Government of Kenya
& Humanitarian Community
Disaster Preparedness and Response Simulations
POST SIMULATION REPORT
BACKGROUND – The World Food Programme’s Readiness Initiative and OCHA, working with the
Government of Kenya (GoK) and Humanitarian community delivered three Disaster Preparedness and
Response simulations on behalf of the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) and the United
Nations Country Team (UNCT). The following hubs and GoK representatives participated in the simulations:
Mombasa, 22 January, 2013 - Simulation, Mombasa Hub and GoK
Nairobi, 25 January, 2013 - Simulation, Nairobi Hub and GoK
Kisumu, 1 February. 2013 - Simulation, Joint exercise between Kisumu, Nakuru and Eldoret Hubs and GoK
The three simulations (hereafter referred as Hub
simulations) conducted at the hub level, followed
a national level disaster preparedness and
response simulation held in Nairobi from the 5th to
the 7th December, 2012. The purpose of this
simulation was to practice the countrywide
coordination mechanisms described within
national humanitarian contingency plans (such as
the hub coordination approach) and to simulate
initiation of coordinated rapid multi-sector, multiagency assessments at a hub level through the
recently introduced Kenya Initial Rapid Assessment (KIRA) process.
Among the key issues raised in the participant lead debrief session after the simulation, was how to
strengthen the hub level coordination and contingency planning as well as how to include all the relevant
actors in the process and clarify roles and responsibilities. The Hub simulations scheduled for early 2013
focused upon addressing the issues. The Hub simulations also offered an opportunity to strengthen
partnerships and identify opportunities for enhancing preparedness and response mechanisms at the subnational level prior the up-coming election on 4 March 2013.
PARTICIPATION
–
Over
80
people
participated in the three Hub simulations,
representing the Government of Kenya (local
government representatives from the
Counties,
Districts,
National
Drought
Management Authority, Ministry of Justice &
Constitutional Affairs (MOJCA), Ministry of
Education and Ministry of Public Health), the
Kenya Red Cross Society, NGOs and UN
agencies. The Humanitarian Coordinator, Mr
Modibo Toure participated in the Kisumu
Kindly supported by
1
simulation and the Deputy Director of the National Disaster Operations Centre (NDOC), Lt Col (Rtd) Jeremiah
Njagi participated in the Nairobi simulation as observers. Over half of the participants represented the subnational hub coordination mechanisms in Eldoret, Nakuru, Kisumu, Mombasa and Nairobi.
IMPLEMENTATION – Simulation participants were grouped to
represent their hub location whilst the remaining participants
were grouped to represent the Government of Kenya. Using a
scenario of election unrest, participants were asked to respond to
the events within two simulation sessions – during and post-crisis.
Following the 6 hours simulation, the groups reflected on lesson
learned and next steps towards improving preparedness.
DEBRIEF - The simulation was followed by a participant-led,
actions-focused debrief session. Participants were asked to
identify the functions that worked well in the simulation and those
which might benefit from some improvement. The simulation and
debrief session were organized in a manner so as to identify
enhancement opportunities.
NEXT STEPS - The results of the simulation and the participant identified gaps and identified areas of
possible improvement in the debrief session. This report summarizes the plans already identified in different
hubs (see following annexes for details).
Annex A - Key Issue identification and
explanation cross the hubs



