for the whole Program lifecycle has been included in the SEP. The SEP also clearly lays out a monitoring mechanism to ensure effective implementation of the activities and to enable the program to take corrective measures if required. 1 World Bank, Program-for-Results Financing (PforR), available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/program-for- results-financing 2 World Bank, Investment Project Financing (IPF), available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/what-we-do/products-and- services/financing-instruments/investment-project-financing This SEP is a “living document� and subject to being updated. Further, this SEP should be read in context of the current COVID-19 environment, and its restrictions which may impact on the ability to carry out effective stakeholder engagement activities as currently envisaged. The proposed AF will expand the scope of the parent Program as envisaged at the design stage. The PAD indicates that the new GPE grant to Kenya (the AF) will provide additional resources for expansion of selected interventions within the defined PforR boundaries. These interventions, which are supported through specific DLIs, include school grants (DLI 1) for target primary schools; the scholarship, school kits and mentorship program for poor and vulnerable learners (DLI 4); and pre-service teacher training reforms for improving CBTE in the PTTCs (DLI 7). Scaling up of interventions under DLI 1 and DLI 7 will contribute to the PDO indicators for improved foundational literacy and numeracy, while the scaling up of DLI 4 interventions is expected to result in improved retention of girls from poor and vulnerable populations in upper primary, which is another PDO indicator. Extension of school grants to a greater number of primary schools will provide much needed resources for improving learning conditions in those schools. Enhanced support for capacity building of teacher training colleges in CBTE will ensure that trainees are able to acquire the competencies for delivering the CBC when they become new primary teachers. Finally, expanded coverage of the scholarship, school kits and mentorship program will enable more poor and vulnerable girls and boys, particularly from the informal settlements (slums), to access schooling and complete basic education. The Program is not yet effective, but the Government is making satisfactory progress towards achieving key Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) and Disbursement Linked Results (DLR) including prior results. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background 1. The Program is designed to complement the World Bank and GPE supported operations in basic education as well as other development partners. The proposed Operation will also build on key achievements of the Secondary Education Equity in Learning Program (SEQIP), LCBEQ and PRIEDE by scaling up successful interventions and pilots for impact and increasing support for the implementation of the ongoing reforms. The Operation will incentivize the government to ensure a sharper focus on inequalities in basic education by linking Bank funding directly to the achievement of specific results in lagging regions rather than inputs. This will enable achievement of better learning outcomes, improved modernized curriculum in early grades, reformed teacher management and development, improvement in school inputs, strengthened management structures and technology in education at basic level. 2. The Operation is grounded in the Government’s National Education Sector Strategic Plan II (NESSP II 2022 to 2026). Implementation of NESSP I (2018 -2022) was disrupted in 2020 and 2021 by the COVID-19 pandemic. The MoE in collaboration with key stakeholders including development partners, conducted a technical review of NESSP I to (i) update the activities and targets for learning outcomes and access (including retention and completion) based on the current data; (ii) incorporate the priorities of the MoE’s COVID -19 response into the NESSP; and (iii) identify the needs for systems strengthening and institutional capacity building for the Government to fully implement the initiated reforms and policies. Under NESSP I, there has been considerable progress towards inclusion of refugees in the national education system. Subsequently, the Government updated and extended the NESSP to 2026. 3. The NESSP II builds on NESSP I and includes four pillars that are critical for addressing inequities in access to quality basic education: i) access and participation; ii) equity and inclusiveness; iii) quality and relevance; and iv) governance and accountability. Concerning regional access and quality, NESSP II aims to address regional disparities in access, and improvement in learning outcomes across the country. NESSP II also emphasizes girls’ education and refugees’ education as cross cutting issues. 1.2. Program description 4. The Operation will build implementing institutions capacity, strengthen systems by closing gaps and support implementation of on-going reforms, to offer quality education and improve learning outcomes for greater equity in basic education. 5. The Program Development Objective (PDO) is to reduce regional disparities in learning outcomes, improve the retention of girls in upper primary education, and strengthen systems at the national level to assure learning for all. The PDO Level Indicators are: a. Increase in the share of students achieving higher order competencies in literacy and numeracy (Level 4) in the NASMLA Grade 3 assessment, in Counties falling into the lowest quintile of performers, including in refugee populations. (Percentage). b. Increase in the share of students achieving higher order competencies in literacy (Level 4) in the NASMLA Grade 3 assessment, in Counties falling into the lowest quintile of performers, including in refugee populations. (Percentage). c. Improved retention of poor and vulnerable girls, including in refugee populations, in upper primary (grades 67-8); and d. Successful roll out of CBC and CBC’s formative assessment reforms in basic education. (DLI) 1 6. The Program, to be implemented over a 5-year period (2022-2026), under three (3) key result areas as below: (the detailed RAs and activities, to be financed under the PforR component, are presented in Annex 1. Additionally, the full description of the result areas and key activities can be found in the Project Appraisal Document) and GPE AF Restructuring Paper i. Result Area 1: Equalize learning opportunities: improve learning outcomes in target counties and for refugee populations; ii. Result Area 2: Improve girls’ participation in schooling, including in refugee hosting counties; and iii. Result Area 3: Strengthen reform implementation capacity. 7. The proposed AF is consistent with the original PDO, to reduce regional disparities in learning outcomes, improve the retention of girls in upper primary education, and strengthen systems for delivering equitable education outcomes. There are no outstanding safeguards or fiduciary issues in the parent Program. The parent Program was recently approved and therefore no changes are anticipated to the safeguards category or policies. The AF operation will expand the scope of the parent Program, building on the existing DLIs. 8. GPE has provided an addition USD 117.1m for the KLEEP. GPE requires a mention of LEGO’s Foundation contribution to this grant, channeled through GPE multiplier fund. For the AF, the overall expenditures (after the AF) are sufficient to achieve the Program results. As noted in the PAD for the parent Program the GPE grant would be considered as part of the Program boundaries 1.3 Program Implementation Arrangements 9. The proposed Operation will be implemented by MoE and the TSC, with support from participating agencies NACONEK, KICD and KNEC3. MoE ,TSC and NACONEKare the main Implementing Entities (IEs) for Results Area 1 (Equalize opportunities, improve learning outcomes in target counties and for refugee populations). MoE is the main IE for Results Area 2 (Improve girls’ participation in schooling, including in refugee host counties). MoE, KICD and KNEC are the main IEs for Results Area 3 (Strengthen reform implementation capacity). 10. Refugee elements in the Operation will be implemented in close consultation with the Department of Refugees Services (formerly Refugee Affairs Secretariat [RAS]) and UNHCR. The specific role of the newly established Department of Refugee Services in Program oversight will be detailed in the Program Operation Manual (POM). 11. TSC, KICD and KNEC have separate legal personalities and as such, are able to sign Program Agreements (PAs) and Subsidiary Agreements (SAs). Being an independent constitutional entity, the TSC will sign a Program Agreement with the World Bank as well as a Subsidiary Agreement with the Recipient, the National Treasury. The number of agreements is minimized in the interest of efficient governance and administration of the Operation. 12. The main implementing agencies for the IPF component are MoE and TSC. Correspondingly, two IPF designated accounts (DAs) will be set up, one for MoE and one for TSC. TSC is the technical agency that will implement and benefit from the activities for development of robust teacher management systems. Other 3 Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) and National Examinations Council (KNEC) 2 activities in the IPF component will be coordinated and implemented by MoE. Annual work plans and associated procurement plans for the IPF will be developed as part of the POM prior to effectiveness. 13. The Operation’s strategic leadership and implementation oversight, rests with the existing MoE’s Directorate of Project Coordination and Delivery (DPCAD) and the joint National Steering Committee (NSC) for SEQIP, PRIEDE and Tusome projects. With experience within the education sector, implementation of the PEELP will be coordinated within the framework of the Kenya Education Development Partners Coordination Group (EDPCG). 14. The Operation will build on the existing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) structures at MoE, to be strengthened under the IPF component. The existing National PCU at MoE will directly be responsible for tracking all the Program results through program implementing entities. Additionally, the results framework indicators (DLIs) will be subject to third party verification by an independent verifier. Accordingly, the midterm review of the Program will inform any areas for adjustments. 1.4 Program beneficiaries 15. The Program will directly benefit the following: i. About 6 million learners in primary education (school grants, girl’s education interventions, school infrastructure development and school meals) including about 221,529 children in refugee hosting countries. ii. About 117,900 refugee children in camp-based primary schools. iii. Approximately 20,000 diploma teacher trainees in Primary Teacher Training Colleges (PTTCs). iv. About 200,000 primary school teachers. 16. With the AF, the Program is expected to increase beneficiaries over its four years of implementation particularly for the expanded DLIs for scholarships (DLI 4) and school infrastructure (DLI 6). For the expanded DLI on pre-service teachers training (DLI 7), the target teachers remain the same. a) About 6.6 million learners in primary education (school grants, girl’s education interventions, school infrastructure development and school meals), including about 221,529 children in refugee hosting counties. b) About 117,900 refugee children in camp-based primary schools. c) Approximately 20,000 diploma teacher trainees in teacher training colleges. d) About 200,000 primary school teachers. 1.5 The Investment Project Financing (IPF) Component 17. The Operation will mainly support Program management; key technical assistance required for achieving key results in priority areas under the three RAs; and to facilitate achievement of results by minimizing technical, safeguards, and fiduciary risks as per the actions in the Program Action Plan (PAP). An independent verification agency (IVA) for the DLIs will also be supported. Annex 2 details the key activities that will be supported under the IPF component. The IPF component financing (US$ 12 Million, of which US$ 6 Million is Window for Host Communities and Refugees [WHR]). The IPF component complements the PforR with targeted technical assistance on key aspects of the Program, which include: 3 i. the implementation of ongoing reforms (CBC, formative assessment, teacher management), ii. the improvement of information systems and management practices in the sector (including NEMIS and inclusion of refugee education in the information system and the development of quality assurance systems and school audits); iii. the mitigation of safeguards and fiduciary risks (through the Program Action Plan (PAP)), and iv. program management and implementation (including M&E and staff development programs in implementing entities). 18. IPF activities are categorized under the following sub-components: a (detailed list of activities to be financed under each sub-component is presented in Annex 3) i.Sub-component 1: Program management, policy dialogue, communication, monitoring and evaluation, safeguards and fiduciary, and verification (US$4 million). This sub-component will finance the operational costs associated with coordination, implementation, communication, monitoring, and evaluation of Program- related activities at the national and county levels. 29. Sub-component 2: Technical assistance and capacity building for adequate implementation of the initiated reforms (US$6 million). This sub-component will finance a sample-based national survey to measure pre-school quality and pre-primary children’s school readiness (cognitive, motor, language, and socio-emotional skills), and establish standards and tools for quality assurance mechanisms for pre- primary education, including assessment and classroom education observation tools, among others. 30. The IPF Component will constitute the following (US$12 million, of which US$8.4 million is from IDA, US$3.6 million is from the IDA grant, US$ 17.5 Million from GPE Grant and US$ 10 Million GOK Counterpart funding). New activities for the IPF component, as captured in the GPE AF Restructuring Paper, will complement the expanded scope of the PforR. The implementation details for each of the new activity in the IPF component will be included in an updated Program Operational Manual (POM), including a detailed workplan and budget. The updated POM will be an effective condition for the AF grant agreement. ii. 1.6 World Bank Requirements for Stakeholder Engagement 19. The Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) sets out the World Bank's commitment to sustainable development and mandatory requirement for financed projects. Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 10 on Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure recognizes the importance of open and transparent engagement between the proponent and project stakeholders as an essential element of good international practices. Effective stakeholder engagement can improve the environmental and social sustainability of projects, enhance project acceptance, and make a significant contribution to successful project design and implementation. 20. The main objectives of ESS10 are to: • Establish a systematic approach to stakeholder engagements to assist Borrowers to identify stakeholders, build, and maintain a constructive relationship with them, particularly project-affected parties. • Assess the level of stakeholder interest and support for the project and enable stakeholders’ views be considered in project design and environmental and social performance. 4 • Promote and provide the means for effective and inclusive engagement with project-affected parties throughout the project life cycle on issues that could potentially affect them. • Ensure that appropriate project information on environmental and social risks and impacts is disclosed to stakeholders in a timely, understandable, accessible, and appropriate manner and format. • Provide project-affected parties with accessible and inclusive means to raise issues and grievances and allow Borrowers to respond and manage such grievances. 21. The World Bank’s ESF applies to activities under the IPF component of the PEELP. ESS 10 requires implementing agencies to provide stakeholders with timely, relevant, understandable, and accessible information, and consult with them in a culturally appropriate manner, which is free of manipulation, interference, coercion, discrimination, and intimidation. The ESS10 emphasizes stakeholder engagement throughout the Program cycle and encourages early identification of stakeholders proportionate to the nature, scale, risks, and impacts, appropriate to stakeholders’ interests. Accordingly, meaningful, and inclusive PEELP stakeholder engagements were held in which appropriate Program information on E&S risks and impacts were disclosed to the stakeholders. Given the Covid-19 challenges, stakeholder engagements were adapted to minimize close personal contact and the Ministry of Health (MoH) COVID-19 recommended protocols were followed as outlined by the Government of Kenya directives. Strategies employed included smaller meetings and focus-group discussions (FGDs), and virtual consultations. 22. The Bank’s Environmental and Social Development Specialists prepared an Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS) which included information on the type and scope of the proposed Program, its potential risks, and impacts. The Programs’ Environmental and Social (E&S) risks have been preliminary classified as Moderate based on proposed Program activities. 23. The Program will invest in interventions that are likely to provide environmental and social benefits such as; i) improved school conditions in target counties for enhanced teaching and learning, ii) improved sanitation and hygiene, iii) quality infrastructure development, iv) reduced congestion through construction of additional classrooms, v) progress in the implementation of initiated key reforms in the education sector, vi) reduced teacher shortage in target schools with high Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR), vii) effective implementation of the CBC at the primary level, viii) enhanced enrollment and retention of learners in school. in many ways; improving quality learning outcomes, improving school completion rate, training and capacity building, opportunities for employment etc. In line with the government’s commitment to inclusive education the Program will pay special attention to issues affecting persons with disabilities and other vulnerable social groupings as well as closely monitor the key social issues identified by the initial environmental and social screening such as gender-based violence [GBV], disability inclusion. Further analysis and consultation on these issues should reveal constraints and opportunities to promote equal access to the Program related benefits. 5 2. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 24. IPF component consists of Technical Assistance (TA) and will support actions comprising program management, risk mitigation and capacity strengthening for compliance with E&S requirements including other critical interventions under the Result Areas (RAs). While the TA activities are not expected to result in irreversible risks and impacts, there are environmental and social risks associated with these activities which require effective management. Key social risks include labor related malpractices, discrimination and unfair treatment of workers, insecurity challenges in remote target locations and possible exposure to SEA/SH arising from TA engagements. All these risks are amplified by COVID-19 restrictions and challenges in the traditional methods of access to beneficiaries for meaningful stakeholder and community engagements as well as grievance redress and monitoring. Key environmental risks relate to occupational health and safety concerns related to the spread of COVID-19 where face to face meetings interactions related to TA activities could expose project workers including MoE and TSC staff. Other environmental risks include indiscriminate disposal of COVID-19 related PPE waste to be provided in meetings. There are indirect downstream environment impacts associated with, (a) installation of biogas units in schools posing risks such as asphyxiation, school fires, explosion, leakage of toxic (hydrogen sulphide) and noxious (ammonia) gases, sanitation, and groundwater pollution, (b) procurement of clean energy initiatives for preparation of school meals. This include risks such as; health and safety risks (burns, fire risks, explosion) from use of the cooking stoves, road safety accidents during transportation and distribution of cooking equipment to targeted schools and waste generation; (c) procurement and operation of mobile science lab kits which presents potential health and safety risks from lab fires, explosion of gas cylinders, soil, and ground water contamination from improper handling of both hazardous/non-hazardous solid waste, wastewater, and gas emissions from use of chemicals in the labs. The ESF will be applied in the management of these risks arising from Project implementation. Additionally, the AF Labor Management Procedure (LMP) has been developed and includes labor related OHS risks and mitigation measures which includes a SEA/SH response plan. 2.1 Purpose of the SEP 25. The Stakeholder Engagement Plan seeks to define a consistent, structured, coordinated and culturally appropriate approach to consultation and disclosure of Program information. MoE recognises the varied interests and expectations of stakeholders on the proposed intervention and seeks to develop an approach for effective engagement of all stakeholders in the different capacities at which they interface with the Program. The aim is to create an atmosphere of understanding that actively involves Program-affected people and other stakeholders leading to improved decision making. In this way, the SEP seeks to ensure that stakeholders are given sufficient opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns, and that these concerns influence Program decisions. 2.2 Specific objectives of this SEP 26. The specific objectives of the SEP are to: • Understand the stakeholder engagement requirements as provided for under the national regulatory frameworks and the World Bank ESF; • Provide guidance for stakeholder engagement such that it meets the standards of International Best Practice; • Map and identify the key Program stakeholders that are affected, and/or able to influence the activities; to help build and maintain a constructive relationship; • Identify the most effective methods and structures through which to disseminate Program information, and to ensure regular, accessible, transparent, and appropriate consultations; 6 • Provide means for effective and inclusive engagement with Program-affected parties and other interested parties throughout the interventions’ life cycle on issues that could potentially affect them. • Identify resources needed and timeframe to achieve effective participation in each stage of the process and describes the stakeholder engagement process; • Provide Program-affected parties with accessible and inclusive means to raise issues and grievances and allow PEELP to respond to and manage such grievances; • Define reporting and monitoring measures to ensure the effectiveness and periodical reviews of the SEP based on findings; and • Assist MoE with securing and maintaining a social license to operate throughout the life of the Program and even beyond. 2.3 Principles for effective stakeholder engagement 27. The program’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) shall be informed by a set of principles defining its core values underpinning interactions with identified stakeholders. This principle shall align with the requirements of ESS10 which stipulates that meaningful stakeholder’s engagement should be free of external manipulations, interference, coercion, discrimination, and intimidation. 28. Some common principles based on “International Best Practice� include the following: • Commitment is demonstrated when the need to understand, engage and identify the community is recognized and acted upon early in the process and continuous throughout Program implementation; • Integrity occurs when engagement is conducted in a manner that fosters mutual respect and trust; • Respect is created when the rights, cultural beliefs, values, and interests of stakeholders and affected communities are recognized; • Informed participation and responsiveness involves widely publicized information among all stakeholders in appropriate format respecting stakeholders’ view; • Transparency is demonstrated when community concerns are responded to in a timely, open and effective manner; • Inclusiveness is achieved when broad participation is encouraged and supported by appropriate participation opportunities; • Trust is achieved through open and meaningful dialogue that respects and upholds a community’s beliefs, values, and opinions and • Measurement which is documenting the engagement process, its output and assessment. 29. The process flow for stakeholder engagement, indicated in figure 1, is represented as a multistage process, provides some of the key steps and actions necessary for achievement of meaningful stakeholder consultations. The process is a fixed process but provides for modification of plans to accommodate field experience and lessons learnt to enhance meaningful stakeholder engagement while developing relationships of mutual respect, in place of once-off consultations. 7 Figure 1: The Process Flow of Stakeholder Engagement 2.4 Summary of previous stakeholder engagement activities 30. A team comprising the MoE and World Bank Staff undertook consultations with key stakeholders at both the national and county levels (Table 1). The consulted stakeholders, including the relevant Government agencies, development partners and representatives from Indigenous Peoples (IP) and Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups (VMGs). During the consultations, the discussion focused on the proposed Program. Table 1: Level and Stakeholders Consulted Venue Stakeholders Agenda of the Consultation National Level consultations KICD • MoE • Discussion on planned interventions and • National Treasury budgets, target counties and beneficiaries, 16th December, • TSC implementation timelines and institutional 2021 • KNEC arrangement. • KICD • Discussion on the program development, • CEMASTEA planned activities, implementation • KISE arrangements. • KEMI • Education partnerships to support • NACONEK Program interventions. • School Equipment Production • Implementation arrangements discussion Unit (SEPU) on collaboration between MoE, TSC, SAGAS and NGOs. • Identification of E&S risks associated with Program activities • The extent of application of the environmental and social management system 8 Venue Stakeholders Agenda of the Consultation • Challenges and lessons learnt including recommendation for improving program design. Sarova • GPE • Achievements and Priorities in Basic Woodlands • WORLD BANK Education Hotel – Nakuru • Previous GPE Support to Kenya • UNHCR (achievements, lessons learnt and • SAVE THE CHILDREN recommendations) • EDUCATION • The Approved GPE Compact 19th -24th June (Priority areas of focus) 2022 DEVELOPMENT • Overview and Status report of the TRUST(EDT) Kenya Primary education equity in • UNESCO Learning (PEEL) program • MOE priorities for the GPE Funding • UNICEF under the PEEL Program Additional Financing (AF) as per the approved • FOREIGN, compact COMMONWEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT ➢ ITAP report and OFFICE (FCDO) recommendations ➢ Enabling education system • MOE Transformation ➢ (Data Utilization and Sector • TSC Coordination), • KNEC • KICD • Monitoring, Evaluation and • CEMASTEA Learning (MEL) • KISE • Strengthening Governance and Accountability in education • KEMI institutions • NACONEK • Status of implementation of pre- primary education (Progress report on pre-primary investment, challenges, gaps, lessons learnt and recommendations) • Priority Reforms for Enhancing Quality Teaching and Learning and Pre-primary Education • Priority Reform: Achieving gender parity in Education • Priority Reform: Access, Equity and Inclusion in Education • Presentation on Special Needs Education- Progress realized to date, Challenges, Lessons learnt and gaps for further investment. • Presentation of QAR1 Report 9 Venue Stakeholders Agenda of the Consultation • Virtually • SEQIP PIU • The role of the stakeholder in • GPE PRIEDE implementation of Program. 