@article{10.11648/j.aff.20251406.13,
  author = {Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili},
  title = {Forests for Prosperity: Integrating Carbon Markets with Rural Livelihoods in Kenya},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {14},
  number = {6},
  pages = {240-248},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20251406.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251406.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20251406.13},
  abstract = {Forests are central to rural incomes, energy security, water regulation, and climate goals. Yet the promise of carbon finance remains uneven due to contested land and resource rights, weak community participation, inconsistent monitoring and reporting, market volatility, and opaque benefit-sharing that can erode local trust. To determine how carbon markets can be integrated with rural livelihoods, a rapid evidence synthesis of Kenyan national laws, policies, and program documents was combined with structured case studies of representative forest and rangeland carbon projects. Data were analyzed thematically across five domains: governance and authorizations, measurement/reporting, benefit-sharing, livelihood co-investment, and risk management to identify enabling conditions and failure points. The results show that Kenya’s evolving framework now clarifies roles for authorizing projects, establishes national tracking systems, and requires community benefit-sharing through locally negotiated agreements. Projects demonstrate the capacity to generate verified emission reductions and fund local priorities (e.g., water, education, health, and micro-enterprise). However, results also reveal persistent risks: unclear tenure and inadequate free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); gaps in transparent revenue reporting; variable monitoring quality; and exposure to price and demand swings. Kenya has assembled the core policy and institutional scaffolding to link carbon markets with rural prosperity. Realizing this potential depends on centering community rights, credible monitoring, and transparent, rules-based sharing of benefits. It is recommended that (1) fully operationalizing national carbon registries and clear authorization procedures; (2) standardizing Community Development Agreements (CDA) with public reporting of revenues and disbursements; (3) aligning project monitoring with national forest and restoration systems; (4) ring-fencing carbon revenues for local enterprises—beekeeping, nurseries, efficient cooking, sustainable wood products, and eco-tourism with gender and youth quotas; (5) requiring independent audits and accessible grievance redress mechanisms; and (6) benchmarking projects against internationally recognized integrity standards to stabilize demand and pricing.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Forests for Prosperity: Integrating Carbon Markets with Rural Livelihoods in Kenya
AU  - Benjamin Mutuku Kinyili
Y1  - 2025/12/17
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251406.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.aff.20251406.13
T2  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP  - 240
EP  - 248
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5648
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20251406.13
AB  - Forests are central to rural incomes, energy security, water regulation, and climate goals. Yet the promise of carbon finance remains uneven due to contested land and resource rights, weak community participation, inconsistent monitoring and reporting, market volatility, and opaque benefit-sharing that can erode local trust. To determine how carbon markets can be integrated with rural livelihoods, a rapid evidence synthesis of Kenyan national laws, policies, and program documents was combined with structured case studies of representative forest and rangeland carbon projects. Data were analyzed thematically across five domains: governance and authorizations, measurement/reporting, benefit-sharing, livelihood co-investment, and risk management to identify enabling conditions and failure points. The results show that Kenya’s evolving framework now clarifies roles for authorizing projects, establishes national tracking systems, and requires community benefit-sharing through locally negotiated agreements. Projects demonstrate the capacity to generate verified emission reductions and fund local priorities (e.g., water, education, health, and micro-enterprise). However, results also reveal persistent risks: unclear tenure and inadequate free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); gaps in transparent revenue reporting; variable monitoring quality; and exposure to price and demand swings. Kenya has assembled the core policy and institutional scaffolding to link carbon markets with rural prosperity. Realizing this potential depends on centering community rights, credible monitoring, and transparent, rules-based sharing of benefits. It is recommended that (1) fully operationalizing national carbon registries and clear authorization procedures; (2) standardizing Community Development Agreements (CDA) with public reporting of revenues and disbursements; (3) aligning project monitoring with national forest and restoration systems; (4) ring-fencing carbon revenues for local enterprises—beekeeping, nurseries, efficient cooking, sustainable wood products, and eco-tourism with gender and youth quotas; (5) requiring independent audits and accessible grievance redress mechanisms; and (6) benchmarking projects against internationally recognized integrity standards to stabilize demand and pricing.
VL  - 14
IS  - 6
ER  - 

Copy | Download