Coordination between Government of
Kenya and humanitarian partners
Communication
Information management
Annex B - Mombasa simulation observations
Annex C - Nairobi simulation observations
Annex D – Kisumu simulation observations
Annex E – Participant lists
Emilia Holkeri
Simulation Controller
Readiness Initiative
WFP, Emergency Preparedness and Response Branch
Emilia.holkeri@wfp.org
Kindly supported by
2
ANNEX A – KEY ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION
This document outlines key observations from the simulation. The list below is a compilation of the
observations and possible resolutions from the participants, facilitators and observers. For guidance on
specific issues raised in the five different hubs exercised see ANNEX B – D.
Topic /
Possible recommendation /
Observation
solution
Lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities within the hubs
Risk of the hub lead taking on too much of the work
 Develop clear ToRs for hub
lead, co-lead and partners
load. The role and responsibilities of the co-lead and the
including requirements
additional members should be clarified. On some
and/or Hub framework
occasions the hub partners struggled to provide the hub
 Organisations to
lead with the necessary information about their
decentralise resources to
organisations ´capacity, programmes and resources.
support at hub level. Ensure
Coordination
that focal point
responsibilities in the hub
are factored into their
duties/responsibilities
Lack of clarity on the hub organisational structures
Observation that the overall organisational structures
 Develop a Hub framework
 Institutionalize structures
should be clarified. The number of the participating
members should be manageable and not too large.
Inclusion and co-operation with external stakeholders
Representatives from Faith-Based Organisations (FBOs)
 Include and engage with
FBOs and other possible
who normally function as first-line responders
external stakeholders
participated as observers in the Mombasa simulation.
depending on the hub
They helped identify strengths and weaknesses of the
context.
process.
Lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities of the sub-hub leads (where needed)
Need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the sub Develop ToRs (hub specific)
 Clarify the coordination
hub leads in the hubs the sub-hubs have been
mechanisms in the
established. The sub-hub arrangements vary however
Contingency plan (if not yet
from hub to hub. E.g. in Coast Province (Mombasa hub)
done)
the sub-hubs are the counties.
 Adequate resources
ensured
Need to further strengthen partnerships between all actors
The participants acknowledged and showed willingness
 Agree and establish
structures for GoK – hub
to enhance the Hub – GoK partnership. Yet several
coordination taking into
participants met for the first time in the simulation
consideration the
exercise. Need to find structures and establish
constitutional changes (incl
procedures for co-operation.
coordination, information
sharing and
communication)
Kindly supported by
3

Share SOPs where available
(develop and share where
not available)
Enhance the GoK ownership of the contingency planning process
Observations were made that the local GoK officials and
 Reiterate the message that
the DSGs/DDMC are the
Hub were working in silos with limited communication.
operational coordination
E.g. when conducting assessments mainly due to the
for a at sub national level.
separate reporting lines (OCHA – vs National GoK). It
 Strengthen partnerships
should also be noted that only a small number of GoK
 Frequent liaison structures
officials participated in the simulation exercise, in
established. Meetings to
particular in the Kisumu simulation due to limited
take place at the GoK.
number of spots (2-4 GoK officials per hub).
 Further sensitization of the
county and district officials
on the hub approach.
Lack of clarity on linkages to the national level due to unclear structures
Observations were made that the lack of understanding
 Clarification of government
structures
and clarity about national structures (including roles

Harmonisation of GoK
and responsibilities) was and operational hinder.
structures, eg NDOC/CRC
Topic /
Observation
Lack of communication between GoK and Hub
Initially all the hubs and GoK officials worked in silos
with minimal communication. As the exercise advanced
the approach became more pro-active.
Communication
Need for Communications Strategy/SOPs
The communication took place often on ad hoc basis
lacking planned approach and structures.
Possible recommendation /
solution

Enhance partnerships and
establish a forum for the
communication to take
place.

Develop a communications
strategy to outline roles and
responsibilities of different
stakeholders.
 Develop detailed SOPs
using a participatory
approach.
Mapping (if still needed), updating and disseminating 3Ws (who, what, where)
The extent of 3Ws varied from hub to hub. The hubs
 Keep 3Ws up-to-date and
share them in a systematic
with advanced 3Ws noted that they will need to kept
matter
up-to-date and most importantly communicated and
 OCHA to coordinate the
shared with the GoK.
process and support
Lack of compiled contact information of all responding agencies
The simulation being the first encounter for many of the
 Creation, maintenance and
dissemination of contact
hubs with the GoK officials no contact lists had been
information of all
developed.
responding agencies
Kindly supported by
4
(decide who is responsible
for keeping the list up-todate).
Lack of communications focal points for contact with media
Most of the hubs lacked plan and established structures

for communication. In some hubs there was confusion
regarding who should register and take the in-coming

calls. It was suggested that the GoK should always be
the first point of contact with media and “competition”
between the stakeholders should be avoided.
Communication break-down back-up plan
The hubs vary on in geographic coverage (e.g. Nairobi vs

Mombasa which covers all Coast Province) and thus
face different communications challenges. Nairobi hub
suggested the use HF radios incl frequency.
Topic /
Observation
Strengthen information sharing between GoK and hub
Due to the newly established structures the information
management procedures were not in place.
Designate communications
focal point for contact with
media
Establishment of protocol
for interaction with the
media
Plans and secure
equipment needed.
Possible recommendation /
solution