12th – 20th • Social Protection • Capacity (human, financial, E&S January, 2022 • Public Works management) assessment in implementation • DOSHS of the Program. • NCA • Analysis of stakeholder targeting in • Public Health facilitating inclusion of IPs/VMGs. • NEMA • Best practices that could be adopted in • TSC Program implementation. • KNEC • Systems in place for management of • KICD social conflicts and grievances. • CEMASTEA • Engagement amongst stakeholders for • KISE synergy in Program implementation. • KEMI • Systems in place for management of emergencies and disasters in schools. • NACONEK • Extent of compliance monitoring, • ASALs evaluation, and reporting. • Directorate of Infrastructure • Equitable access to benefits of existing • State Department of Early Bank funded Program such as scholarships Learning and the school meals program. County Level Consultations 10 Venue Stakeholders Agenda of the Consultation Physical visit to • County Directors of Education • Presentation and discussion of the Makueni, • County Director of TSC proposed Program Narok, • Social Protection • Capacity and system assessment for Bungoma, • Public Works E&S management at the county level: a) Siaya, Turkana • NCA extent of application, b) challenges and Kwale • Public Health impeding effective management, c) Counties • NEMA Identification of potential environmental • National Council For Persons and social risks and impacts of the Program 7th – 15th • Identification of potential stakeholders With Disability (NCPWD) December, relevant to the Program • Kenya Primary Schools Head 2021 Teachers Association (KEPSHA) • Discussion on challenges impeding and Kenya Secondary Schools access to basic education Head Teachers Association • Strategies for enhancing inclusion of (KESSHA) Representatives VMG and IP communities • Representatives of VMG and • Representation of Ips and VMGs in the IPs Program community-based structures • NGOs such as WE World • Existing grievance redress mechanisms, • DOSHS gaps to strengthen such systems • Challenges, lessons learnt and experiences so far in the implementation of some of the MoE projects such as school meals program and Elimu scholarship • Input into Preliminary Safeguards Instruments • Draft Labour Management Plan • Key Environmental and Social Risks and Proposed mitigation measures 31. National level stakeholder consultations held at the KICD were engaging with best practices to enhance implementation of the PEELP shared. These included: engagement with NACONEK to enhance the school feeding program in the ASALs; a consideration for alternative sources of energy for food preparation in schools; review distribution of food to schools in addressing delays; the need for adequate food storage facilities in schools; evaluation of the effectiveness of assistance offered to Teachers Training Colleges (TTCs); and, a consideration to incorporate refugee schools in the national education system for the benefit of learners and their communities. 32. Stakeholder consultations at the six sample counties were positively received with meaningful engagements. Outcomes of the consultations included: contextual Program environmental and social risks and impacts and measures of mitigating them proposed, material measures for prevention, response, and overall management GBV/SEA-H; siting, development of technical designs, bills of quantity, contractor selection processes, adherence to construction standards and certificate issuance in school infrastructure; ineffective projects’ communication; additional critical stakeholders for effective program implementation were 11 identified; contextual challenges impeding education and, management of grievances at community level considering cultural appropriateness4. VMGs and IP communities FGDs outcomes included: inclusion in project benefits; lack of basic infrastructure; inaccessibility due to few schools and long distances; nomadism in the ASALs; and high pupil-teacher ratios. 33. Virtual engagements outcomes were focused on stakeholder’s roles in program implementation; stakeholder’s technical, financial, and human resource capacity in management of environmental and social effects associated with program activities, gaps identified and appropriate measures for strengthening proposed. 34. Upon Program effectiveness, additional engagements will be conducted with stakeholders and communities. These include vulnerable and minority groups (girls, vulnerable boys, marginalized communities, refugees, persons with disabilities), taking into consideration cultural sensitivities, literacy levels, accessibility, and other special needs. 2.5 Relevant Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks 35. According to Kenyan regulations, public participation and consultation is part of the Program development process as it may drastically affect communities and their environments. Legislation in Kenya related to public participation in the decision-making process include: 36. The Constitution of the Kenya 2010, which provides a broad framework regulating existence and development aspects of all interest to the people of Kenya, and along which all national and sectoral legislative documents are drawn. Article 69, 1(d) empowers the state to encourage public participation especially in the management, protection, and conservation of the environment. Chapter 4 of the Bill of Rights makes clear provisions on the rights and privileges of the vulnerable and marginalized groups. 37. Article 56 (b) provides that the State shall provide minorities and marginalized groups with special opportunities in education. Article 21.3, 27.6, 7, 44.2, 100 and 204 presents the minority and marginalized groups that fit the OP 4.10 criteria as a unique category of the Kenyan population that deserve special attention, representation, and equalization in the provision of basic services. Therefore, the proposed PEELP will seek to ensure that people’s constitutional rights are safeguarded and that no project component threatens or undermines their integrity and social security. Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), 2015 sets out principles of public participation in the development of policies, plans and processes for management of the environment. Environment Impact Assessment Guidelines and Administrative Procedures require public participation and disclosure of project information during EIA procedure in the development of projects, policies, plans and programs. 38. Additional legislations and policies that advocate for appropriate community participation and engagement include the Kenya National Policy on Gender and Development (NPGD), 2000; National Policy on Culture and Heritage, 2009 and National Environment Policy, 2013 which also proposes strengthening and promotes collaboration, cooperation and partnerships in environmental management. 4 In-depth discussions on stakeholder assessments are presented in the Kenya Primary Education Equity in Learning Program Environmental and Social System Assessment (ESSA). 12 3. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS 3.1. Program Stakeholders 39. Stakeholder analysis determines individuals or groups affected by the proposed intervention who may have an interest or can influence its outcomes; positively or negatively. The analysis identifies the appropriate methodology for each stakeholder throughout the Program lifecycle. For purpose of fostering meaningful stakeholder engagement the stakeholders of PEELP can be divided into three core categories as discussed below: 3.1.1 Program Affected Parties (PAP) – Same beneficiaries captured under the new scope. 40. These are persons, groups, and other entities within the Project Area of Influence (PAI) that are directly influenced by the project and/or have been identified as most susceptible to associated change. They need to be closely engaged in identifying their impacts and significance in decision-making on mitigation and management measures. Effective engagements with target communities will be conducted upon Program effectiveness and sustained throughout implementation. Experience from implemented WB financed projects under the MoE (GPE PRIEDE, GPE COVID-19 and SEQIP) will be useful in accurate PEELP stakeholders profiling. 41. Stakeholders will comprise learners; teachers; head teachers; BoM; parents, school sponsors (including faith-based organizations), MCAs, VMGs/IPs and their associations. The other directly affected parties are the management MoE (national and county), TSC and service providers (psychosocial support and GBV). In addition, government officials, community members living within the planned project activities community-based organizations (CBOs) and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that represent local interest groups, business entities and individual entrepreneurs in the project area that can benefit from employment/business opportunities. 3.1.2 Other Interested Parties (OIP) 42. Interested Parties include stakeholders who may not experience direct impacts from the Program. They perceive their interests as being affected and/or could influence Program implementation. Specifically, stakeholder in this category include: i) business owners, service providers, and project suppliers of goods and materials; ii) mass media (local, regional, and national print and broadcasting) and associated interest groups, and digital/web-based entities; and iii) contractors for the MoE communication system. Others may include the implementing partners such as TSC, KICD, KNEC, National Treasury, NACONEK, Information and Communication Technology Authority (ICTA), and World Food Programme (WFP). The MoE may partner with civil society organizations (CSOs) and NGOs during implementation deliver such as the GBV action plan. 3.1.3 Vulnerable Individuals or Groups 43. The ESF strengthens the Bank’s commitment to identify vulnerable or disadvantaged individuals and groups, including persons with physical or mental disability, and assessing and preventing potential risks and negative impacts that could affect them disproportionately, as well as barriers to accessing project benefits. The SEP identifies stakeholders with specific needs and explains how the information disclosed and engagement will be designed to be meaningful. These are persons who may impacted disproportionately or 13 further disadvantaged by the Program due to their vulnerable status5, and may require special engagement efforts to ensure their equal representation in the consultation and decision-making process. The implementation of the proposed PEELP may disproportionately affect the disadvantaged or vulnerable individuals or groups, who often do not have a voice to express their concerns or understand the impacts of the Program. Therefore, awareness raising and engagement with this category of stakeholders should be adapted to consider such groups/individuals’ cultural sensitivities and concerns to the extent of ensuring full understanding of Program activities, benefits, and opportunities. 44. Engagement with vulnerable groups and individuals often requires the application of specific measures and assistance aimed at the facilitation of participation in Program decision making. Due to challenges such as disability, cultural limitations, language barriers and fear of expression; such vulnerable groups and individuals end up not effectively participating in consultation processes and/or don’t understand Program information. In the context of PEELP, this category of stakeholders includes vulnerable or disadvantaged learners: • With special needs and disabilities; • From homes with a history of domestic violence and/or abuse; • With a chronic illness (who are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection); • From homes with illiterate parents/guardians who cannot provide adequate learning support; • From poor households (both urban and rural areas) with limited access to the tools being used for e-learning including radios, TV, phones, laptops and tablets; • From child-headed households; • From homes with older persons and/or those with chronic illnesses who need additional care and support; • From homes and regions with a history of child labor - they are likely to be more engaged in economic activities than remote learning; and • Who have been victims of early and forced marriages and teenage pregnancies. • From minority clans and or indigenous groups; • Orphans and vulnerable children from low-income families. 45. Vulnerable groups within communities affected by the Program will be consulted through dedicated means, as appropriate. The PEELP team will obtain gender-disaggregated data, where possible, for contextualization and enhancing participation in community decision making. Meetings will be conducted in accessible locations and within flexible hours of the day, to ensure their voice and opinions on Program implementation is heard and recommendations considered. 46. Upon effectiveness, the PEELP shall carry out an analysis of the inclusion of disability issues through an Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) as guided by principles underlying the ESF: (i) the potential for increased vulnerability of persons with disabilities to be adversely affected by the project needs to be avoided and mitigated; (ii) their ability to take advantage of project benefits, including employment where skill sets are appropriate and reasonable accommodation can be provided, and (iii) the need to include vulnerable and disadvantaged stakeholders in the information disclosure and consultation process in a 5 Vulnerable status may emerge from an individual’s or group’s race, ethnic or social origin, national, color, gender, religion, language, political or other opinion, property, age, culture, sickness, literacy, physical or mental disability, poverty levels or economically disadvantaged, and dependence on unique natural resources. 14 meaningful way. The ESA should identify opportunities to include accessibility measures in project design, where financially and technically feasible, if disability risks and impacts have been identified as part of potential project impacts. 47. The PEELP will adopt sound mitigation measures for Program inclusivity, demonstrating good international practice. The awareness on disability issues and accommodating needs of vulnerable groups will be raised through this intervention. Measures adopted, while designed for persons with disabilities, often benefit other groups of society, as well. 3.2. Approaches to Stakeholder Engagement 48. The approaches to stakeholder engagement include: i. Openness and life-cycle approach: public consultations for the Program be throughout its lifecycle. Stakeholder engagement free of manipulation, interface, coercion, and intimidation. ii. Informed participation and feedback: information provided is widely distributed among all stakeholders, in an appropriate format that is accessible and understandable. Cultural sensitivities, literacy levels, special needs of stakeholders with disabilities and vulnerable groups, are considered. Engagements conducted are based on timely, relevant, understandable, and accessible Program related information. Opportunities to raise concerns are provided and stakeholder feedback is taken into consideration during decision making. iii. Inclusiveness and sensitivity: stakeholder identification undertaken is to support better communication and build effective relationships. The participation process for the Program is inclusive as all stakeholders are always encouraged to be involved in the consultation process. The Program will provide equal access to information to all stakeholders, paying particular attention to cultural sensitivities, accessibility needs and literacy levels. Sensitivity to stakeholders’ needs is the key principle underlying the selection of engagement methods. Special attention is given to vulnerable groups, particularly women headed households, refugees, persons with disabilities, the poorest of the poor, youth, elderly persons, and the cultural sensitivities of members of diverse ethnic groups. 