Comprehensive Market Analysis: The Clean Cooking Sector in Kenya

 

​

Table of Contents

1. Market Segmentation and Consumer Behavior

   • a. Current Cooking Fuel Landscape

   • b. Rural vs. Urban Access

2. Regulatory Framework and National Strategy

   • a. Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (2024–2028)

   • b. Policy Challenges

   • Role of Non-Governmental Organizations

3. Private Sector Landscape

   • a. Key Players

   • b. Deeper Case Studies & Performance Comparisons

4. Carbon Finance and Emissions Offsetting

5. Investment and Infrastructure Needs

   • a. Financial Instruments

   • b. Manufacturing and Supply Chain

   • c. Behavior Change Communication (BCC)

6. Strategic Recommendations

7. Conclusion and Strategic Outlook

​

​

1. Overview

Kenya stands at a critical juncture in the clean cooking transition. With a combination of bold government targets, innovative private sector involvement, and rising global scrutiny around carbon finance integrity, the Kenyan clean cooking sector presents both immense opportunity and significant challenges. As of 2023, approximately 68.5% of households still rely on traditional biomass fuels, but Kenya aims for universal clean cooking access by 2028 under the Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (KNCTS).

Interviews with sector stakeholders underscore both the urgency and promise of this transition. Interviewees highlighted that while progress is being made in urban areas, rural access lags due to infrastructure limitations, cost barriers, and cultural inertia. There is a shared optimism about the role of carbon finance and private sector innovation, but concerns persist around policy enforcement, user behavior, and long-term affordability.

 

2. Market Segmentation and Consumer Behavior

a. Current Cooking Fuel Landscape

• Traditional Biomass: Used by over two-thirds of households; wood (52%) and charcoal (11.9%) dominate.

• LPG: Used by 9.4% of households, mostly urban.

• Electricity and Bioethanol: Together account for <2% of cooking use.

• Fuel Stacking: Highly prevalent; ~50% of households use more than one cooking method.
   

b. Rural vs. Urban Access

• Urban clean cooking access is at 76% vs. 12% in rural areas.

• Over 8.5 million households remain underserved, predominantly in rural counties.
   

Interviewees emphasized that rural users often rely on collected biomass not only due to cost, but because of ingrained cooking traditions. Urban users are more responsive to clean options when affordability and convenience align.

 

3. Regulatory Framework and National Strategy

a. Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (2024–2028)

• Goal: Universal clean cooking access by 2028.

• Fuel Mix Targets:

  • LPG: 50%

  • Bioethanol: 30%

  • Electricity: 10%

  • Biogas: 3%

  • Improved Biomass (Tier 3+): 7%

• Annual Public Investment Needed: ~$210 million

• Private Household Contributions: ~$72 million annually
   

b. Policy Challenges

• High stove import duties (up to 35%)

• Fragmented policy implementation in past strategies

• Inadequate local manufacturing capacity

• Need for consistent performance standards aligned with WHO guideline

 

Role of Non-Governmental Organizations

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have played a crucial role in Kenya’s clean cooking transition. The Clean Cooking Association of Kenya (CCAK), in particular, serves as a unifying platform for private sector actors, government agencies, and development partners. CCAK advocates for enabling policies, supports testing and standards development, and provides technical training and capacity-building services for local enterprises. The association has been instrumental in shaping national strategies, organizing industry dialogues, and pushing for fiscal reforms such as VAT exemptions for clean cooking products. Through public campaigns, partnerships with counties, and resource mobilization efforts, CCAK and similar NGOs amplify the reach and impact of clean cooking technologies across urban and rural settings.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​4. Private Sector Landscape

a. Key Players

• KOKO Networks

• Mukuru Clean Stoves

• EcoSafi (Better Cooking Company)

• Burn Manufacturing

• PayGo Energy

• Ecoboda
   

b. Deeper Case Studies & Performance Comparisons​​​​

Burn Manufacturing

Burn is one of Kenya’s most successful clean cooking companies. With manufacturing facilities in Kenya and expansion into Ghana and Nigeria, Burn combines local production with rigorous product design. It has begun integrating electric stoves with IoT features, allowing for detailed usage tracking—a major advantage in carbon credit integrity. Burn’s electric models meet Tier 5 PM and CO emission standards and are particularly suited for grid-connected areas. The company reports over 2 million units sold and continues to grow its carbon revenue base.

