For the fourth consecutive year, Kenya’s total forest area remains fixed at 5.23 million hectares.

 

The 2026 Economic Survey shows that the figure has not moved since 2021, leaving forest cover locked at 8.83 percent of national land. That remains below the internationally recommended minimum threshold of 10 percent, a target Kenya has repeatedly committed itself to achieving but continues to fall short.

At first glance, the stagnation could be mistaken for stability. After years of climate pledges, tree-planting campaigns and public conservation drives, the absence of further decline appears reassuring.

But beneath the static headline figure lies a more troubling reality. Kenya’s forests are simultaneously being restored and depleted, protected and commercialised, expanded and extracted from, often at the same time. State-led plantation forestry offers the clearest sign of movement, though only marginally.

In 2025, the area under government plantations increased slightly to 148,600 hectares. Yet the pace of growth is slowing. The area newly planted declined compared to the previous year, while clear felling continued across harvested blocks.

The result was a net gain of just 1,600 hectares, a modest increase that barely registers against the scale of deforestation, land degradation and ecosystem pressure facing the country.

In simple terms, according to environmentalists, the forest is growing, but not fast enough to keep pace with what is being consumed. At the same time, demand for forest products is intensifying.

The data shows a contradiction at the centre of Kenya’s forestry economy. Trees are being planted to restore ecological balance even as others are being cut to sustain economic activity and household energy needs. One side of the system is trying to heal. The other continues drawing heavily from the same wound. This dual pressure exposes a structural challenge that statistics alone cannot solve.

Restoration requires time, stable financing, protection and long-term planning. Extraction, meanwhile, responds immediately to market demand, rising living costs and household energy needs. As a result, gains in one direction are steadily offset by losses in another.

For now, Kenya’s forest balance sheet appears almost unchanged, not because nothing is happening, but because opposing forces are cancelling each other out. Kenya’s forests are not standing still.

They are being pulled in two directions at once. Across some of the country’s most important ecosystems including Karura Forest, Oloolua Forest, Ngong Forest and the Maasai Mara ecosystem, a steady pattern of land disputes, encroachment and controversial developments has emerged since 2024.

According to environmentalists, legal experts and local communities, these incidents are no longer isolated cases.

Together, they point to a broader and increasingly worrying trend: the gradual weakening and commercialisation of protected ecosystems, often in defiance of environmental laws and public interest. In 2024, communities living near Oloolua Forest protested against the alleged grabbing of 66 acres of forestland.

Activists and local residents mobilised quickly, accusing private interests of attempting to carve out sections of the protected ecosystem.

The intervention of the Oloolua Community Forest Association eventually helped stop the encroachment. But for many conservationists, the incident exposed how vulnerable protected forests have become.

Akshay Vishwanath, executive director of JustAct, said that the alarm bells began ringing when residents noticed survey beacons appearing deep inside the forest.“Just before Easter, trucks carrying construction materials, workers and masonry stones started arriving on site,” Vishwanath said. “There was a clear attempt to take advantage of the holiday period when enforcement is typically low to push through illegal developments.”Vishwanath said investigations later revealed that 42 individuals and companies had been allocated land inside the forest.“The implications were massive,” he said. “Nearly a third of Oloolua Forest could have been lost.”Community groups, alongside PILAE and Friends of Oloolua Forest, organised protests and legal action, eventually forcing government intervention. Initial structures were demolished and conservatory court orders later halted further activity on the disputed land.“For now, the forest remains intact,” Vishwanath said, “but the threat has not disappeared.”A year later, controversy erupted again, this time in Ngong Forest.

Plans to construct cabins and hotel facilities inside the forest triggered public backlash after it emerged that the project had allegedly proceeded without proper approvals or environmental compliance.

The development, marketed as eco-tourism infrastructure, included tented cabins and cottages inside one of Nairobi’s key green spaces.

Authorities eventually halted the project, citing legal and environmental concerns.

But conservationists argued that the problem extended beyond one development.“What we are seeing is a pattern where developments begin first and justification comes later,” Vishwanath said. “That is not how governance should work.”The same concerns have increasingly surfaced inside the Maasai Mara ecosystem, one of Africa’s most internationally recognised wildlife landscapes.

