Biodiversity Protection and Conservation Efforts Are Failing to Deliver Opportunities for Youth as Corruption and Mismanagement of Public Resources Continue to Strangle Green Enterprises

Kenya has made significant commitments towards environmental conservation, biodiversity protection and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Across the country, government agencies, development partners, communities and private enterprises are investing in tree growing, landscape restoration, climate adaptation and other green economy initiatives.

These efforts should be creating opportunities for young people, particularly those living in rural communities where environmental degradation directly affects livelihoods. Unfortunately, the reality is that the growth of youth-led green enterprises continues to face significant obstacles, many of which are rooted in corruption, poor public resource management and the failure of government institutions to honour commitments made to local enterprises.

Recent World Bank analysis on corruption and public sector efficiency in Kenya has brought renewed attention to the economic cost of corruption and the opportunities the country stands to unlock by addressing it. The findings reinforce something that many young entrepreneurs and community-based organisations have experienced for years: corruption is not simply about money being stolen from public coffers. It is also about opportunities denied, enterprises weakened, jobs lost and public services failing to reach the people they are intended to serve.

At Forezava, our experience over the past three years offers a practical illustration of this challenge.

In 2024, Forezava operated five active tree nurseries focused on the production of indigenous, bamboo and fruit tree seedlings. These nurseries were supported by committed young people and community members, creating more than 70 casual employment opportunities while producing over 150,000 seedlings.

This was not a small undertaking. It required investment in nursery infrastructure, seed collection, propagation materials, labour, water access, land preparation and the continuous management of seedlings. We invested millions of shillings into building a production system that we believed could become sustainable through partnerships with government institutions and other environmental programmes.

Our confidence was informed by commitments and procurement opportunities communicated by public institutions.

The Sabatia National Government Constituency Development Fund (NG-CDF) had requested our expressions of interest for the supply of 85,000 seedlings. Separately, we had received an indication of an anticipated offtake of approximately 45,000 seedlings from the County Government of Vihiga.

These opportunities informed our investment decisions. We reasonably believed that the demand for seedlings, combined with the government's publicly stated tree-growing and environmental restoration ambitions, presented an opportunity to establish a sustainable local enterprise.

Had even these two anticipated offtake arrangements materialised, they would have significantly supported our ability to recover production costs, maintain employment and continue investing in the nurseries.

However, the anticipated opportunities did not translate into the expected business.

Since then, we have continued to encounter public reports and announcements from government entities highlighting substantial tree-planting achievements, including claims involving millions of trees.

We do not dispute the importance of these ambitions. Kenya needs more trees, healthier ecosystems and stronger restoration programmes. What we question is the disconnect between these public commitments and the actual opportunities made available to the local enterprises and community groups doing the work.

How can public institutions report ambitious tree-planting programmes while local nurseries, which have already invested in producing seedlings, struggle to secure reliable markets?

Why should young people invest their time, skills and limited resources in establishing green enterprises if the public procurement and implementation systems do not provide predictable and transparent opportunities?

And perhaps more importantly, why should community-based organisations provide their project data, photographs, membership records and evidence of local activities if there are inadequate safeguards against the possible misuse of such information?

We have serious concerns about how information generated through community projects can be used in the implementation and reporting of public programmes without corresponding recognition, accountability or demonstrable benefits to the originating communities.

In our experience, the gap between announced commitments and actual enterprise support has been particularly damaging. There is a growing concern that some public environmental programmes are structured around tender awards, contractors and the presentation of impressive statistics rather than the development of sustainable local production systems.

We must be careful not to generalise or accuse every public officer or contractor of wrongdoing. However, where public resources are committed to environmental programmes, there must be clear evidence of who benefits, what is delivered, which enterprises are supported and whether the intended communities actually receive the promised opportunities.

Environmental conservation cannot become another avenue through which public resources are concentrated in the hands of a few while the young people expected to deliver the work are left struggling.

The consequences of these challenges extend far beyond financial losses.

When a young person establishes a nursery, they are investing in an opportunity. They are creating employment, developing skills, supporting biodiversity and contributing to the restoration of their local environment.

When the expected market disappears, that investment is placed at risk. Workers lose income, production capacity declines, and the confidence required to establish similar enterprises is weakened.

This is what has happened to much of the production system we worked hard to establish.

Our nurseries have experienced significant setbacks. Some of the investments made have not been recovered, and some nursery operators have since dismantled or abandoned the facilities that were established. The work has also had serious human consequences, including the accidental death of a community member at one of our nursery sites during this difficult period.

We do not present these circumstances to seek sympathy or portray ourselves as victims. They demonstrate the seriousness of what happens when community-based economic activities are established around commitments that ultimately fail to translate into sustainable opportunities.

Behind every failed enterprise are people, families and communities whose livelihoods are affected.