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

KOKO Networks

KOKO’s innovative ethanol distribution model uses over 700 “fuel-ATM” stations across urban Kenya, allowing consumers to refill ethanol bottles via a digital payment system. The model eliminates the need for traditional LPG cylinders and simplifies access. KOKO’s primary strength lies in its scalable infrastructure and urban market dominance. The company generates verified carbon credits through the Gold Standard Metered methodology. However, its reliance on ethanol imports and sugarcane byproducts creates supply vulnerabilities.

EcoSafi

EcoSafi deploys Tier 4+ biomass gasifier stoves backed by rigorous Gold Standard carbon protocols. While still in early growth, the company is noted for carbon integrity and for helping shape improved methodologies. EcoSafi stoves are WHO-compliant and metered, ensuring accurate monitoring and verified carbon revenue. The key challenge lies in expanding manufacturing and rural distribution, but the model is scalable with sufficient funding.

Mukuru Clean Stoves

Founded by Earthshot Prize-winner Charlot Magayi, Mukuru focuses on producing affordable stoves using locally available materials. Their products burn cleaner than traditional stoves and are priced around $10. Mukuru’s strength lies in grassroots marketing and accessibility. While these stoves do not generate high-value carbon credits (due to lower emissions reductions), they offer a vital transitional solution for low-income households.

PayGo Energy

PayGo is building an IoT-based LPG distribution system that monitors gas use and enables payment in small installments. This is particularly attractive for peri-urban users who struggle with large upfront LPG costs. However, the technology’s capital costs and logistics constraints have limited rapid scale so far.

Ecoboda

Ecoboda is piloting briquette-based stoves in urban and peri-urban areas, using agro-waste to produce sustainable charcoal alternatives. Their circular-economy model integrates clean cooking with waste management, creating co-benefits. However, the company is still in its pilot phase and lacks manufacturing scale.

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

5. Carbon Finance and Emissions Offsetting

a. The Role of Carbon Credits

Clean cooking is a major component of Kenya's voluntary carbon market. Revenue from carbon credits is a vital funding stream for many companies, enabling consumer subsidies and technology scaling.

b. Over-Crediting Crisis

The Berkeley Carbon Trading Project revealed that most cookstove offset methodologies globally are significantly over-credited—on average, by a factor of 9.2×. Key issues include:

• Overestimated fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB)

• Assuming exclusive use of clean stoves (ignoring fuel stacking)

• Using outdated or incomplete emissions factors

c. Best Practices Identified

The Gold Standard Metered Methodology, which directly measures fuel use through metered devices, is the most reliable and accurate, with only ~1.5× over-crediting. This methodology is now being used by Burn, EcoSafi, and KOKO Networks.

d. Sector Commentary

Tom Price (The Energy Pioneer) emphasized that many past carbon projects used inflated fNRB values (70–80%), even though evidence suggests values closer to 30–40%. Projects using these older methods have had up to 80% of their credits invalidated.

He pointed to the growing relevance of the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles (CCP), along with carbon rating agencies like Calyx and BeZero, as mechanisms that will shape a new era of accountability. Burn’s alignment with CCP and use of digital monitoring has already made it a model of high-integrity carbon finance.

 

6. Investment and Infrastructure Needs

a. Financial Instruments

• Blended Finance: Combining public sector grants, development aid, and private investment (e.g., carbon finance) to scale access.

• Results-Based Financing (RBF): Conditional disbursement based on verified outcomes—especially effective when tied to metered usage and adoption.

• Microfinance & Community Funds: Some stakeholders promote revolving credit or local cooperative models for household affordability.

• Green Bonds: Potential long-term tool for infrastructure-scale LPG or ethanol distribution investment.
   

b. Manufacturing and Supply Chain

• Burn’s expansion to five regional facilities showcases the advantages of localized production: reduced import costs, increased speed to market, and regional economic development.

