STRATEGIC GOAL A: Target 2: biodiversity integrated into national and local development planning

Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society

Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.


Milestones/Contributions to the target

Kenya has developed strategy , planning policy documents relevant to biodiversity conservation

  • Biodiversity values included in various national and sectoral development and master plans
  • Recognition of biodiversity values in national development blue print (vision 2030).
  • Kenya forestry master plan
  • Ecosystems/site specific  plans have been developed
  • Recognition of biodiversity within the Kenya  constitution 2010
  • The establishment of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Kenya under the EMCA Amendment Act 2015.
  • Wildlife Conservation and management Act 2013
  • Climate change Act
  • Draft Climate change policy
  • National Wetlands policy
  • Water Act
  • Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research (KALR) Act 2013
  • Bio science bill
  • Seed and plant varieties Act 2012
  • Land Act
  • Land use policy
  • National environment policy
  • Wildlife biodiversity valuation project initiated
  • Biodiversity valuation mainstreamed in the new wildlife law (2013) capturing need to value biodiversity resources and policy 2013
  • Creation of conservancies and utilization including wildlife related enterprises for poverty reduction

    Mt. Kenya Ecosystem Management Plan – Kenya Wildlife .

    Management Plans | Kenya Wildlife Service

    National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan

  • Kakamega Forest Strategic Ecosystem Management Plan 2015




Valuation of environmental and natural resources: The value of environmental resources is hardly reflected in pricing of marketed goods and services in Kenya. Environmental and natural resources are largely considered as public goods. This is symptomatic of market failure. Integrating environmental considerations into the behaviour of enterprises and consumers was deemed necessary to  reflect a change in consumption and production patterns. Prioritization of environment and natural resources remains low among policy makers partly due to inadequate appreciation of the total economic value of the sector. As a result, there is less public investment in the sector.

Case study

Economic valuation of the Mau Forest Complex: The total economic value of the Mau Forest complex (tourism, hydropower, agriculture, and the tea industry) is as much as USD$1.5 billion per year. This valuation triggered a multi-million-dollar restoration initiative by the government to restore the Eastern Mau catchment area (“Mau Forest Reforestation Project”).

Economic analysis of mangrove forests: Funded by UNEP, this case study quantified the total economic value of the Gazi Bay mangrove forest. The total economic value was estimated at USD$1092 per hectare per year. The lack of primary data and appropriate peer reviewed studies was noted as a limitation of the research. Economic valuation of Kenya’s Water Towers (i.e. montane forests): Currently undertaking a program to calculate value of all Kenyan water towers; starting with five major ones and working with the KWS and the KFS.7 A 2012 report by UNEP on the economic valuation of the water towers noted that montane forests have been consistently undervalued in conventional national accounting.