Kenya approved alternative building methods. Why are banks and insurers still cautious?

For decades, that assumption has shaped planning approvals, property valuations and insurance decisions, even in places where locally available materials could offer practical advantages. In towns such as Eldoret, the cost of transporting dressed stone can add to construction expenses before a project reaches the foundation. Alternative building materials could reduce some of those costs, but regulatory recognition alone does not guarantee that the savings will reach homeowners.

The more difficult question is what happens after a construction method is accepted by the code.

The technology behind alternative construction

Stabilized soil blocks are made by combining suitable soil with a stabilizing agent, often cement, before the material is compressed or moulded into blocks. Their performance depends on factors such as soil composition, the stabilization process, curing, workmanship and protection from moisture.

Rammed earth uses a different approach. Soil is compacted in layers within formwork to create walls. When properly designed and constructed, rammed earth can provide substantial thermal mass, helping moderate indoor temperature changes. Its performance, however, depends on the soil mix, compaction, structural design, weather protection and, where applicable, stabilization.

Timber-frame construction offers another alternative to conventional masonry. It can reduce the weight of a structure and support efficient construction, but it requires appropriate treatment, moisture management, structural connections and fire-safety measures.

These methods are not interchangeable, and none is automatically suitable for every site or building. Their viability depends on engineering, local climate, material quality and the standards used to assess them. The case for their wider use therefore rests on documented performance, not simply on their reputation as cheaper or more sustainable options.

Approval does not guarantee adoption

A building code can recognize a material or construction system. It cannot, by itself, require a bank to lend against it, persuade a valuer to assign it a familiar market value or compel an insurer to offer cover on conventional terms.

Those decisions are shaped by lending policies, valuation practices, underwriting criteria, historical claims data and institutional assessments of risk. A construction method may comply with regulatory requirements while still being treated as unfamiliar or difficult to assess by the institutions that determine whether a building is commercially viable.

That creates a gap between technical acceptance and market acceptance.

A developer considering stabilized soil blocks instead of conventional blockwork must look beyond the initial material bill. The project may also depend on whether a lender is willing to finance the construction, whether a valuer can assess the completed property against comparable assets, and whether an insurer will provide suitable cover. If any of those conditions becomes difficult, the apparent cost advantage can narrow or disappear.

For homeowners, the consequences are practical. A material that is affordable to source may become less attractive if it complicates mortgage approval, reduces perceived resale value or attracts insurance terms that are difficult to justify against the property’s construction cost.

The insurance question is particularly important

The issue is especially visible in coastal Kenya, where Makuti-roofed buildings remain part of the region’s architectural identity. Makuti is a long-established roofing material, but its treatment in insurance decisions raises questions about how insurers distinguish between traditional construction, actual fire performance and perceived risk.

The relevant issue is not whether insurers should disregard fire hazards. It is whether their underwriting decisions reflect current, locally relevant evidence about materials, construction quality, treatment, maintenance and the complete building system.

For alternative construction methods, that evidence is essential. A blanket classification can make it difficult to distinguish between a poorly constructed building and one built to an appropriate standard using a different material. The result may be a market in which regulatory approval advances faster than the risk-assessment practices needed to support it.

However, claims about specific premium differences or the fire performance of treated Makuti require evidence from insurers, underwriters and technical assessments. The question should be investigated through actual quotations, underwriting criteria and documented performance data rather than assumptions about how the market operates.

What needs to happen next

The next step is not for insurers to abandon caution. It is for the institutions involved in construction to develop better ways of assessing alternative methods.

Insurers need access to reliable, Kenya-specific data on the performance and claims history of alternative building systems. That could include information on stabilized soil blocks, rammed earth, timber structures and treated thatched roofing, with assessments that account for construction quality, fire protection, maintenance and location.

The Association of Kenya Insurers, regulators, technical professionals and construction stakeholders could help establish what evidence underwriters need to evaluate these systems more consistently. Such work would be more useful than simply asking insurers to lower premiums without addressing how risk is measured.

County governments and developers could also contribute by documenting the performance of pilot projects and completed buildings. That information could help planners, valuers, lenders and insurers develop a clearer understanding of how alternative construction performs under Kenyan conditions.

Professional training will matter too. Architects, engineers, contractors, quantity surveyors and building inspectors need familiarity with the relevant standards and construction requirements. Without that expertise, regulatory recognition may remain difficult to translate into routine approvals and reliable project delivery.

Beyond the building code

Kenya’s building code review was an important step toward recognizing that safe and functional buildings do not have to rely on one narrow set of materials. But the success of that recognition will depend on whether the wider construction ecosystem is prepared to assess and support the alternatives.

For families and developers, the question is ultimately straightforward: can a building constructed with an alternative method be approved, financed, valued, insured and sold on terms that reflect its actual performance?

Until those systems catch up, the permission to build differently will remain easier to obtain on paper than to exercise in the market. Kenya’s alternative construction technologies may offer practical opportunities for more affordable and locally responsive housing, but their wider adoption will depend on institutions becoming as comfortable evaluating them as the building code is recognizing them.