• Several companies, including EcoSafi and Mukuru, highlight the need for technical and capital support to expand stove manufacturing in rural counties.

• Fuel infrastructure (e.g., bioethanol refineries, LPG depots) remains underdeveloped—especially outside major cities like Nairobi, Kisumu, and Mombasa.
   

c. Behavior Change Communication (BCC)

• Large-scale awareness programs (e.g., “Mama Doing Good”) are being piloted by government agencies and NGOs.

• Burn and CCAK stress that e-cooking adoption requires extensive consumer onboarding, including training in stove operation and energy budgeting.

• Radio, school partnerships, and community-based agents are effective in changing fuel-use behaviors and reducing fuel stacking.
   

 

7. Strategic Recommendations

1. Adopt Gold Standard Metered Protocols for all carbon-financed projects to improve accuracy and investor trust.

2. Develop Local Manufacturing Hubs by leveraging tax incentives, technical training, and regional SME support.

3. Target Underserved Regions with tailored fuel strategies based on geospatial and socio-economic data.

4. Foster Fuel Stacking Transition Models: Encourage partial fuel switching (e.g., biomass + e-cooking or LPG) to reflect real-world behavior.

5. Align Clean Cooking with Grid Expansion Plans: Pair stove adoption with reliable electrification rollouts.

6. Institutionalize Monitoring and Evaluation via government + private sector dashboards to measure access, usage, and impact.

7. Expand Behavior Change Communication tailored to rural and marginalized communities.

8. Standardize Emissions Metrics (e.g., fNRB) and carbon protocols to eliminate over-crediting and boost market credibility.

9. Remove Fiscal Disincentives: Eliminate VAT on ethanol, e-cooking appliances, and LPG while increasing charcoal taxes to reflect true social costs.

 

8. Conclusion and Strategic Outlook

Kenya’s clean cooking sector is among the most dynamic in Africa. Backed by strong policy ambitions like the Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (KNCTS) and supported by a mix of donor, private, and carbon finance, the country is setting a benchmark for a nationwide transition to modern cooking energy.

Key enablers of this progress include:

• Innovation from companies like Burn (electric cooking), KOKO (bioethanol infrastructure), EcoSafi (carbon-integrated biomass stoves), and Mukuru (community-led biomass transitions).

• Rising integrity in carbon finance, with companies increasingly adopting Gold Standard Metered methodologies and aligning with the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles.

• Government leadership, particularly through the Ministry of Energy, Kenya Power, and partnerships with the Clean Cooking Association of Kenya (CCAK).
   

However, persistent challenges remain:

• Access gaps, especially in rural areas where only ~12% have clean cooking access.

• Fuel stacking and behavioral inertia, requiring continued education and culturally sensitive interventions.

• Infrastructure fragmentation, especially in ethanol, biogas, and LPG logistics.

• Carbon market volatility, necessitating tighter regulation and transparent reporting.
   

Outlook: Kenya’s Position as a Regional Leader

With sustained investment, stable policy execution, and strengthened carbon oversight, Kenya could become a global leader in clean cooking innovation and delivery. The combined presence of world-class enterprises, a supportive policy landscape, and an active civil society gives the country a unique edge in achieving SDG 7 (universal energy access), reducing GHG emissions, and improving public health.

As interviews consistently reflected: this moment is pivotal—not just for Kenya, but as a proof of concept for how developing nations can lead in inclusive, high-integrity energy transitions.

 

Sources:

• IEA Kenya 2024 Energy Policy Review
   

• Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (2024–2028)
   

• Berkeley Carbon Trading Project
   

• The Energy Pioneer (Tom Price Interview)
   

• Burn Manufacturing (Chris Interview)
   

• Clean Cooking Association of Kenya (Elly Interview)
   

• GSPP Berkeley, ScienceDirect, The Guardian
   

• Company reports and product documentation: Burn, EcoSafi, KOKO, Mukuru, PayGo, Ecoboda