GoK – Hub joint planning
for information sharing
Establish clear timelines for
communication
Need to identify triggers
Information management
Most of the hubs had not yet identified triggers in their
contingency planning




Lack of clarity in information flow – direction and form
Several participants reported difficulties in managing
the information flow. Hub members had received KIRA
training and were accustomed to produce situation
updates within their respective organisations. Yet
managing the inter-organisational UN-NGO-KRCS-GoK
interaction was more challenging.
Information flow/sharing:
- Timeliness
- Accuracy
- Relevance
Kindly supported by


Set thresholds/reference
indicators
Agree of triggers at hub
level
OCHA & hubs to clarify the
options / procedures for
activation
To be integrated in the
contingency planning
Strategy to reflect GoK
communication flow as well
UN/NGO interaction
Identify information focal
points (OCHA, sectors, Gok,
and hubs)
5
Many of the participants expressed their frustration
over and/or the difficulties they experienced in
managing the information flow, prioritizing tasks and
the importance of data verification/triangulation. It
should be noted that several of the participants were
experienced professionals but the new structures (hub
approach) were challenging.


Reinforce information
management
capacity/resources at
county and hub level
Verification
procedures/ensured
triangulation (GoK-hubKRCS linkages)
Lack of reverse reporting and accountability
The hubs and GoK were too occupied with the response
efforts and did not prioritize communication with
beneficiaries. There is a need for feedback and
information flow processes to be implemented to allow
for reverse reporting and strengthening accountability.
Lack of info management focal points
There was confusion in some case of the point of
contacts.
GoK lack of knowledge of the KIRA prosess
Most of the hubs had been trained in KIRA yet the GoK
counterparts still lacked knowledge and understanding
of the process. The duplication of assessment processes
should be avoided.
Kindly supported by


Develop feedback
mechanisms
Plan and establish
communication structures
to reach out to beneficiaries
(two-ways).

Appoint and train info
management focal points

Additional sensitisation /
orientation relevant GoK
structures on KIRA process
Orientation / sensitisation
of DSGs / DDCMs and subnational authorities

6
Annex B – Mombasa Hub simulation
Facilitators’ observations per Group
Counties
Facilitators: Mark Shapiro, WFP and Roman Sherah, DMO
Achievements
Challenges

County ownership and leadership over
the process established (further
planning process/preparedness and
response).


County Commissioners participated in
the exercise. Sign of engagement in the
process.

Clear and prompt reporting to the
CRC/NDOC. Good use of the secondary
data to build a situation report.
Verification of numbers with other
stakeholders.
Prompt response to logistics related
injects. Planning on-going with regards
to the Mombasa port e.g. GoK has
strengthened security around the port
to ensure the continued flow of
commodities.
Agreement on county-led consultations
and planning for next steps.



Kindly supported by
Things to improve
Initial lack of communication
between the hub and the counties
(lack of established partnerships and
networks, structures, procedures and
tools).
Two separate assessments processes
took place (GoK and Hub processes).
GoK lack of knowledge over the KIRA
process.

Develop structures and procedures for GoKhub coordination and communication.
Ideally, most Hub coordination meetings
should be at the County government offices.

Sensitize and build further awareness
among the GoK officials on KIRA.
Develop common understanding of who will
“own” the repository of KIRA/assessment
data.

Communication with beneficiaries.

Develop feed-back mechanisms for
beneficiaries.

Confusion over the funding
mechanisms.

Develop clear guidelines for which and how
to use the funding mechanisms.

Lack of communications focal points
for contact with media

Ensure the designation of a media focal
point and the alternate. Discuss and decide
on procedures with the hub.

7
Mombasa hub
Facilitator: Matthew Mcilvenna (WFP)
Achievements
Challenges

Good overall representation of the
different partners in the hub underling
the clear desire amongst the actors to
further strengthen coordination


Engagement of the faith based partners.
Their contribution as observers to the
process was excellent, reminding the
other participants of the critical role
faith base groups play in first and
second phase response.
Importance of key critical infrastructure
– Mombasa port and the related
prepositioning of items included in
future GoK – hub planning.

Agreement on county-led consultations
and planning for next steps.


Kindly supported by
Things to improve
Initial lack of understanding over
various partners roles and
responsibilities within the hub. Some
partners struggled to provide an
overview of their organisations’
capacity and resource during the
3Ws mapping exercise.
Initial lack of 3Ws

Clarify roles and responsibilities – ToRs and
framework (including lead, co-lead, hub
sector focal points and partners).