3.3. Stakeholder Identification and Analysis 49. Based on completed stakeholder identification, table 2 below provides a list of potential stakeholders at national, county and community levels. The table highlights potential issues of concern for each stakeholder. While the list has been enriched to capture stakeholder inputs, gathered during consultations undertaken, at Program design stage, it will continuously be updated as stakeholders are engaged during implementation. 15 Table 2: Stakeholder groups, description, and potential concerns Stakeholder Description Potential issues of concern Beneficiary schools and • About 6.6 million learners in primary education (school grants, girl’s • Diversion of program benefits such as school meals to less students: education interventions, school infrastructure development and school deserving learners, schools and areas Learners meals). • Inward migration - neighboring areas not covered by project Teachers • About 117,900 refugee children in camp-based primary schools. interventions for Program benefits such as the school meals Head Teachers • Approximately 20,000 diploma teacher trainees in PTTCs. program Trainers • About 200,000 primary school teachers. • Selection bias, excluding the most deserving learners Parents/Guardians • High demand for expansion of the scholarship program BoMs • Community engagement • Access to Program information and benefits • External socioeconomic factors such as food and water that impact on learning outcomes • Embed issues of climate change in programmes – e.g environment friendly classrooms. Non-beneficiary schools • Schools and students that do not meet the inclusion criteria into the • Exclusion from Program benefits in the face of widespread and students program or cannot access it and therefore don’t benefit from interventions need • Inequalities perpetuated and entrenched by interventions which may disproportionately be advantageous to those that can access Program benefits Vulnerable members of the • Community members and students that are comparatively unable to • Elite and clan capture community (widows, exploit Program benefits due to vulnerabilities such as poverty and • Inequalities perpetuated and entrenched by Program disabled, prohibitive costs interventions which may disproportionately be advantageous to single mothers, illiterate beneficiaries parents, minorities) • Beneficiaries not fully aware of Program benefits such as psychosocial support, due to inadequate knowledge and capacity Schools Boards of Management boards that govern schools and make decisions on key issues • Inward migration from students in schools without school Management (BoM), school including admissions, provision of school meals and mobilization of meals administrators additional resources • Inequalities perpetuated from program interventions which may disproportionately be advantageous to beneficiaries • With regards to illegal levies, MoE to recommend through TSC to sanction the concerned school administrations Community and elected Elected leaders, clan elders, religious leaders, and opinion leaders from • Diversion of Program benefits such as scholarship and school leaders in counties, MCAs targeted communities meals to less deserving learners, schools, and areas 16 Stakeholder Description Potential issues of concern • Increased complaints due to dissemination of inaccurate Program information • Inward migration - neighboring areas not covered by project interventions for Program benefits such as the school meals program Marginalized / Minority Parents, teachers, and community members in hard-to-reach areas • Elite and clan capture of Program benefits communities characterized by marginalization, remoteness, and security challenges • Diversion of Program benefits to less deserving schools and areas, such as school meals program • Inward migration - neighboring areas not covered by project interventions for Program benefits such as the school meals program Parents and guardians with Parents and guardians with children with disabilities unable to leverage on • Inequalities perpetuated from program interventions which children with disabilities access to Program interventions may disproportionately be advantageous to beneficiaries (Persons with Disabilities • Need to capture data that is disaggregated by disability – (PWDs/LWDs) Enhance SNE module to capture data on the various categories of disabilities. • Vulnerable Members of the Community members and students that are comparatively unable to exploit • Elite and clan capture community Program benefits due to various vulnerabilities including, poverty and • Inequalities perpetuated from program interventions which prohibitive costs may disproportionately be advantageous to beneficiaries National and County Officials from administrative structures responsible for targeting Program • Sustainability of Program benefits and mainstreaming into the Government officials beneficiary communities regular education system • Diversion of Program benefits to less deserving schools and areas, such as school meals program • Inward migration - neighboring areas not covered by project interventions for Program benefits such as the school meals program • National and county NCA, DOSHS, NEMA, Social Protection, Public Health • Effective Program implementation - policy and oversight government agencies and • Compliance with E&S provisions to enhance sustainability departments relevant for E&S risk management 47 county governments Counties within the Program scope • Coordination with national government on mechanisms/framework/policy that may affect the implementation of development projects in the counties 17 Stakeholder Description Potential issues of concern Implementing agencies MoE, TSC and key SAGAs • Lack of a coordinated approach • Joint sector reviews needed to be held on a regular basis • M&E framework needed • Monitoring is currently being done at input level and not focused on outcomes • Inadequate use of evidence for decision making. • Delay in delivery of Program interventions and results • Inadequate attention to counties and schools needs engaged in the Program • Lack of adherence to labor management procedures with all categories of workers – direct, contract and primary suppliers County education County education leadership • Inadequate support to all Program components leadership • Inadequate identification of VMGs/IPs, information, and access to Program benefits County scholarship and County scholarship and school meals committee • Biased selection in membership to committees school meals committee • Inadequate inclusion of VMGs and other vulnerable groups • Biased selection of beneficiary schools • No policy, legal and regulatory framework to guide the provision of these scholarships. • Need for coordination among the various databases and the various scholarships to avoid double dipping • Service Providers UWEZO • Lack of adherence to the provision of services based on laid TUSOME down agreements and protocols • Lack of adherence to Program instruments including the LMP, ESMP, GBV action plan, VMGP, among others • Lack of sensitivity to the needs of VMGs/IPs Local NGOs and CSO - Save the children, Care in Kenya and other CSOs • Unwillingness of NGOs to lend assistance in disseminating advocacy groups information about the proposed Program to the local communities, National Council for persons with including in the remote areas and providing engagement venues disabilities such as focus-group discussions The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), The United States Agency • Unwillingness and inability to support Program interventions for International Development (USAID), Department for International • Inability to share best practices on similar activities in Kenya Development (DFID), World Health Organization (WHO), The United and other jurisdictions 18 Stakeholder Description Potential issues of concern Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), • Need to included refugee education in the National Education UNHCRamong others Sector Strategic Plan (NESSP) 19 4. THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 50. As set out in ESS10, stakeholder engagement is an inclusive process that must be conducted throughout the Program life cycle. The PEELP will build on the existing MoE stakeholder engagement frameworks. The SEP will specifically complement ongoing national level stakeholder engagement efforts under the Kenya GPE PRIEDE (P146797) and SEQIP (P160083) to improve the overall Program performance. Accordingly, the SEP will be updated as new partners and information emerges during Program implementation. During stakeholder consultations, the Program will continue to ensure compliance with MoH COVID-19 recommended protocols as outlined by the Government of Kenya directives, WHO guidelines and World Bank guidance. 4.1. Stakeholder Engagement Methods and Tools 51. The Program shall maintain effective and continuous engagement with its stakeholder. The methods and tools which be applied comprise: • Early notification for consultation sessions and preferably sending out invitations to the stakeholders with a clear agenda for discussion; • Providing adequate time for preparation prior to consultative sessions; • Sharing information for public consumption well in advance and providing opportunity for feedback and comments; • Choosing appropriate methods of communication especially for remotely located stakeholders. This includes the use of radio, television, distribution of printed materials, visual presentations, notice boards, internet, telephone, public address system, and • Ensuring concise documentation of all stakeholder engagement sessions with a record of minutes, lists of attendance (signed) and photographs from the consultative processes. 52. Table 3 presents the key methods/tools to be used by the Program to ensure effective stakeholder consultation and participation. It is notable that the responsibility for execution will lie solely with the MoE Table 3: Stakeholder Engagement Plan Target Topic of consultation Method Used Responsible Parties Stakeholder After Appraisal Publicity on Program • Audio-visual • National and MoE/TSC approval and roll out messages on Program county plans information (radio, TV government in different officials • languages) • Communitie • Newspaper s stories/supplement • VMGs and • Printed materials IP communities on project information • Emails • Press releases 20 • Speeches • Website Disclosure of the project • Websites – MoE Open access to • World Bank documents and World Bank interested • MoE • Brief summaries of parties • National Treasury the main • features of the Program SEP • Audio-visual messages on • Program information (radio, TV in • different languages) • Newspaper stories/supplements • Social Media (twitter, Facebook, • Instagram, WhatsApp) • Emails • Press releases • Speeches • Mobile phone block message During Implementation Roll-out of direct • Key informant • Learners • MoE communication support to learners and interviews with • School expert schools • key stakeholders administrators • PEELP/PCU/Coordinat • Community and managers or discussions (through • Communitie • public meetings s (including and call-in radio • VMGs/IPs) • sessions/activation • Implementin s) g partners • Newsletters • TV • Newspaper stories/supplement • Social Media (twitter, Facebook, 21 • Instagram WhatsApp) • Emails • Press releases • Speeches • Mobile phone block message Highlights on Program • Radio • Program PEELP/PCU/Coordinator activities, achievements, spots/activations and beneficiaries and lessons learned • announcement (learners, • Printed materials teachers, (newsletters BoMs) • and flyers) • Implementin • Town hall meetings g partners • TV • Other • Newspaper interested stories/supplement parties • Social Media (twitter, Facebook, • Instagram WhatsApp) • Emails • Press releases • Speeches • Mobile phone block message Update on Program • Printed materials All stakeholders PS, PEELP /PCU/ process (newsletter, flyers) Coordinator • Program progress reports • Public Baraza Discussions with • Open day with VMG/IPs CPCU VMGs/IPs on the VMGs/IPs Social Safeguards Program with feedback • Public meetings Specialist generated • Call-in on radio using local • languages • Rapid assessment of community • Perception towards the Program activities 22 Complaints/Complimen • Logs and reports • Receivers of • PEELP/PCU/CPCU - ts from the information Social Safeguards about the Program national & county and services & GRM implementation GRM focal person • Information officers • GRM complaints or data • Communication officer focal points in schools managers • M&E officer and county offices • Survey and direct observation of the Program beneficiaries Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting Feedback of • Semi-structured Program M&E Officer effectiveness of interviews primary different channels of • Online surveys beneficiaries communication • Satisfaction surveys 4.2. Strategy for Inclusion of Indigenous Persons (IPs) and Vulnerable Groups 53. Based on PEELP stakeholder analysis, there are several IPs (Ogiek, Sengwer, Duruma, Ngulia) and vulnerable groups within the PAI. The vulnerable groups comprise learners with special needs and disabilities, girls, vulnerable boys, the elderly and women, female headed households, PWDS and the poorest of the poor, who may be less able to participate in stakeholder engagement activities. It is essential that they are invited and given equal opportunity to participate in stakeholder engagement activities for the PEELP Program, in line with the requirements of the ESS10. The following measures will be applied to ensure their participation: i. Community-based committees (currently adopted by the MOE under the SEQIP project), for interventions such as scholarships. Accordingly, targeted communities identify their most vulnerable members through a participatory process. The selection is done through a community-based Scholarship Selection Board comprising community leaders, faith-based representatives, MoE and parents’ representatives. The shortlist of potential scholars is publicly disclosed at the community level for further review and feedback to ensure the most deserving needy students benefit. Stakeholder and community engagement will be key in sensitization of structures and means by which complaints and grievances related to the Program will be received, handled and addressed. ii. People living with disabilities will be provided with information in accessible formats. Additionally, learners will be provided with information and communication materials in a child-friendly manner. iii. Grievance Redress Mechanisms will be designed for identified vulnerable groups to have access to information. Affected parties will be able to submit their grievances and receive feedback as prescribed in the GRM. iv. Group discussions will be held with vulnerable individuals in communities where Program interventions are being undertaken ensuring their participation. The nature of group discussions will depend on the target IPs and vulnerable groups/individuals in the community. Group discussions will accommodate sensitive topics. 