Throughout 2025, reports highlighted illegal land subdivision, unregulated tourism facilities, fencing of wildlife corridors and rising human-wildlife conflict linked to land use changes.

Conservationists warn that the developments are fragmenting habitats and disrupting critical migration routes, particularly for wildebeest during the annual migration.“The Mara has been suffering from overdevelopment for years,” Vishwanath said. “There were even attempts to cap the number of tourism facilities through a management plan, but enforcement remains a challenge.”

.”Drone footage and independent investigations, he added, have challenged claims that some projects are environmentally harmless.“Drone footage and independent investigations have cast serious doubt on claims that these developments are ‘low impact,’” Vishwanath said. “In reality, they are large-scale commercial operations disguised as conservation projects.”The consequences extend beyond biodiversity loss.

As wildlife habitats shrink and migration routes become blocked, nearby communities increasingly face human-wildlife conflict as animals move into farms and settlements.

This year, attention shifted to Karura Forest, one of Kenya’s most celebrated examples of successful urban forest conservation.

Managed jointly by the Kenya Forest Service and Friends of Karura Forest (FKF), the forest has long been viewed as a model for community-led conservation.

Earlier reports of land clearance and construction activities inside conservation areas in March 2026 sparked renewed controversy.

The Kenya Forest Service (KFS) explained that the project involved the construction of barracks for National Youth Service personnel who would support tree seedling production alongside KFS.

Still, activists questioned both the process and the lack of transparency surrounding the development.“What is particularly worrying is the secrecy,” Vishwanath said. “If these projects were legitimate, why block access to the media? Why not open them up to public scrutiny?”He argued that the approach reflects a broader governance problem in which developments are initiated before communities or oversight bodies are informed.“It’s a pattern,” he said. “The projects start first and then get justified later.”Friends of Karura Forest also questioned the process.

In an earlier investigation, FKF stated that just days before the land clearance began, a Joint Management Committee meeting had been held to discuss all projects concerning Karura Forest, yet the proposed development was never presented.“All projects concerning Karura Forest are supposed to be discussed in the Joint Management Committee meetings where both the government and the community are represented,” FKF said. “But nothing like that was ever presented or mentioned.”While each case carries its own unique circumstances, experts say they are connected by one underlying issue: the gradual weakening of ecosystems that are central to Kenya’s climate resilience.

Forests, wetlands and savannahs perform critical ecological functions. They absorb carbon dioxide, regulate water cycles, reduce flooding and support biodiversity.

Urban planners and climate experts warn that continued degradation could worsen flooding, heat stress and water insecurity in coming years.“This is not just about protecting trees,” Vishwanath emphasised. “It is about protecting people.”Kenya already possesses a relatively strong legal framework governing environmental protection, including laws requiring environmental impact assessments, land-use planning and public participation.

The challenge, experts argue, lies not in policy but in enforcement.“This is fundamentally a rule of law issue,” Vishwanath said. “If you declare an area protected but allow illegal activities to take place, then the system is failing.”He believes many of the developments emerging across protected ecosystems are driven not simply by economic need, but by unchecked greed and weak accountability.“I would not even call it commercial interest,” he said. “It is greed. It is criminal.”According to Vishwanath, Kenya is increasingly witnessing a push to commercialise forests, parks and wildlife spaces without fully considering ecological limits or long-term sustainability.“There is a push to commercialise everything, from forests, parks, wildlife without asking what the ecological limits are,” he said.

Despite existing laws allowing community co-management of forests, many decisions continue to be made without meaningful public participation.“If you give communities ownership and responsibility, they will defend these spaces,” Vishwanath said.

If the current trajectory continues, conservationists warn that Kenya risks losing not only forest cover but entire ecosystems.“You may still have forests on paper,” Vishwanath warned, “but in reality, they will be gone.”He cautioned that the timeline for such degradation may be shorter than many assume.“It may not even take 10 or 20 years,” he said. “At this rate, we could see serious degradation within five years.”The consequences, he warned, would extend far beyond biodiversity loss.“The implications would be profound — not only for tourism and wildlife, but for climate stability, water security and human wellbeing.”For Vishwanath, the debate ultimately goes beyond conservation policy.“Forests are not just spaces on a map,” he said. “They are living systems that sustain us. If we lose them, we lose far more than trees.”

© Copyright 2026 Nation Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).