Develop, up-date and disseminate 3Ws.
Who, what, where mapping should be
completed at the county level.

Lack of compiled contact information
of all responding agencies


Lack of communication and frequent
liaison between humanitarian hub
and Country officials

Develop and disseminate a list of names
and contacts of the hub lead, hub
Information Management (IM) focal point
and sector focal points with County level
GoK including the GoK sector focal points.
Develop Comms strategy and SOPs taking
into consideration the large area and high
number of counties the hub covers.
8
Annex C – Nairobi Hub simulation
Facilitators’ observations per Group
Districts
Facilitators: Mark Shapiro (WFP) and Ricarda Hirsiger (WFP)
Achievements
Challenges

District Commissioners participated in
the exercise. Sign of engagement in the
process.


Communication with media, assigned
spokesperson and media briefing
organized.


Despite the slow start coordination
meetings organized and chaired by the
GOK district commissioner with all
stakeholders.


Things to improve
Initial lack of communication
between the hub and the counties
(lack of established partnerships and
networks, structures, procedures and
tools).
Two separate assessment processes
(hub and GoK) initiated and
conducted.

Develop structures and procedures for GoKhub coordination and communication.


Joint GoK- KRC- hub resource
mapping.

Sensitize and build further awareness
among the GoK officials on KIRA.
Develop common understanding of who will
“own” the repository of KIRA/assessment
data.
Develop 3Ws through a joint process
between the GoK and the hub. Disseminate
3Ws to the relevant stakeholders.
Frequent communication with the KRC,
use of the information provided by KRC
to update and brief the DCs on the
situation and humanitarian support
available.

Lack of knowledge of the role and
responsibilities of the hub.

Sensitize and build further awareness
among the GoK officials on the hub
approach and the KIRA process.
Agreement on DSG-led consultations
and planning for next steps together
with the hub and KRC.

GoK ownership of the contingency
planning process

Strengthened network and future plan on
clarifying the coordination structures.
Kindly supported by

9
Nairobi hub
Facilitator: Dominique Ferretti (WFP), Cheryl McDonald (Tearfund), and Lucy Dickinson (OCHA)
Achievements




Challenges
Things to improve
Good overall representation of the
different partners in the hub underling
the clear desire amongst the actors to
further strengthen coordination.
Advanced contingency planning and
mapping (3Ws).

Initial slight confusion over various
partners’ roles and responsibilities
within the hub.


Lack of clear communication
procedures (with GoK, external NGOs
and beneficiaries).

KRC showed a high level of
professionalism in terms of response
and information management (provided
clear updates with verified figures,
disaggregated data, called for a press
meeting with the hubs and responded
promptly).
Close cooperation and linkages with the
national level.

Lack of compiled contact information
of all responding agencies


Communication break-down back-up
plan
Lack of communication and frequent
liaison between humanitarian hub
and GoK.


Kindly supported by

Clarify roles and responsibilities – ToRs and
framework (including lead, co-lead, hub
sector focal points, Information
management focal point and partners).
Develop Communication strategy and SOPs.
Develop guidelines for reverse reporting and
accountability.(Clarify who does what –
KRC, GoK and Hub?)
Develop and disseminate a list of names
and contacts of the hub lead, hub
Information Management (IM) focal point
and sector focal points (if relevant).
Plan for the use of HF/VHF radios if
applicable
Frequent liaison with GoK in a structured
matter (meeting structure and procedures).
10
Annex D – Kisumu simulation (Nakuru, Eldoret and Kisumu hubs)
Facilitators’ observations per Group
District/Province
Facilitators: Armin Wilhelm (WFP) and Eric Demers (NRC)
Achievements
Challenges

Good and proactive participation which
signalled engagement in the process.


Partnerships and dialogue between the
different districts and the hub level were
strengthened.

Lack of thorough understanding of
the coordination mechanisms and
the role and responsibilities of the
hubs.
Coordination of assessment
processes. In some case GoK and the
hubs worked in silos.
Things to improve

Develop established structures and
procedures for GoK- hub coordination and
communication. Share SOPs with the hubs.

