Kenya’s Building Code Got Braver. Have Banks and Insurers?

The 2024 code opened more room for alternative building materials. The bigger question is whether Kenya’s financing and insurance systems are ready to follow.

Kenya’s 2024 National Building Code marked an important shift in how the country approaches construction.

The code replaced the 1968 building regulations and came into force in March 2025. It sets standards for building materials while allowing alternative materials of equal or better performance, subject to testing and relevant standards.

That creates more room for construction methods such as stabilised soil blocks, timber-frame systems and rammed earth.

Yet regulatory approval is only one part of the equation.

The Building Code Has Opened the Door

For years, stone and cement-based construction have dominated Kenya’s housing market.

That does not mean they are the only viable options.

Alternative building materials can make use of resources available closer to construction sites. In some locations, that can reduce transport costs and support more climate-responsive construction.

Research on Kenya’s alternative building materials also shows that suitability varies by location. Soil-stabilized blocks, for example, depend on soil composition and local conditions.

The new code does not simply allow any material without conditions.

Materials must meet relevant standards and perform adequately for their intended use. Where an alternative material replaces a specified standard material, the code requires evidence of equal or better performance, including laboratory testing.

That distinction matters.

The code has created regulatory space for alternatives. It has not automatically made every alternative suitable for every project.

Approval Does Not Guarantee Financing

This is where the bigger challenge begins.

A building code can recognize a construction method. It cannot require a bank to finance every project using that method.

Lenders still assess construction costs, approved plans, valuations, collateral and the risks associated with a property.

The same applies to insurers.

A developer considering stabilized soil blocks must therefore look beyond the initial cost of materials. They also need to consider whether a lender will finance the project and whether an insurer will provide appropriate cover.

If either becomes difficult, some of the expected cost advantage can disappear.

Kenya’s financial sector has already started testing ways to finance alternative construction. FSD Kenya, for example, has supported a pilot that trained artisans to use climate-friendly technologies, including soil-stabilized blocks, while developing housing-improvement loans for rural customers.

That suggests the financing gap is not impossible to address. It requires products designed around the realities of alternative construction.

The Makuti Question

The issue becomes particularly visible at the Coast.

Makuti roofs remain part of the architectural identity of coastal Kenya. They also support local livelihoods and tourism aesthetics.

However, fire risk remains a major concern.

Recent reporting from the Coast has highlighted property losses involving makuti-roofed establishments and concerns about rising insurance costs.

That makes the insurance conversation more complicated than simply asking whether makuti is accepted as a traditional building material.

Insurers need reliable evidence on fire performance, treatment, maintenance, construction quality and actual claims experience.

The question is therefore whether underwriting practices can increasingly reflect evidence from Kenyan conditions rather than relying heavily on historical assumptions.

From Regulation to Market Acceptance

Kenya’s alternative building materials sector still faces other barriers.

The Kenya Green Building Society and FSD Kenya have identified issues around market perception, supply chains and skills. Their alternative building materials handbook covers technologies including stabilized soil blocks, rammed earth, bamboo, laterite and recycled plastic panels.

These challenges point to a broader issue.

Construction is an ecosystem.

Architects and engineers determine whether a material can work. Counties approve projects. Financiers determine access to capital. Valuers influence how properties are assessed. Insurers price risk.

If one part of that chain remains unfamiliar with alternative construction, adoption can remain slow.

Kenya’s Building Code Got Braver. Have Banks and Insurers?

The Next Step Is Better Evidence

The answer does not require banks or insurers to abandon caution.

Instead, Kenya needs more locally generated evidence.

Performance data from completed projects could help financiers and insurers understand how alternative materials behave over time.

Insurers could also work with industry bodies and regulators to examine claims data and construction standards for different materials.

Counties could document the performance of approved projects. Developers could share evidence on construction costs, maintenance and energy performance.

That information would give the market something more useful than assumptions.

Kenya Has Started the Conversation

The National Building Code 2024 has already changed the regulatory framework. It replaced rules that had governed construction for decades and introduced a broader framework covering materials, structural design, safety and sustainability.

The next challenge is market adoption.

For alternative building technologies to contribute meaningfully to more affordable and sustainable housing, regulatory recognition needs to connect with financing, valuation, insurance and professional practice.

The code may have opened the door.

Now the institutions that determine what Kenyans can afford to build need to decide how far they are prepared to walk through it.