Kenya
Status and caveats. This Circular is a consultation draft prepared by the GOAP Secretariat. It documents ocean accounts work relating to Kenya for methodological illustration only. It is not an official statistic, and it has not been endorsed by the Government of Kenya, by any national statistical office or other authority, or by any of the organisations named in it — nothing in it should be read as representing their position. Figures, classifications, reference levels and valuations are provisional, may rest on incomplete, unvalidated or superseded data, and are subject to revision; they must not be cited as national accounts or official statistics, nor relied on for compliance, regulatory, commercial or financial purposes. Any errors are the Secretariat’s own. Designations of countries, territories and boundaries carry no implication as to legal status or the delimitation of frontiers. Corrections and comments are welcome — see How to comment.
1. Outcome
1This Circular documents a SEEA Ecosystem Accounting pilot compiled for Kenya’s coastal counties (Kilifi and Kwale, with adjoining Tana River and Mombasa). It demonstrates how field-based condition surveys, remote-sensing extent data and county fisheries statistics can be combined into a coherent set of extent, condition and ecosystem-services accounts for three coastal ecosystem types — mangroves (MFT1.2), coral reefs and seagrass meadows (M1.1).
2. Requirements
- 1TG-0.1 General Introduction
- 2TG-1.10 OA and National Planning Integration
- 3TG-2.4 Environmental (including Ecosystem) Goods and Services
3. Case Study Material
3.1 Country Context
1Kenya’s coastline supports three SEEA-EA priority ecosystems — mangrove forests, fringing coral reefs and seagrass meadows — that together underpin small-scale fisheries, tourism and shoreline protection. The pilot was scoped around Kilifi and Kwale counties, with mangrove surveys also extending into Kilifi Creek, Mida Creek (Watamu MNR/MNP), Marereni and the Tana Delta. Roughly 66% of the country’s mangrove extent falls within the WDPA protected-area network, anchored by Watamu Marine National Park (≈1,763 ha) and a constellation of forest reserves and community conservancies.
3.2 Implementation Approach
1The pilot combined three streams of evidence with reference levels drawn from WIO regional literature (GCRMN 2021, Obura et al. 2022, Hughes et al. 2010) and a SEEA-EA composite condition indicator (CI) on a 0–1 scale:
| Ecosystem | Periods | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Mangroves (MFT1.2) | Extent 2020 vs 2025; condition 2025 | GMW v4.019 baseline + Kenya 2025 classification; plot-based stem density, DBH, height, canopy cover, species composition |
| Coral reefs | Nov 2024 and Jul 2025 (multi-period) | Benthic point-intercept transects, coral health/recruitment, fish biomass, COTS and urchin counts |
| Seagrass meadows (M1.1) | 2024 surveys | Cover, species richness and shoot density by zone (near-shore / middle / near-reef) across 11 sites |
| Reef-fisheries services | 2020–2024 | County catch × reef-attribution fractions by species group; deflated to 2024 KES then USD; resource-rent sensitivity |
3.3 Worked Accounts
3.3.1 Mangrove extent account (2020 vs 2025)
| Component | Year | Polygons | Area (ha) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opening extent (GMW 2020) | 2020 | 349 | 6,083.04 | Global Mangrove Watch v4.019 |
| Additions | 2020–2025 | 886 | +589.10 | New mangrove vs 2020 |
| Reductions | 2020–2025 | 332 | -927.84 | Loss vs 2020 |
| Closing extent | 2025 | 914 | 5,741.64 | Project classification |
| Net change | 2020–2025 | — | -341.40 (-5.6%) | Closing minus Opening |
| Closing — within protected areas | 2025 | 259 | 3,806.46 (66.3%) | De-duplicated WDPA overlay |
| Closing — outside protected areas | 2025 | — | 1,935.18 (33.7%) | Total minus Protected |
3.3.2 Mangrove condition account (2025)
1Composite CI averaged across plots, by protection status:
| Protection class | Sites | Plots | Stem density CI | Canopy cover CI | Quality index CI | Composite CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mida Creek MNR | 7 | 11 | 0.87 | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.46 |
| Unprotected | 15 | 25 | 0.93 | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.37 |
2Mida Creek plots show higher canopy cover and overall composite condition than unprotected creek systems, despite similar stem density. Species composition is dominated by Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriops tagal and Avicennia marina.
3.3.3 Coral-reef condition account — multi-period (Nov 2024 → Jul 2025)
1Mean values across surveyed sites, against WIO reference levels:
| Indicator | Unit | Reference | Nov 2024 (n) | Jul 2025 (n) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live hard coral cover | % | >30% (GCRMN 2021) | 40.0 (6) | 22.0 (5) | Decline |
| Healthy coral colonies | % colonies | 95% baseline | 76.9 (5) | 94.8 (6) | Recovery of survivors |
| Bleached coral colonies | % colonies | <5% background | 6.6 (5) | 0.0 (6) | Bleaching subsided |
| Diseased coral colonies | % colonies | <2% background | 0.0 (5) | 0.0 (6) | At reference |
| Coral recruit density | recruits/m² | 1–3 (WIO healthy) | 0.010 (9) | 0.054 (6) | Low; trace recovery |
| Crown-of-thorns | ind/ha | <15 (outbreak) | 0.0 (34) | — | At reference |
2The Nov 2024 → Jul 2025 window (≈15 months post 2023–24 bleaching peak) captures simultaneous loss of live coral cover and recovery of the surviving colonies’ health — consistent with mortality of bleached colonies and reduced thermal stress. Watamu Coral Garden (no-take MPA) saw live cover of 22.5% in Jul 2025 with 91% of remaining colonies healthy and 0% bleached, against 70.8% healthy and 29.2% dead in Nov 2024.