It is particularly unfortunate that young people are often encouraged to pursue green entrepreneurship, attend climate conferences, participate in environmental campaigns and establish community projects, yet the institutional and financial systems required to sustain these initiatives remain weak.

We cannot continue telling young people that the green economy is full of opportunities while the very structures responsible for facilitating those opportunities make it difficult for them to survive.

One of the most important lessons from the World Bank's analysis is the need to recognise corruption not merely as a governance concern but as a direct constraint on economic growth.

When public resources are mismanaged, the country loses more than the money involved in questionable transactions. It loses the productive capacity that the same resources could have created.

Consider what the resources committed to our nursery operations could have achieved if the anticipated procurement opportunities had been implemented transparently and consistently.

They could have sustained more than 70 casual employment opportunities, supported hundreds of farmers and community members, strengthened indigenous seedling production and expanded the availability of planting materials for ecosystem restoration.

The same public expenditure could have helped establish a stronger local supply chain, with young people participating in seed collection, nursery management, transportation, planting, monitoring and ecosystem rehabilitation.

Instead, we have witnessed a situation in which local production capacity has weakened while public institutions continue to announce ambitious environmental targets.

This is the contradiction that must be addressed.

Fighting corruption is therefore not just about prosecuting individuals or recovering stolen public funds. It is also about creating an environment where public expenditure produces measurable economic value, where procurement opportunities are accessible and fair, and where local enterprises can confidently invest in meeting public demand.

A functional green economy requires more than policies, strategies and environmental targets. It requires institutions that work.

Kenya has an opportunity to make biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration important drivers of youth employment and enterprise development. However, this requires a deliberate shift in how public environmental programmes are designed, funded and implemented.

We believe the following measures are necessary:

1. Make public procurement accessible to local green enterprises.

Government entities should deliberately create transparent procurement opportunities for established local nurseries, youth enterprises, community-based organisations and other small businesses participating in environmental restoration. Procurement commitments must be realistic, documented and honoured in accordance with the law.

2. Strengthen accountability in environmental expenditure.

Public institutions should provide verifiable information on the resources allocated to tree planting, biodiversity protection and restoration programmes. Reporting should go beyond the number of seedlings supposedly distributed or planted to establish where they came from, who supplied them, who was paid and whether they survived.

3. Protect community-generated information and resources.

Community organisations invest considerable time and resources in generating project data, photographs, membership records and environmental assessments. There must be appropriate safeguards to prevent the unauthorised use or misrepresentation of this information in public project reporting and expenditure claims.

4. Prioritise local value creation.

Environmental programmes should not simply be measured by the number of trees planted or the amount of money spent. They should also be assessed by the number of local enterprises supported, jobs created, farmers engaged, income generated and ecosystems restored.

5. Strengthen oversight and enforce consequences.

Where there is evidence of procurement irregularities, misappropriation of public funds, false reporting or misuse of community resources, the relevant oversight and investigative institutions must act. Public officials and contractors entrusted with public resources must be held accountable for their decisions and actions.

6. Create predictable financing and market systems for green enterprises.

Young entrepreneurs cannot build sustainable businesses around occasional announcements and uncertain procurement opportunities. Government should support longer-term partnerships, transparent contracting arrangements and reliable markets that allow enterprises to plan, invest and grow.

At Forezava, we are taking stock of the lessons from the past three years. We recognise that building an enterprise around anticipated public procurement opportunities carries significant risks. We must continue diversifying our markets, strengthening private-sector partnerships and developing business models that are less dependent on government commitments.

We are adjusting our approach, rebuilding where possible and looking for more sustainable ways to continue our work in biodiversity protection and ecosystem restoration.

However, learning from our experiences must not become an excuse for institutions to avoid accountability.

Young people should not have to learn how to survive institutional failures that could have been prevented through responsible public resource management. Neither should community-based enterprises be expected to absorb the financial consequences of decisions made by public institutions without any meaningful recourse.

For a long time, raising these concerns has sometimes been dismissed as frustration, bitterness or the complaints of enterprises that have failed to secure government contracts. But the issue is much bigger than Forezava, and it is certainly bigger than a single procurement opportunity.

It concerns the credibility of public development programmes, the future of youth entrepreneurship and the country's ability to translate its environmental ambitions into real economic opportunities.

We welcome the renewed attention being given to corruption and public sector efficiency. But the real test will be whether these findings translate into meaningful institutional reforms, stronger accountability and a more enabling environment for local enterprises.

Kenya cannot build a sustainable green economy by excluding the very people who are expected to drive it.

Biodiversity protection must create livelihoods. Environmental conservation must support local economies. Public investment must deliver public value.

And those entrusted with public resources must understand that every shilling mismanaged represents an opportunity denied to someone, somewhere.

The green economy cannot thrive where corruption is allowed to suffocate the enterprises working to build it.