Sensitize and build further awareness
among the GoK officials on the hub
approach and the KIRA process.
Need to have common understanding of
who will “own” the repository of
KIRA/assessment data.
Develop and disseminate a list of names
and contacts of the hub lead, hub
Information Management (IM) focal point
and sector focal points (if relevant).
Ensure the designation of a media focal
point and the alternate. Discuss and decide
on procedures with the hub.


Regular coordination meetings held
with the hubs throughout the exercise.

Lack of compiled contact information
of all responding agencies


Agreement with the hubs on planning
for next steps (finalizing contingency
plans, 3Ws)

Lack of communication focal points
for contact with media in some
districts.

Kindly supported by
11
Nakuru, Eldoret and Kisumu hubs
Facilitator: Dominique Ferretti (WFP) and Lucy Dickinson (OCHA)
Achievements
Challenges
Things to improve

Good overall representation of the
different partners in the husb underling
the clear desire amongst the actors to
further strengthen coordination

Initial lack of understanding over
various partners roles and
responsibilities within the hub.


Good level of local knowledge partly due
to the easily manageable size/area of
the hubs.
Prompt replies to injects and requests.

Lack of 3Ws in some hubs.


Lack of compiled contact information
of all responding agencies

Agreement on the GoK – hub
consultations and planning for next
steps.

Information management
procedures and ensuring adequate
information flow (Timeliness,
Accuracy and Relevance)

Lack of communication and frequent
liaison between humanitarian hub
and Country officials