3.3.4 Seagrass condition account (2024)
1Composite CI per site (mean of cover, richness and shoot-density CIs; reference = 60% cover, 8 species, WIO shoot-density baselines):
| Site | Cover (%) | Richness (count) | Composite CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ngomeni | 77.4 | 8 | 0.94 |
| Roka | 71.5 | 4 | 0.83 |
| Kanamai–Jumba ruins | 59.6 | 5 | 0.81 |
| Wesa | 84.3 | 4 | 0.81 |
| Kuruwitu | 60.4 | 3 | 0.78 |
| Marereni | 57.8 | 5 | 0.75 |
| Bofa | 81.2 | 3 | 0.73 |
| Kikambala | 56.5 | 2 | 0.73 |
| Malindi MP (16 Nov) | 80.3 | 3 | 0.70 |
| Takaungu | 74.1 | 3 | 0.69 |
2Cover is uniformly high relative to the 60% provisional reference; the binding constraint on the composite is species richness (max observed = 8 at Ngomeni).
3.3.5 Reef-attributed fisheries supply — physical and monetary
1Reef catch is derived from county landings via species-group attribution fractions (e.g., snapper 90%, parrotfish 90%, surgeonfish 85%; pelagic species 0–10%) with a habitat-overlap uplift to a central reef-attribution fraction of ~30–55%.
| Year | County catch (mt) | Reef fraction (%) | Reef catch central (mt) | Reef revenue (real 2024 USD) | Resource rent central (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 4,449 | 38.7 | 2,241 | 5,066,075 | 1,925,108 |
| 2021 | 4,592 | 45.1 | 2,694 | 4,996,681 | 1,898,739 |
| 2022 | 9,307 | 36.6 | 4,433 | 8,208,217 | 3,119,123 |
| 2023 | 9,706 | 35.6 | 4,493 | 7,484,512 | 2,844,115 |
| 2024 | 12,095 | 32.8 | 5,152 | 8,466,537 | 3,217,284 |
3.3.6 Resource-rent sensitivity (2024)
1Central reef revenue USD 9.15 M (reef fraction 0.40, cost ratio 0.62) gives a resource rent of USD 3.48 M. Bounding cases:
| Reef fraction | Cost ratio | Gross revenue (USD) | Resource rent (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.30 (low) | 0.70 (high) | 6,859,174 | 2,057,752 |
| 0.40 (central) | 0.62 (central) | 9,145,566 | 3,475,315 |
| 0.55 (high) | 0.55 (low) | 12,575,153 | 5,658,819 |
3.4 Decision Applications
- 1MPA effectiveness. Pairing mangrove composite CI by protection status with the WDPA-overlaid extent account provides a tractable indicator of management effectiveness without requiring full economic valuation.
- 2Bleaching response monitoring. The Nov 2024 → Jul 2025 coral comparison demonstrates a repeat-survey cadence that detects bleaching-driven loss and post-event recovery on a single fiscal cycle.
- 3Blue-economy planning. The reef-attributed fisheries account links coral-reef condition to a defensible monetary resource-rent estimate, supporting cost-benefit framing for reef management investments under Kenya’s blue-economy agenda.
3.5 Lessons Learned
- 1Reference levels are the binding methodological choice. Seagrass and mangrove composite CIs are highly sensitive to provisional WIO references; published regional baselines for canopy height and shoot density remain incomplete.
- 2Multi-period coral surveys reveal “compositional” recovery. Cover declined while the proportion of healthy surviving colonies rose — a single-indicator account would mis-state the trajectory.
- 3Attribution fractions drive valuation. A 30–55% reef-fraction range alone moves the 2024 resource rent across roughly USD 2.1–5.7 M; the species-group attribution table must be validated before publication.
- 4Protected vs unprotected stratification is essential. Two-thirds of mangrove extent sits within WDPA, but unprotected stands carry materially lower canopy-cover CI — aggregate national figures mask this.
3.6 Data Gaps and Caveats
- 1Reef-fisheries attribution fractions are PROVISIONAL pending Dr. Pascal Thoya validation (2026-03-16).
- 22023 county catch figures are KeFS estimates; treat with caution.
- 3Seagrass reference levels for canopy height and several shoot-density species are unpublished — max-observed-across-sites is used as an interim reference.
- 4Coral cover for Jul 2025 reflects only 5 sites with full benthic transects; some Nov 2024 sites were not re-surveyed.
- 5Mangrove condition sampling is sparse (22 accounting units, often 2–3 plots each); confidence intervals are wide.
4. Acknowledgements
1Authors: [To be confirmed]
2Reviewers: [To be confirmed]
3Data partners: Kenya Fisheries Service (KeFS); Kenya Wildlife Service (Watamu/Malindi MNP/MNR); CORDIO East Africa; Global Mangrove Watch.
5. References
1Source data: Kenya_accounts/Kenya/03_outputs/ (accounts, mangrove, coral_reef, seagrass, services). Reference benchmarks: GCRMN (2021); Obura et al. (2022); Hughes et al. (2010); Hoegh-Guldberg (1999); Bourne et al. (2009); Dulvy et al. (2021).