23 v. Meetings shall be held in central locations which are easily accessible and at appropriate timings to facilitate maximum attendance without interfering with economic and/or household activities. Meetings will be timely announced, and documents shared in advance for stakeholder’s planning and participation. vi. All information will be shared in a culturally appropriate manner. Meetings should be undertaken in language(s) understood by stakeholders and translation provided as needed. Similarly, documents will be presented and made available in hard copies, at easily accessible locations such as village offices and centres. The needs of vulnerable groups shall be considered such as the use of non-technical language and local languages (other than Kiswahili). vii. In addition, based on stakeholder consultations held with VMGs and IPs communities, the following recommendations were proposed to enhance effective engagements under the PEELP: • Ensure IP/VMG communities are represented in the various scholarship committees. • Ensure full involvement of parents and school management in the identification of needy students to benefit from the scholarship program. Where feasible the head teachers should be engaged in the beneficiary’s identification phase as they are more familiar with the socio-economic status of the learners at school level. • Ensure adequate sensitization of the community and parents on Program interventions such as disclosure and scholarship information. • Adoption of an inclusive scholarship awarding strategy to accommodate candidates from VMG and IP communities. An inclusive targeting criterion will be adopted, and adjustments made to make services more acceptable to VMGs, such as, lowering the entry criteria (cut off points) may be a measure that can be adopted instead of performance ranking. • The scholarship program should consider needy students studying in private schools as some may be sponsored. In the past, such learners have been excluded on the assumption they are from well off families. • Solicit feedback on service delivery and the extent to which VMGs are satisfied with the benefits of the Program. • Conduct routine monitoring of the scholarship program on progress, challenges and remedial measures adopted, for effective implementation. 24 5. APPROACH TO STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 54. The goal of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan is to promote and provide means for effective, inclusive, and meaningful stakeholder engagement during the planning and implementation phases of the Program, based on the stakeholder identification and analysis conducted. 55. The Program will take a precautionary approach for consultations and stakeholder engagement. Some of the most common methods used to consult stakeholders include: i. Telephone calls/email ii. One-on-one interviews iii. Official correspondence/Virtual meetings/Workshop/Retreats iv. Distribution of non- technical summary documents, reports, pamphlets, newsletters, Posters, Brochures v. Public meetings (Community Barazas) vi. Newspaper/magazines/radio vii. Print and social media viii. Visual presentation aids including models and videos 56. A cascading model will allow the Program to establish communication with communities, teachers, and students. Furthermore, the cascading approach will be applicable for capacity building at each engagement level. Stakeholder engagement activities need to provide specific stakeholder groups with relevant information and opportunities to voice their views regarding Program activities. 57. Details of the targeted stakeholders, channels, frequency, methods of engagement and responsibilities are included in the table below. Table 4: Approaches to Stakeholder Communication Activities Channels of Engagement With whom Frequency Responsibility Engagement Methods Ministry of Education (MoE Education Official internal Monthly Program Sharing of information, reviews, Partners and external progress, clearance and seeking support communications budget, and financing Disclosure of Program benefits, Written requests list of beneficiaries, documents via official and GRM process letters and emails Community outreach Continuous Radios, TVs, Disclosure of Program benefits, engagements campaigns, leaflets, hand- list of beneficiaries, documents information outs, and GRM process campaigns newspapers, word of mouth Community outreach Continuous Radios, Disclosure of Program benefits, engagements campaigns, community list of beneficiaries, documents (Vulnerable leaders, vehicles and GRM process 25 and information mounted with Marginalized campaigns speakers, communities) social media and online platforms, as well as TV, newspapers, dedicated phone-lines, public announcements, mail All Stakeholder Bi-monthly Social media To keep informed stakeholders awareness and and online about the Program achievements consultations platforms, as campaigns well as TV, Disclosure of project benefits, list newspapers, of beneficiaries, documents and dedicated GRM process phone-lines, public announcements, mail County Operational Monthly Monitoring To implement the Program Directors of meetings reports, virtual components Education, face-to-face TSC meetings using Directors of skype/WebEx Education with regional and other employment Education departments. officials Teachers, Grievance Continuous hotline, To ensure beneficiaries are Students and Redress telephone, informed about the Community Mechanisms leaflets, hand- Program level GRM members (GRM) outs, radios, newspapers Disclosure of Program benefits, list of beneficiaries, documents and GRM process Ministry of Education, TSC and the SAGAs MOE Operational Bi-monthly Monitoring To implement the Program meetings reports, virtual components Face-to-face meetings using skype/WebEx 26 with ESCs and PAPs. All outreach Continuous Social media To increase awareness, provide stakeholders campaigns, and online consultations and collect including information platforms, as feedback. students, campaigns well as TV, teachers and newspapers, Disclosure of Program benefits, communities dedicated list of beneficiaries, documents phone-lines, and GRM process public announcements, and mail, as well as virtual face to face meetings using WebEx/skype. County Operational Bi-monthly Monitoring To implement the Program Directors of meetings reports virtual components Education, face to face TSC meetings using Directors of WebEx/skype Education and/or dedicated and other phone-lines, Education with ESCs and officials PAPs. 27 6. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 6.1 Implementation Arrangements 58. The Ministry of Education through the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will have full responsibility for engaging with the stakeholders with support from its structures at the county and sub-county levels. The Program will rely on the GPE PREIDE which has a fully developed PIU including an in-house safeguards specialist who will be tasked with the coordination of the stakeholder engagement activities and labor related grievance. The coordination will be through the decentralized networks of county directors of education, sub-county directors of education, education officers in every ward, head teachers and teachers. The Ministry of Educationhas already established communication and engagement structures which can be adopted, as required. 59. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements for the expanded scope in the AF, including the refugee elements, will remain as described in the parent Program. In summary, the Program will be implemented by MoE and the TSC as the main implementing agencies, with support from participating agencies. As detailed in the parent Program, MoE may engage other agencies in the implementation of the activities under the IPF Component (the agencies, including NACONEK, are listed in Technical Annex 3 Table 3.3 of the PAD including their specific mandates). In addition, arrangements for oversight and technical support, as well as results monitoring and evaluation arrangements, remain the same under the parent Program. The results framework is updated to reflect new indicators and their monitoring and verification protocols. 6.2 Roles and Responsibilities Actor/Stakeholder Responsibilities Ministry of Education • Planning and implementation of the SEP and Project • Leading stakeholder engagement activities Implementation Unit • Management and resolution of grievances • Coordination/supervision of contractors on SEP activities • Collaboration with other stakeholders County Directors of • Inform PIU of any issues related to their engagement with stakeholders Education and TSC • Transmit and resolve complaints caused by the project interventions in Directors of Education close collaboration with and as directed by PIU and by participating in related school and community meetings; Teachers, students, and • Invited to engage and ask questions about the Project at Project community members Meetings and through discussions with Education officers where it is of interest or of relevance to them • Lodge their grievances using the Grievance Resolution Mechanism defined in the SEP • Help the Project to define mitigation measures Other project • Engage with PIU regarding project design stakeholders • Raise concerns to help the project to be inclusive 28 6.3 Proposed Stakeholder Consultation Strategy 60. Tactful consideration should be given when selecting the consultation technique, cultural appropriateness consultation methods, and the purpose for engaging with a stakeholder group. A variety of appropriate stakeholder engagement techniques will be used during PEELP implementation to build relationships, gather information, consult, and disseminate Program information to stakeholders. The consultation techniques and their most appropriate application will include: Information Most appropriate technique application Dissemination Technique Formation of boards Establish Boards and Committees in the targeted area and committees Correspondence by • Distribute Program information to multi-agencies, line ministries and phone/email/Text NGOs • Invite stakeholders to meetings Print media and radio • Disseminate project information to the public and illiterate stakeholders announcements • Inform stakeholders about consultative meetings One-on-one/face to • Seeking views and opinions from stakeholders face interviews • Enable stakeholders to speak freely and confidentially about contentious and sensitive issues • Building relations with various stakeholders • Recording of interviews Formal meetings • Present project information to a specific group of stakeholders • Allow stakeholders to provide their views and opinions • Build impersonal relations with high level stakeholders • Distribute technical documents • Facilitate meetings using PowerPoint presentations • Record discussions, comments/questions raised and responses Public meetings/ • Present project information to a large audience of stakeholders, and in Community Barazas particular communities • Allow the group of stakeholders to provide their views and opinions • Build relationships with neighboring communities • Distribute non-technical project information • Facilitate meetings using presentations, posters and pamphlets or project information documents • Record discussions, comments/questions raised and responses Consultative • Present project information to a group of stakeholders Workshops • Allow stakeholders to provide their views and opinions • Use participatory exercises to assist in group discussions, brainstorm on contentious issues, analyze information, and develop recommendations and strategies • Progress recording of responses 29 Focus Group • Allow a smaller group of between 9 and 12 people to provide their views Discussions and opinions of targeted baseline information • Build relationships with the target communities • Use a focus group interview guideline to facilitate discussions • Record responses Surveys • Collect opinions and views from individual stakeholders • Collect baseline data • Documentation/ Recording of data • Develop a baseline database for continuous monitoring of impacts Roundtable • Use prepared questions or collect preliminary questions to assist in group discussions discussions • Each person is given equal chance and right to participate • Documentation of the responses Site visit Gather opinions and observations from stakeholders through visiting targeted project site 30 7. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM) 61. Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRM) defines institutions, instruments, methods, and processes established by an entity to receive and address complaints and/or grievances raised by the project stakeholders. GRMs are intended to be accessible, collaborative, expeditious, and effective in resolving concerns through dialogue, joint fact-finding, negotiation, and problem solving. GRMs provide a system for managing project level complaints to ensure they are identified early, mitigated, and addressed where legal action is not yet warranted, enables project improvements to prevent further complaints and discourages referring matters to a tribunal/court for resolution. By design, GRMs are intended to complement, not replace, formal legal channels for managing grievances. The GRM remains the same under AF and will leverage on the existing SEQIP GRM. 62. A well-designed and implemented GRM will considerably enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the activities supported by the IPF component. The stakeholder engagement process will ensure that the affected parties are adequately informed of the grievance redress procedure. The GRM for this Program has the following objectives: i. Provide the stakeholders with an effective platform to seek redress or resolve any dispute that may arise during implementation of the Program; ii. Ensure that appropriate and mutually acceptable redress mechanisms are identified and implemented to the satisfaction of complainants; and iii. Reduce the need for using judicial proceedings. 