For years, Kenya’s mining sector has carried an uncomfortable label, a country rich in minerals but poor in measurable mining contribution to the economy. In public discourse, the sector is routinely described as contributing about 1 percent to the GDP, sometimes even less depending on the year and method used.
Yet this is the same country with reported mineral occurrences across all 47 counties, including gold, copper, graphite, manganese, iron ore, nickel, coltan, gemstones, rare earth elements and industrial minerals.
This contradiction should concern policymakers, investors and communities alike. How can a country with such mineral diversity and widespread mining activity still appear economically insignificant in national statistics?
Part of the answer lies not only in the performance of the sector, but in how Kenya measures mining contribution in the first place.
For too long, mining GDP has been viewed mainly through the lens of formal exports, royalties and the performance of a few large-scale operations.
The closure and slowdown of major export-facing projects such as Base Titanium reinforced the narrative that mining is a very small insignificant sector. But reducing mining to export tonnage alone ignores the much larger ecosystem that sustains livelihoods and local businesses.
Mining is not only what leaves the port as mineral exports. Mining is also the economic activity created long before minerals reach export markets.
Across many counties, mining is one of the most important local economic activities. In regions with gold, gemstones, quarry stone, sand, limestone, gypsum, manganese and other minerals, entire local economies depend on mining directly or indirectly.
Thousands of households rely on artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) for income. Local transporters move ore and equipment.
Welders fabricate tools, women supply food to mining sites, youth provide security and labour, mechanics repair machinery, traders buy and sell minerals and land owners earn lease payments.
Yet much of this local content economy remains invisible in national accounting systems.
The widely repeated projection that mining contributes around one percent to GDP is largely rooted in older measurement frameworks that heavily prioritised formal reporting and exports.
But stakeholders across the sector increasingly question whether this figure reflects today’s reality. Many believe it significantly understates the true scale of mining’s economic footprint.
One major reason is the rapid growth of artisanal and small-scale mining. A World Bank-linked estimate from 2018 placed the number of people dependent on artisanal mining at about 800,000.
Today, sector stakeholders believe the real number could be approaching two million people when direct miners, dependents and linked livelihoods are included. These are not marginal numbers; they represent a major rural economic system operating largely outside formal measurement structures.
When mining contribution is measured narrowly through export revenues and a few licensed operators, the country risks missing the broader value chain that mining supports locally.
This weakens the sector politically and economically, repeatedly branding mining as a ‘one percent sector’ lowers national ambition, discourages serious public investment, limits institutional support and creates the impression that mining is too small to matter.
The sector’s local content contribution includes employment, procurement, transport, fuel supply, catering, equipment fabrication, mineral processing, accommodation, financial services, county revenues, professional consultancy, logistics, security services and informal trade. In many rural areas, mining acts as a stabiliser of household income where few alternative economic opportunities exist.
Exports alone therefore cannot be the only, or even the best measure of mining’s economic contribution.
Kenya now needs a more complete and modern way of measuring mining impact. The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, together with the State Department for Mining, county governments, universities, industry associations and private sector players, should develop a Mining Local Content and Value Chain framework that captures the full ecosystem around mining activity.
Such a framework should measure not only export earnings and royalties, but also artisanal mining livelihoods, local procurement, mine support services, processing activities, supply chains, equipment manufacturing, transport networks, county-level economic multipliers and community employment.
Better data collection would help government make better policy decisions, improve formalisation of ASM, strengthen safety standards, unlock financing, attract serious investors and support value addition. It would also allow counties hosting mineral resources to better understand the true economic role mining plays within their jurisdictions.
Kenya cannot build a globally competitive mining sector while relying on incomplete measurements that fail to capture the realities on the ground.
If the country continues counting only formal exports, it may continue underestimating one of its most important emerging rural industrial sectors.