Protests broke out at Nairobi’s Karura Forest towards the end of August (2025) as members of the Friends of Karura Forest (FKF) confronted Kenya Forest Service (KFS) officers over the sudden rollout of an e-Citizen payment system for entry and services. Videos from the scene show crowds objecting that the change, announced in a short directive on August 28 and enforced the following day, was not just an administrative adjustment but, in their view, a move that overrides a community-based governance model. KFS has described the shift as part of a national plan to digitize and secure public payments. FKF says it was not consulted and that the new system cuts off access to revenue that the association has long used to run and protect the forest.
To understand the intensity of the reaction, one has to recall Karura’s history. The urban forest is not simply public green space; it is a landmark of community-led conservation. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a coalition led by Wangari Maathai and others defended the forest against excision and neglect, pressing for participatory management. Over time, KFS and FKF established a joint framework that shared responsibilities for security, maintenance, and revenue. That partnership helped transform Karura from an unsafe area into a widely used urban forest. FKF argues that the e-Citizen rollout reverses those gains by centralizing control over funds that the community has relied on for conservation and management.
The immediate change is straightforward: KFS announced that all gate, parking, and related payments at Karura would be processed exclusively through the government e-Citizen platform, starting August 29. KFS officials have emphasized that only the payment channel has changed and that staff and management arrangements remain in place. Chief Conservator Alex Lemarkoko visited the forest to reassure visitors that services would continue and that transactions would be quick. FKF and civil society groups counter that the directive conflicts with provisions of the Karura Forest Management Plan (2021–2041) and that, in practice, it has already cut the association’s access to revenues needed for salaries, contracts, and upkeep.
The disagreement centers on finances. FKF estimates that managing Karura costs between KSh 10 million and KSh 12 million per month. Gate receipts, event income, and other fees have historically been channeled into a jointly managed account that pays staff, security, maintenance, and regeneration. Statements by FKF indicate it manages tens of millions of shillings monthly, highlighting the importance of direct revenue access to keep operations running. FKF also cites KSh 37 million raised with partners for an electric perimeter fence, built without government funding, as proof of the community’s investment in the forest. They warn that losing immediate access to funds risks staff salaries, security, and conservation progress.
Read also: AfDB at 60: Celebrating a legacy of growth as new president takes office
From a governance perspective, the dispute reflects a wider challenge across African cities and protected areas: balancing the efficiency and oversight of centralized payment systems with the knowledge and legitimacy of local stewardship. Kenya’s Forest Conservation and Management Act encourages participatory management and formalizes the role of Community Forest Associations (CFAs). Research shows that when communities have secure rights and predictable benefits, conservation outcomes improve. But those arrangements depend on steady access to revenues and transparent financial systems. Abrupt changes, even when well-intentioned, undermine that stability.
The government’s objectives are clear. The National Treasury promotes e-Citizen as a way to curb revenue leakages, increase collection speed, and make payments traceable. Centralizing receipts can strengthen oversight and ease auditing. However, the e-Citizen platform has itself been questioned: audits and parliamentary debates have pointed to irregular charges and procurement issues, showing that digital systems carry risks without strong safeguards. In Karura, the issue is not whether digital payments function but whether the rollout included the legal and participatory steps needed to preserve joint management.
Karura receives an estimated 60,000–70,000 visits each month, providing cooling, biodiversity, recreation, and livelihoods. A sudden funding gap could result in unpaid staff, neglected infrastructure, reduced educational visits, and weaker defenses against land grabs and illegal activity. FKF and partners point to recent legal battles over forest boundaries and unauthorized works as evidence that Karura remains vulnerable and depends on consistent, locally managed financing.
Resolving the dispute will require practical steps that uphold both legal requirements and operational realities. First, transparency: KFS should explain how e-Citizen revenues will be allocated and whether the joint-account structure in the management plan will continue. Second, an interim mechanism, such as an escrow or designated sub-account, could allow FKF to meet payroll and maintenance obligations during the transition. Third, formal consultation processes should be used to develop a binding agreement on how digital collections support co-management. Fourth, regular audits and reconciliations should be published to restore confidence. These measures would protect conservation gains while supporting the Treasury’s digital goals.
The Karura case should be viewed as more than a local quarrel; it is an early test of how urban natural assets will be managed under digital revenue systems. Conservation depends on social and institutional arrangements as much as ecological ones. Communities that invest in landscapes gain expectations about decision-making and benefits. Any policy that changes those arrangements must provide an equal or better system, not unilateral directives. For Kenya and other African states pursuing revenue modernization, the way this case is resolved will matter. It will determine whether Karura continues as an example of participatory conservation or becomes a warning about centralized systems introduced without adequate transition.
In the near term, observers should look for whether an escrow or joint-account system is restored, whether KFS, FKF, and civil society agree on a timetable for reconciliation, and whether government publishes a clear breakdown of fees and charges, including e-Citizen transaction costs and VAT. More broadly, the episode should prompt national debate on how digital revenue systems can be designed to reinforce, rather than weaken, participatory environmental governance. Karura remains too important, ecologically, socially, and economically, to be defined by a payment dispute. Its future will depend on whether leaders treat digital systems as tools to serve conservation and communities, rather than as ends in themselves.
Read also: Ethiopia and Dangote Group strike $2.5 billion fertiliser deal to transform Africa’s agriculture