63. The existing GRM at MoE: The current Operation will adopt the existing GRM at the MoE, under the SEQIP project, to be scaled-up and operationalized in the Program ESMS. SEQIP has several levels where project-related grievances can be redressed. These include: • Beneficiary community or target schools • Governance levels, referred to as “borrower�, mainly at sub-national levels (sub-county and county levels) and national levels • Other relevant national systems (referral statutory institutions such NGEC, CAJ, KNCHR, NEMA, Kenya Police Service, Tribunals, and courts) • World Bank internal levels and the Inspection Panel 64. The SEQIP GRM value chain includes the following steps: i. Uptake: setup of grievance uptake points that should have multiple barrier-free uptake channels (mail, e-mail, telephone, website, project staff, text messaging/SMS, complaints boxes). ii. Sorting and Processing: sort received grievances into categories and determine the most competent, effective level of redress and prioritize. iii. Acknowledging and follow-up: provide a written response acknowledging receipt of each complaint, such as; cases of Sexual abuse, violence, harassment, and exploitation MUST be reported immediately (72 hour or less) iv. Verification, investigation, and redress action. Verification involves checking for eligibility of a complaint in terms of relevance. Investigation adopts the following steps: a) appoint an investigator; (b) collect basic information; (c) collect and preserve evidence; and, (d) analyze to establish facts and compile a report. The grievance action plan is based on the findings and will determine next steps and recommendations which include: (a) direct comprehensive response and details of redress action; (b) 31 referral to the appropriate institution to handle the grievance(c) undertake mutually agreed follow- actions. v. Update the complainant and project team involves providing users with a grievance redress status update and outcome at each stage of redress. vi. Monitoring and Evaluation incorporates tracking of grievances and assess progress being made to resolve them; analyze raw data on the average time to resolve grievances, percentage of complainants satisfied, action taken, and number of grievances resolved. This should be the first point of contact to provide a report on grievance redress actions vii. Feedback on GRM users and the public at large about on: results of investigations and actions taken. The detailed SEQIP GRM value chain and categories of grievances are provided in annex 2 and 3 respectively. 65. Multi – Agency Grievance Redress Committees (GRC’s) The GRC’s has the following functions: • Receiving, evaluating, and analyzing complaint • Providing receipt of the complaint • Recording the grievances • Consultation with the affected and relevant communities • Choosing the best solution and or Resolving issues through mediation. • Informing complainants of the decisions taken and follow-up • Report (number and category of cases, place, position, gender and outcome of complaint (rejected/resolved). GRC’s are organized in the following five (5) levels: No. Committee Description 1 The National Multi-Agency GRM Committee The committee consists of MoE; KICD, TSC, KNEC, and CEMASTEA; and potential Statutory grievance referral institutions including: NGEC, CAJ, NEMA and KNCHR. 2 The County Multi-Agency GRM Committee The committee consists of CPCs, CDEs, and TSC-CD and coopted member of the VMGs (Marginalized Communities and groups as per Article 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, who are present within SEQIP operational area, Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities). 3 The Sub-County Multi-Agency GRM This committee will consist of: S-CDEs, SCQASO, and Committee TSC-SCD and co-opted member of the VMGs (Marginalized Communities and groups as per Article 260 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, who are present within SEQIP operational area, Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities). The SC-CDEs will be the SEQIP GRM focal person at the Sub-County level. 4 The school-based GRM Committee This committee will consist of BoM, Principal or Head Teachers or their Deputies, Heads of Guidance and 32 Counselling, and Gender Champions and co-opted members of the VMGs. 5 The VMGs SEQIP GRM Committee This committee will consist of 5 representatives of relevant VMGs customary institutions, including Man, Women, two (2) Youths -male and female, and Persons with Disability and where they do not exist, democratically elected representatives of the same composition. The process will be guided by FPIC principle contained in the VMGF, Social Assessment or VMGP. The role of the committee is to address SEQIP related grievances that directly affect the VMGs. 66. Grievance management at community level. During stakeholder consultations, it was identified that various IP communities have their own culturally appropriate grievance redress mechanisms. However, when a dispute cannot be resolved through such existing mechanisms, complaints are mostly raised with village elders referred to as Nyumba Kumi. In cases where the complaint cannot be resolved at this level, it is transferred to the sub chief, who then refers it to the chief if the dispute is still not resolved. The chief distinguishes between civil and criminal cases. All criminal cases are referred to the police while for civil ones, the chief in close cooperation with the village elders, address the complaint. In case the chief is unable to resolve the matter, the parties are advised to seek judicial recourse. 67. The MoE has established different GRMs at the state departments, respective SAGAs and various World Bank financed projects such as SEQIP and GPE PRIEDE, which are not harmonized. The PEELP will leverage, adopt, and strengthen the existing GRM under the SEQIP project. This will be achieved through designing and developing a GRM MIS (Management Information System) module integrated within the NEMIS (National Education Management Information System) and interoperable between agencies to create a harmonized MoE-wide GRM system. The actual details on the MIS based GRM will be captured in the ESMS manual. All complaints and grievances related to the Operation will be lodged through the NEMIS. 68. The PEELP will take special measures to ensure members of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups have equal opportunity to project benefits where they meet the targeting criteria, to access information, provide feedback, and submit grievances. A key approach being used by MOE in the SEQIP project is the adoption of community-based committees for interventions such as scholarships. In this case, the target communities identify their most vulnerable members through a participatory process. The selection is done through a community-based Scholarship Selection Board comprising of among other community leaders, faith- based representatives, MoE and parents’ representatives. The shortlist of potential scholars is publicly disclosed at the community level for further review and feedback-to ensure the most deserving needy students benefit. Stakeholder and community engagement will be key in sensitization of structures and means by which complaints and grievances related to the project will be received, handled, and addressed. The assumption is communities have a better understanding of their own vulnerabilities than external actors and most effective in projects where administrative capacity is limited. Additionally, community empowerment and capacity- building align with intervention’s objectives. Processes in the community-based targeting which entrench participatory engagements help prevent elite capture and promote inclusion. 69. Gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEA-H) of women, girls, vulnerable boys, and men, may arise from Program activities. Associated risks may emanate from abuse from employment opportunities under school construction related activities; abuse and harassment 33 by teachers and school personnel; and access to Program benefits such as scholarships. For efficiency in management of grievances and complaints of the Program there is need for strengthening and mainstreaming of existing guidelines for management of GBV risks in schools-including mapping out of survivor service providers and referral pathways for GBV/SEA-H prevention and response. The Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) manual will provide guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for prevention and management of GBV/SEA-H. These will be built on experiences from SEQIP and other best practice. 70. Where agreement on grievance resolution has not been reached, the Program will offer the complainant with appeal options and processes. The approaches will include an Independent Panel, internal or external offices or individuals with appreciable degree of independence, and third-party fact-finding, facilitation, and mediation missions as applicable. 71. Depending on the grievance, the aggrieved person/s will be offered the option of appeal through statutory referral institutions such as the National Gender Equality Commission (NGEC), Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), and National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). 72. The Program will also contract the services of a qualified and experienced national organization to offer psychosocial support to students and teachers as needed. Requirements for the safe and confidential reporting of cases of GBV and child abuse cases will be inbuilt into the service providers terms of reference. 73. Communities and individuals who believe that they are adversely affected by a World Bank supported Program may submit complaints to existing Program-level grievance redress mechanisms or the World Bank’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS). The GRS ensures that complaints received are promptly reviewed to address Program-related concerns. Program affected communities and individuals may submit their complaint to the World Bank’s independent Inspection Panel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, because of the Bank’s non-compliance with its policies and procedures. Complaints may be submitted at any time after concerns have been brought directly to the World Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank’s corporate Grievance Redress Service (GRS), please visit http://www.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and-services/grievance-redress-service. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit www.inspectionpanel.org. 34 8. STRATEGY FOR PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION WITH VULNERABLE AND MARGINALISED GROUPS 74. The principle of inclusiveness will guide stakeholder engagement with respect to the vulnerable and marginalized groups. The proposed PEELP will identify and carry out targeted consultations with vulnerable and marginalized groups to understand their concerns/needs in terms of accessing information, challenges encountered and ensure that their voices are acted on and not disregarded. 75. The continuous involvement of women and the elderly who are guardian/caregivers to learners in the Program activities as decision makers, will be upheld. The Program will adopt participatory strategies in effective engagement and communication with vulnerable and marginalized groups. 76. People living with disabilities will be provided with information in accessible formats whereas children/learners will be provided with information and communication materials in a child-friendly manner. 77. Grievance Redress Mechanisms will be designed in such a way that all groups identified as vulnerable have access to information and can submit their grievances and receive feedback as prescribed in the GRM. 78. The Strategy for Information Disclosure for the PEELP information will be in a form and language appropriate to relevant stakeholders. A reasonable timeframe will be applied to allow stakeholders process the communicated information and raise concerns, if necessary. Accountability in the Operation will be through sharing information about the Program, planned activities and procedures. 79. As a standard practice, it is mandatory that all key documents prepared under the PEELP are publicly disclosed according to the constitution of Kenya and the World Bank disclosure policy to inform stakeholders and local communities on the general implication. Given the interest that the Program will trigger across the country, all appropriate and acceptable disclosure pathways shall be used. 80. Distribution of the disclosure materials will be through making them available as hard copies, institutional/school/MoE meetings, and national and county consultative workshops. Electronic copies will be on MoE website. 81. The table below presents a strategy for the engagement of vulnerable and marginalized groups in consultative processes: Table 5: Strategy for involvement of vulnerable and marginalized groups Target Group Strategy Learners (girls and boys) - poor, Establish help desks in suitable places vulnerable, belong to minority The PIU will arrange separate consultation sessions (e.g., groups, special needs, disabilities, meetings and focus group discussion) low-income households and refugees Targeted social media and mainstream media posts Parents Engagement of committees and NGOs in related fields to help disseminate information and organize consultations School sponsors (including faith- based organizations) 35 Persons with disabilities (PWDs) Provide safe spaces to discuss GBV-SEA and provide information and their caregivers on Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) and relevant referral pathways Community members Where necessary, use audio-visuals and sign language interpreters Teachers and head teachers Individual meetings in schools accompanied by parents or their BoM care givers CBOs All venues for consultations, workshops and meetings should be selected with a view to facilitate physical access for PWD School open days will be organized for vulnerable groups 36 9. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REPORTING 82. The Program provides the opportunity to stakeholders, especially Project PAPs to monitor certain performance aspects and provide feedback. The Stakeholder Engagement Plan will be periodically revised and updated as necessary during Program implementation to ensure information presented herein is consistent, the most recent and identified methods of engagement remain appropriate and effective in relation to Program implementation. Any major changes to Program related interventions and schedule will be duly reflected in the SEP. 83. Monthly reports on grievances, enquiries, incidents, status of implementation of associated corrective/preventative actions, will be collated by the MoE. The monthly reports will provide a mechanism for assessing the number and nature of complaints, requests for information, and the Program’s ability of addressing such in a timely and effective manner. 