Kindly supported by

Clarify roles and responsibilities – ToRs and
framework (including lead, co-lead, hub
sector focal points and partners). Nakuru
hub needs to work on developing the hub
structures and develop partnerships.
Develop, up-date and disseminate 3Ws.
Develop and disseminate a list of names
and contacts of the hub lead, hub
Information Management (IM) focal point
and sector focal points to the GoK (including
to the GoK sector focal points).
Reinforce information management
capacity/resources at county and hub level
Verification procedures/ensured
triangulation (GoK-hub-KRC linkages)
Develop Comms strategy and SOPs taking
into consideration the large area and high
number of counties the hub covers.
12
Annex E – Participant lists
Mombasa Simulation Participant lists
NAME
ORGANIZATION
EMAIL
1
Joseph Imoni
WFP
joseph.imoni@wfp.org
2
Roman M. Sherah
NDMA
roman.sherah@gmail.com
3
Bethuel Wafula
NDMA
bethwo.fula@yahoo.co.uk
4
H.R. Khator
OOP
hcator@yahoo.com
5
Philips Ochieng'
WFP
philip.ochieng@wfp.org
6
Davis Kamau
WFP
david.kamau@wfp.org
7
Boniface Muia
UNICEF
bonifacem@unops.org
8
Mohamed Keiwan
NDMA
mkeywan@yahoo.com
9
Joseph Waruingi
PLAN International
waruingij@gmail.com
10
Mustafa P. H
NDMA
pavkolwa@yahoo.com
11
Linda Beyer
UNICEF
lbeyer@unicef.org
12
Mwanaisha Hamisi
KRCS
hamisi.mwanaisha@kenyarelief.org
13
Erick Kariuki
AMREF
eric.kariukipm@gmail.com
14
Omika Moma
NDMA
dhadho08@yahoo.com
15
Martin Waweru
CRS-K
martin.waweru@crs.org
16
Leparmorijo DB
OOP
beparmorijo@yahoo.com
17
Tabitha Simbar
WFP
tabitha.simbar@wfp.org
18
Allan M. Mbuba
C.W.S.K
cwsklana@gmail.com
19
Patrick Nyanje
World Vision Kenya
patrick_kambiwvi.org
20
Patrick Lavand'homme
UN OCHA
lavandhomme@un.org
21
Patrick Mwai
APHIA PLUS NC
pmwai@pathfinder.org
22
Donnah Midigo
SOS CV Kenya
donnah.midigo@soskenya.org
23
Njoki Kinyanjui
UN Women
njoki.kinyanjui@unwomen.org
24
Linner Ngeno
UN Women
linner.ngeno@unwomen.org
25
Adam K. N
NDMA
kheriadama@yahoo.com
26
Florence Nthenge
German Agro Action
florence.nthenge@welhungerhulfe.de
27
Elizabeth Aroka
ICRH CPAH GBURC
lizaroka@gmail.com
NAME
ORGANIZATION
EMAIL
1
Joseph N. Githinji
World Vision
Joseph-ndegwa@wvi.org
2
Joseph Odep
AMREF
Joseph.odep@amref.org
3
Lydia Kuria
AMREF
Lydia.kuria@amref.org
4
Anthony M. Riungu
CHF Intl
ariungu@chfkenya.org
5
John Okanga
CHF Intl
jokanga@chfkenya.org
6
Daniel Mutinda
KRCS
Mutinda.daniel@kenyaredcross.org
7
Nicholas Thuo
KRCS
thuo.nicholas@kenyaredcross.org
8
Wangechi Mathenge
KRCS
mathenge.wangechi@kenyaredcross.org
Nairobi Simulation Participant List
Kindly supported by
13
9
Evans Gacheru
KRCS
Kimani.evans@kenyaredcross.org
10
Robert Sila
OXFAM
Rsila@oxfam.org.uk
11
Winnie Machaki
IOM
wmachaki@iom.int
12
Lorand DusSants
IOM
lsanta@iom.int
13
Hellen Akoth
GOAL
hobongo@ke,goal.ie
14
Niall Boot
GOAL
nboot@goal.ie
15
Linet Opiyo
UNHCR
opiyo@unhcr.org
16
Loraine Ombech
UNHCR
ombech@unhcr.org
17
Isaiah Ochieng
KRCS
Isaiahochieng10@gmail.com
18
Christine Omondi
WFP
Christine.omondi@wfp.org
19
Jeremiah Njagi
NDOC
njagi@ndockenya.org
20
Suleiman Chege
D.C Makadara
smchege@y.mail.com
21
Samuel Mutisya
DOI Njiru
Smutisya27@yahoo.com
22
Joseph Maina
DDO Embakasi
Jmnjuguna6000@gmail.com
23
Hesbon Kayesi
D.O Kibera
hkayesi@yahoo.com
Kisumu Simulation Participants List
NAME
ORGANIZATION
1
James Gichimu
KRCS Branch – Nakuru
2
Samuel Mbugua
KRCS Branch - Kericho
swam06@yahoo.com
3
Marvins Chadwick
Family Health Options Kenya, Nakuru
marvins53.mc@gmail.com
4
Jackie Agunda
Goal Ireland Nakuru
jagunda@ke.goal.ie
5
Felix Kisalu
Nakuru District
kisalu13@yahoo.com
6
Martin Brown
munenebrown@yahoo.com
7
Gabriel Wambua
Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs
(MOJCA)
GOAL Ireland
8
Mary H. Awino
OOP Kericho
awinohyacinth@yahoo.com
9
Paul M. Kituku
NRC
paul.mutinda@nrc.no
10
Pasifica N. Ogada
Ministry of Education
pacificaogada2004@yahoo.com
11
Modibo I. Toure
UN
-
12
Micheal Agwanda
L.C.W
oumagwanda2@yahoo.com
13
Matthew Mcilvenna
WFP
matthew.mcilvenna@wfp.org
14
Sr. Macrina Cheruto
IOM
mcheruto@iom.int
15
Annastacia Some
UN OCHA
some3@un.org
16
Moses Gicharu
OOP Trans Nzoia West
mosesgicharu@ymail.com
17
Peter Ogindo
Children's Department
ogindo.p@gmail.com
18
Christine Adiema
WFP
christine.adiema@wfp.org
19
Jacob Achollah
SANA International
jachollah@yahoo.com
20
Constant Adeya
CARE International
conadeya@ksm.care.or.ke
21
Margaret Gwada
UNICEF
mgwada@unicef.org
22
Phillip Adingo
MOPHS
adingop@yahoo.com
23
Talaso Chucho
World Vision
talasoc@yahoo.com
24
Emmanuel Owako
Kenya Red Cross Society
owako.emmanuel@kenyaredcross.
org
Kindly supported by
EMAIL
gwambua@ke.goal.ie
14
25
Lilian S. Lagat
OOP Keiyo South
dckeiyo@yahoo.com
26
Enock Oruko
World Vision
enock_oruko@wvi.org
27
Johnstone Ndiema
Ministry of Public Health
ndiema.johnstone@gmail.com
28
Richard Otieno
PLAN International
richardotieno@yahoo.com
29
Chuck K. Masua
OOP Wareng
c.masua@yahoo.com
30
Micheal Gillo
SANA International
31
Alex Mwaki
Care International
32
Mr. Okiro
World Vision International
Kindly supported by
15