84. Information on public engagement activities undertaken by the Program during its life cycle may be conveyed to the stakeholders in two possible ways: i. Publication of annual reports on Program stakeholder engagements ii. Monitored Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 85. The project will use a variety of methods and tools for monitoring and evaluation. They will include review of project documents and progress reports, stakeholder interviews and group, discussions, feedback surveys, site visits. The PIU will coordinate and facilitate documentation of the monitoring and evaluation results and outcomes including the maintenance of records of all consultations and meetings conducted with stakeholders, types of information disclosed, issues and concerns raised at consultations/meetings, public comments/feedback received for disclosed documents, informal feedback, decisions made, and reporting back to the stakeholders. The following monitoring framework in Table 6 provides a set of indicators that could guide the monitoring processes. Table 6: Monitoring of the SEP No. Monitoring indicators Method Timeframe 1) No. of affected parties, other stakeholders and Review of reports on Quarterly vulnerable groups engaged in SEP consultations and progress reports implementation 2) Type of information shared/disclosed Review of information material Quarterly shared and their content 3) Type of methods used for information Review of communication Quarterly dissemination and their effectiveness methods used observations and feedback interviews and consultations with information recipients 4) Accessibility to information and language Records of persons who sought Quarterly used for communication information; observations and feedback interviews and FGDs 37 with stakeholders, feedback survey (annual) 5) Level of awareness among affected parties, Focus group discussions and Bi-annually other stakeholders and vulnerable groups on individual interviews with a project implementation procedures and cross-section, feedback survey potential impacts (annual) 6) No. consultations conducted with affected Review of reports on Bi-annually parties, other stakeholders, and vulnerable consultations by project and its groups partners 7) Type of issues/concerns raised and discussed Review of reports on Quarterly at consultative meetings consultations 8) Type of decisions made based on consultation Review of progress reports Quarterly outcomes 9) Feedback sessions conducted with affected Review of progress reports, and Bi-annually parties, other stakeholders, and vulnerable focus group discussions and groups to report on the decisions made individual interviews with a cross-section 10) Level of satisfaction among APs, other Feedback surveys, focus group Annually stakeholders and vulnerable groups on the discussions and individual consultative process and its outcomes interviews with a cross-section 11) No. grievances/complaints received and Review of progress reports and Quarterly resolved GRM database 12) Level of efficiency and responsiveness of the Review of the records of GRC Bi-annually GRM meetings and decisions made 13) Level of satisfaction among affected parties, Focus group discussions, Annually other stakeholders, and vulnerable groups on feedback surveys and individual the overall performance of GRM interviews with a cross-section of parties who reported grievances 86. Reporting to stakeholders. The results of the stakeholder engagement activities including results and outcomes of monitoring and evaluation of SEP implementation will be reported back to the stakeholders through website and/or formal communications. 87. Reporting to the World Bank. The MoE will collate all monitoring and evaluation results and produce bi-annual reports to be submitted to the World Bank. The SEP monitoring will be part of the project monitoring reports submitted to the World Bank. 38 10. ESTIMATED BUDGET The MoE will be responsible for implementation of the SEP. The budget for the SEP is estimated to be around US$361,785 included in the costing table under the operational expenses of the Program. The MoE will review this plan every six months to determine if any changes to stakeholder categories or engagement activities are required. The budget will be revised accordingly. Q- Unit Total of Stakeholder Engagement Activities ty/per Cost, cost years/Months years USD (USD) GRM, MIS case management process, data base 6 250 18 1500 (including running of hotline, record keeping etc.) Review of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) 1 50,000 50,000 Travel expenses of staff on stakeholder engagements 6 300 18 1800 Training focal persons on safeguards 2 75000 18 150000 Communication materials (leaflets, posters) 6 200 18 1200 Program press conferences (twice per year) 2 200 18 400 Trainings (social issues, outreach, GRM) for PIU 2 75000 18 150000 Hotline to receive complaints and grievances related 1 100,000 100,000 to the Program (TA and Airtime) Subtotal 454,900 Contingency 10,085 Total 464,985 39 Annex 1: Result Areas and key activities Result Area Key activities Result Area 1: Equalize learning opportunities: This RA will focus on strengthening the school- improve learning outcomes in target counties and level conditions for teaching and learning to for refugee populations narrow learning gaps between schools in high performing counties and those in low- performing counties. The Program aims to promote equity by targeting counties based on the share of students achieving high-order proficiency levels in numeracy and literacy at grades 3 based on the 2018 NASMLA. The targeted bottom 20 percent counties perform significantly worse than the top 10, and display disparities beyond the observed in their NASMLA performance; HCI components also confirm their overall under-performance. AF will include activities such as monitoring teacher presence in classroom in targeted schools for school grants through TPAD process, provide assistive learning devices to learners with special needs and target TTC’s establish linkages to schools for teaching practice within established standards Result Area 2: Improve girls’ participation in Under RA 2, three key challenges will be schooling, including in refugee hosting counties addressed to improve girls’ retention in upper primary, completion of the primary education cycle, and transition to secondary education. These are: (i) removing financial barriers to school attendance and meeting the basic education needs of girls and boys from poor and vulnerable population (including learners with disabilities and refugee children); (ii) strengthening the supply chain for menstrual hygiene products to ensure that girls’ attendance in school will not be interrupted by the lack of sanitary towels; and (iii) tracking girls at risk of dropping out and facilitating the re-entry of enrolled girls who dropped out due to pregnancy. Result Area 3: Strengthen reform This results area will strengthen fidelity of implementation capacity implementation of initiated reforms to improve learning for all. The success of these key 40 reforms, the major one of which is introduction of the CBC and formative assessments in basic education, will require complementary actions in a number of critical areas. The first action pertains to better utilization of NEMIS data for filling information gaps in CBC implementation, specifically in respect of the allocation of capitation grants, mapping of school needs, and development budget allocations. The second action is capacity strengthening of the PTTCs to ensure that their graduates have acquired the core competencies and are ready as new teachers, to implement the CBC. The third action to establish standards and tools for quality assurance of preschools, is fully aligned with the CBC’s objective of improving basic education quality. Finally, construction of new classrooms in existing schools as per the needs-based school infrastructure investment plan, will address the CBC’s requirement for improved learning conditions in schools. AF will support in strengthening system capacity for improved sector coordination, data utilization and gender responsive planning and policy development. Annex 2: A Summary of Key Activities for the AF IPF Component 41 Annex 2: IPF Sub-Component Activities RA/PAP PEELP budget plus AF Activity # Description of Key Activity description (US$30.509million) Comments Area and GOK US$ 10 Million 1.1 Program operational costs, including whole- PAP Annual work of-Government refugee policy coordination. plans are required 1.2 SIP/school grant SIP manual7; development of RA 1 of all a disaster mitigation plan for schools affected implementing by floods and drought; and additional capacity agencies and will building measures on the SIPs, including be consolidated incorporation actions from the disaster by PCU and mitigation plan in the SIPs-including for camp- approved by the based refugee schools. NSC and the World Bank. Procurement: 1.3 Data management, including categorization of RA 3 workshops and special needs learners by nature of disability consultants. and gender, and registration of refugee learners, including learners in host 1. 1. Program communities, in NEMIS. management, MoE develops guidelines for inclusion of policy dialogue, refugee children in NEMIS and other communication, education services. monitoring and US$15,854,500 6 evaluation, KNEC to conduct midline and end-line safeguards and assessments for the PDO indicators on fiduciary, and learning outcomes (NASMLA), and also verification. support implementation process of the Program for International Student Assessment for Development (PISA-D). 1.4 Beneficiary survey 1.5 Consultancy services including for the target RAs 1 refugee schools (scholarships/ school kits and and 2 mentorship services). 1.6 Safeguards and fiduciary actions, including PAP scaling up GBV prevention interventions under SEQIP. Review education infrastructure standards, and quality assurances process, to adapt these to requirements for climate-resilient education infrastructure. 1.7 Three-year capacity building plan PAP 2. 2. Key TA and 2.1 Consultancy services, trainings, and workshops RA 3 US$20,854,50011 Procurement: capacity including for the target refugee schools: and International building for -national survey on child development and PAP partner adequate pre-primary school quality assurance institutions; implementation standards and tools, including tools for consultants/firms; of the initiated appraisal for teachers in pre-school8 trainings and reforms and -two TAs for CBC and CBA, including support workshops; and other systems for parental engagement in the equipment strengthening implementation of the CBC and CBA (learning assistive 6 A detailed Annual Workplan and Budget for the IPF component is part of the POM, which is prepared before Program effectiveness. This will be updated to include the AF activities. 7 The SIPs will include aspects of tree planting, rainwater harvesting and disaster mitigation actions. MoE will develop an overall disaster management plan for schools in the regions affected by drought and floods. 8 This footnote is updated: As requested by MoE and Council of Governors, TSC will facilitate to develop an appraisal tool teachers teaching pre- school. The tool can also be used for teachers teaching camp-based refugee schools. 11 Ibid 42 activities. -adaptation of CBC for SNE and digitization of devices for SNE, CBC for selected grades and mobile strengthening supply chain system for sanitary science labs12 for towels, develop implementation guidelines for 5,000 secondary the school meals and nutrition policy, and day schools). utilization of the online based assessment item portal by teachers -support for the SBTS initiative including generation of evidence in utilization of learning assessment data and classroom observation data; -analyze TPAD data in target schools for the school grants for lesson coverage (TSC) -assessments to measure teacher proficiency at Program’s midterm and endline (TSC) -prioritize activities for OOSC’ in the 15 Counties and implementation of prioritized activities. NACONEK to pilot the clean energy initiative in 5 of the target schools for the school meals program (provision of Energy saving cooking stoves and or a steam cooking stove system). Procurement of mobile science lab kits to support implementation of the CBC and CBA, particularly in teaching of sciences9. Procurement of selected learning devices for learners with special needs and disability (SNE)10 3.System 3.1 Strengthen gender responsive planning, policy RA3 US$ 3.8 million Procurement: Capacity Grant development for system wide impact: and Consultants/firms, - TSC to review teacher recruitment, PAP trainings, and management, and development processes, workshops and developed an action plan to address any gender gaps/inequalities identified. -Training of County Directors of Education, KICD, and KNEC to integrate gender aspects in annual workplans and budgets including for CBC and CBA -Develop a gender equality module to train teacher trainees in target TTCs on gender equality in basic education. -Establish multi-agency National technical working group for coordination and collaboration on girls’ education, particularly 9 An assessment of the neediest schools is ongoing. The details will be included in the AWPB. Preliminary data shows there are more chemistry labs for example, in boys-only public schools than in girls-only and mixed public secondary schools nationally and across all categories of schools. 10 Specific SNE target numbers, and the nature of assistive devices will be included in the relevant annual workplan and budget. MoE is planning a comprehensive survey to update the current SNE data, disaggregated not only by gender but the specific area of disability. 12 This mobile kit is a successful pilot innovation by the School Equipment Production Unit (SEPU) and is meant to mitigate the impact of lack of science laboratories particularly in day secondary schools. At least 7,000 labs are required in existing day secondary schools. The kit can be used in any relevant space available and entail: A mobile lab which contains: fully installed gas system supplied with a 13 kg gas cylinder; water supply tank; water tap; acid proof sink; waste collection system; power sockets complete with power supply cable; illumination lamp; caster wheels for mobility; storage shelves; basic Physics Kit; basic Biology kit; basic Chemistry kit; student microscope; retort stand complete; litmus paper red and blue; universal indicator 500ml; burette; HCL 1litre; sodium hydroxide pellets; fire extinguisher; and laboratory stools. The contract will entail both provision of mobile labs and installation of a lockable cage. 43 addressing teenage pregnancies and re-entry to school. -Develop a framework for adolescent girls’ programming using a multisectoral and multi- stakeholder lens that consists of government and partner initiatives to ensure cohesive programming for and measurement of retention and progression of adolescent girls in basic education (primary and secondary) and well-being. 3.2 Mobilize coordinated action and financing to enable transformative change: -Conduct annual joint sector reviews, as per an agreed-on terms of reference13 with the EDCPG, and involving key stakeholders' groups14 -Analysis of NEMIS data and annual publication of quality education data on key education indicators. -Conduct a Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) of key government spending on basic education15 3.3 Strengthen capacity, adapt and learn, to implement and drive results at scale: -Capacity building of school boards of management/Parent’s association on school management and accountability and sensitization on key reforms such as the shift to focus on retention and learning outcomes, and CBC and CBA. -Review teacher education policy to align to the new CBET -Development of a learning management platform for teacher education-(CBET), leveraging on the Kenya education cloud. -Conduct rapid assessment or evaluation to provide a ‘timely understanding of what works under the school grants intervention, particularly in relation to the proposed integrated remediation approach, and adjust the remedial intervention as needed. -Evaluation of CBC for grades 1 to 3 and implementation of adjustment of CBC and CBA in these grades based on the evaluation. Needed. - 13 The terms of reference for the joint sector review will include a review of the implementation status of the Kenya GPE Compact. 14 EDCPG and other line Ministries and agencies. 15 Including students ‘capitation grants, textbooks, scholarships and bursary, school construction, and school feeding. 44 Annex 3: SEQIP GRM value chain Steps Details Uptake • The project will setup grievance uptake points, which include: (a) multiple barrier-free uptake locations (village, school, sub-county, county, and national); and (b) multiple barrier-free uptake channels (mail, e-mail, telephone, website, project staff, text messaging/SMS, complaints boxes) • SEQIP will maintain a grievance log that record (i) # complaints received, (ii) Receipt/acknowledgement details (ii) Describe the issues (iv) Location of each complaint (v) # complaints resolved (vi) # complaints that have gone to mediation • The number of grievance uptake locations and channels will be determined by available and affordable technology, funding and capacity constraints • The uptake point will be strategically established at multiple uptake locations and channels and operated as per allowable budget allocations while not compromising access by all beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders. • The project will share and discuss with the World Bank the raw or summarized grievances data to receive support and help in responding quickly and effectively Sorting and processing • The project will: (a) sort received grievance into the categories and determine the most competent and effective level for redress and the most effective grievance redress approach ; (b) prioritize, based on risk rating, the responsive action for each category in a fair, objective and responsive manner; (c) assign timelines for follow-up steps of each grievance based on their priority; (d) make judgment and reassign each grievance to the appropriate institution at the various GRM level); (e) exclude grievances handled elsewhere (local court, mediation body, INT or the inspection Panel of the World Bank) from the GRM; and (f) offer the complainant option/s for resolution of their grievances 1.2.1 Acknowledging and follow- The project will provide a written response acknowledging up receipt of each complaint. The response will include: (a) Cases of Sexual abuse, violence, harassment and exploitation MUST be reported immediately (72 hour or less) to National Police Service; (b) details of follow-up steps and set timelines (number of days) for follow-up activities: verify, investigate, if need be, and communication of outcomes and next steps based on outcome; (c) response on straight forward communication related grievances that require minimal checks and consultations 45 (1 to 3 days); and (d) response that need minimal process to delete misleading information, collection of information, analysis of existing information, preparation of communication materials to disclose delayed information, clarify existing information, and correct misleading information. Acknowledge reception of the grievance, detail the steps to follow, and provide the appropriate practical timelines 7 -14 days; (e) response that require investigation: access and review of relevant documentation (reports, policy documentation), field-based fact findings missions (visits and interviews), analysis and preparation of reports, consultative sessions to rectify or adjust the implementation approaches. Acknowledge reception of the grievance, provide follow-up steps and set timelines for a comprehensive response. 14 to 21 days; (f) response that require escalation to higher implementation level: Acknowledge reception of the grievance, provide the need for escalation of the grievance to the next project implementation level, and set timelines for a comprehensive response. 7-14 days; and (g) response that require referral to other institutions (National Police Service, CAJ, NGEC, KNCHR, EACC, World Bank). Acknowledge reception of the grievance, provide the need for refer the grievance to an appropriate institution, and set timelines for a comprehensive response on referral progress (7 - 21days) 1.2.2 Verification, investigation The project will undertake activities related step in a timely and redress action manner. The activities will include: verifying, investigating, redress action and plan. o Verification (a) Check for eligibility (objectively based on set standards and criteria) of complaint in terms of relevance to the project. Refer to the PAD, PIM, VMGF, EMSF, Procurement Manual, and Financial Manual to determine the validity of the grievance (b) Escalate, expeditiously, outright grievances that required high level (c) Refer, expeditiously, outright grievances that are outside the jurisdiction o Investigation: (a) Appoint an independent investigator (Safeguards Experts, Professional outside the Implementing institution) who is a neutral investigator with no stake in the outcome of the investigation 46 (b) Collect basic information (reports, interviews with other stakeholders while ensuring triangulation of information, photos, videos) (c) Collect and preserve evidence (b) Analyze to establish facts and compile a report o Grievance action plan (a) Based on the findings determine the next steps and make recommendations: (i) direct comprehensive response and details of redress action; (ii) referral to the appropriate institution to handle the grievance, where the SEQIP has no jurisdiction (Commission or Independent statutory bodies) (g) undertake mutually agreed follow-actions o Update of complainant and SEQIP implementing teams (i) Provide users with a grievance redress status update and outcome at each stage of redress, (iii) update SEQIP implementing team on grievance redress across the GRM value chain. 1.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation • The project will undertake the following monitoring actions: (a) develop indictors for monitoring the 6 steps of GRM value chain; (b) track grievances and assess the extent to which progress is being made to resolve them; (c) conduct a stakeholder’s satisfaction survey for the GRM services (d) under an analysis from the raw data on the following: average time to resolve grievances, percentage of complainants satisfied with action taken, and number of grievances resolved at first point of contact (e) provide a report on grievance redress actions pertaining to the 6 steps of GRM value chain including • The project will evaluate the GRM by (a) analyzing grievance data to reveal trends and patterns, (b) sharing GRM analysis in management meetings; and (c) taking corrective action on project implementation approaches to address the grievance 1.2.4 Feedback • The project will provide feedback to GRM users and the public at large about: (a) results of investigations; (b) actions taken; (c) why GRM is important; (d) enhance the visibility of the GRM among beneficiaries; and (e) increase in users’ trust in the GRM 47 (f) Create demand for grievances. 48 Annex 4: Categories of Grievances Categories of grievances Institutions Constitutional Laws,legal provisions and Frameworks 1. Basic information Project implementing ESS 10 and beneficially institutions (a) Access to information16 MoE, KICD, KNEC, CoK 2010 Article 35 (1) TSC, CEMESTEA ESS 10 2. Public administration ethics and CAJ, AC conduct (a) State organs and all officer duty CAJ CoK, 2010 Article 21(3) (b) Standards of administrative action: CAJ CoK, 2010 Article 47(1) (c)Abuse of state or office power CAJ CoK, 2010 Article 59 (2)(i); CAJ Act 2011; LI Act, 2012. 3. Governance-related grievances17 (a)Violation of code of ethics for State EACC LI Act, 2012 Officer 4. Violation and breach of codes of ethics (a) Violation of codes of ethics; Respective public LI Act, 2012. entity18: (b) Breach of the code of ethics by See (b)(i) -Respective Public Service Ethics Acts, 2003 public officers: public entity (c) Breach of Code of Conduct and Public Service EACC Article 11(1)(c)) or CAJ Ethics by Public Officers Commission; Teacher Act, 2011 Service Commission EACC 5. Violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms (i) Gender equality and general NGEC CoK 2010 Article 21; 27; 59; and Equality matters. NGEC Act, 2011 (ii) Equality and freedom from discrimination, (iii) Non-discrimination of special needs groups, (iv) Economic and Social Rights (a) Equality and freedom from NGEC CoK, 2010 Article 27 discrimination: -Equality -every person; Equality of men and women to 16 Information held by the state or another person for the exercise and protection of any right or fundamental freedoms. Also– non-disclosure, lack of clarity, misleading can be addressed under this constitutional provision 17 Procedural justice -fairness and transparency for decision-making processes -FPIC; Distributional justice -fairness in the distribution of rights and resources) 18 Each public entity shall prescribe a specific Leadership and Integrity Code (Article 37), and have every state officer sign and commit to it (Article 40). Appropriate Commission (MoE, KNEC and KICD – Public Service Commission; Teachers and TSC workers -TSC), or EACC 49 opportunities in political, economic, cultural and social; (b) Non-discrimination of vulnerable NGEC CoK, 2010 Article 27 groups: – Vulnerable groups within the National Council for Children Act, NO. 8 OF 200119 society legislative, other measures Children’s Services ESS 7 including affirmative programmes (see (NCCS) CoK 2010 for special needs groups National Council for Article 53 -Children rights, 54 -Persons persons with with disability; 55 -Youth; 56 - disabilities Minorities and marginalized groups) (NCPWD) (c) Economic and Social Rights: - NGEC CoK 2010 Article 43 health, sanitation, freedom from Prohibition of Female Genital hunger, adequate and quality food, Mutilation Act No. 32 of 2011 clean safe and adequate water, social ESS 4 security, education, emergency medical treatment); (d) All other human rights matters KNCHR CoK 2010 Article 28; 59 (2) (b) (not within the jurisdiction of the KNCHR Act, 2011 project and not under CAJ, NGEC, EACC, DPP or courts)20 6. Corruption and Economic crimes: EACC, DPP, DCI EACC Act, 201121 Article 11; (Unethical conduct) ACEC Act No. 3 200322. 7. Labor relations Trade Union and The Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Termination/Summary Dismissal, Labour Tribunals Employment Act, 2007 (No. 11 Breach of Employment Contract of 2007); Employment and Terms, Conflicts with Trade Unions, Labour Relations Court Act, Work Injury, Discrimination, Sexual 2011 (No. 20 of 2011); Labour Harassment, Service Pay, Termination Relations Act (No. 14 of 2007); for Cause: Reasons or No Reasons, Labour Institutions Act (No. 12 Suspension, and Waiver of Claims of 2007); Occupational Safety and Health Act, (No.15 of 2007) ESS 2 8. Environmental compliance NEMA, Land and EMCA, 1999, The violations Environmental Court Environmental (EI/A) EI/A, Air Quality, Noise and Excessive Regulations, 2003. Air Quality Vibration Pollution, and Water quality Regulations, 201423; Waste Management Regulations, 19 There is a proposed CHILDREN BILL - Draft - February 2018 at the http://www.childrenscouncil.go.ke but it’s not available on the bill tracker on http://kenyalaw.org/ 20 CoK 2010 Article 28 -human dignity; 29 -freedom and security of person; 30 -slavery, servitude and forced labor; 31 -privacy; 32 -freedom of conscience, religion, belief and opinion; 33 -freedom of expression; 35 -Access to information; 41 -fair labor practices; 42 -Clean and health environment and (assault, rape, defilement, Child prostitution, Child pornography, etc); Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act No. 32 of 2011 21 Ethics and Anti-corruption Act No. 22 of 2011 22 Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No 3 of 2003 23 Legal Notice No.34. Regulations, 2013 50 200624; Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution- (Control) Regulations, 200925; Water quality Regulations, 200626 ESS 3 9. Occupational Safety and Health DOSH The Occupational Safety and Chemical substances, statutory Health Act (Cap 514); Fire examinations and tests of Risk Reduction Rules, (LN plant/equipment, Fire Risk, Medical 59/2007); Medical Examination Examination of Workers Rules LN24/2005 ESS 2 ESS 4 10. Safety schools BoM and MoE, School Safety Standards County Government Manual27 ESS 4 11. Civil wrongs and criminal offences Attorney-General CoK CAP 75 -Kenya Criminal Director of Public Procedure Code and Kenya Penal Prosecution (DPP) or Code (revised 2012) Director of Criminal Investigation through the National Police Service 24 Kenya Gazette supplement No 69. Legislative supplement No. 37) 25 Legal Notice No. 61 26 Legal notice No. 121 27 downloadable at cwsglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CWS-SSZ-Schools-Manual_Kenya.pdf 51