A measure presented as a transparency breakthrough
The Burkinabè government has framed its new regulatory framework for non-governmental organisations as a decisive step towards transparency and operational efficiency. Adopted on 24 September 2026 under the presidency of Captain Ibrahim Traoré, the directive requires NGOs to allocate no less than 80 % of their resources to direct field investments.
On paper, the logic appears straightforward: curtail administrative overheads so that a greater share of funding reaches the populations it is meant to serve. Yet this reasoning warrants closer scrutiny, and it is precisely this scrutiny that has shaped the reaction since the measure was unveiled.
Why a percentage cannot stand in for performance
An NGO does not operate on equipment and infrastructure alone. It must also finance accounting, audits, logistics, project monitoring and the training of its teams.
Such expenditures are frequently indispensable. An auditor does not build a health centre, but the auditor can prevent a fraud. A logistician does not treat a patient, but the logistician ensures that medical supplies reach their destination.
Scaling back these functions in order to satisfy an imposed ratio therefore carries the risk of weakening the very control mechanisms that safeguard donor money.
The unresolved question of what counts as a direct investment
This is among the principal ambiguities left open by the new framework. Constructing a health centre is easily identifiable as a direct investment. But what of the salaries of the staff who work there? Maintenance? Training? The transport of materials? The monitoring of beneficiaries?
Absent a precise definition, applying the threshold in practice may prove highly complex. The government must therefore state clearly which categories of expenditure fall within the 80 % and which are excluded.
One ratio applied to fundamentally different missions
Not all NGOs share the same operating model. An organisation that builds schools will naturally incur more material expenditure. Another, specialising in training, legal assistance or social protection, will invest primarily in human skills.
Subjecting every organisation to the same ratio therefore risks penalising certain activities without demonstrating that they are any less useful.
The risk of unintended consequences
An organisation unable to reach the 80 % mark could be pushed to alter its budget artificially. It might cut oversight positions or favour expenditures that are easily classified as direct.
Yet spending more in the field does not automatically yield better results. Effectiveness must be measured by impact: the number of beneficiaries, the quality of services, the cost of interventions, the outcomes achieved and the durability of projects.
Alternative avenues for stronger oversight
If the genuine objective is to protect funding, the government has other instruments at its disposal: independent audits, publication of accounts, traceability of funds, project inspections and sanctions in cases of misappropriation. Such mechanisms make it possible to verify how resources are actually used.
The 80 % threshold, by contrast, chiefly measures how those resources are distributed.
Reactions and what the coming months will reveal
The administration of Ibrahim Traoré may legitimately demand greater transparency from NGOs. But a percentage guarantees neither sound management nor effectiveness.
The central question is therefore a simple one: will this rule concretely improve the assistance delivered to populations, or will it compel certain organisations to overhaul their operations solely to comply with an administrative ratio?
The verdict will have to rest on evidence. For within an NGO, an expense that is invisible in the field may sometimes be precisely what ensures that the money arrives there at all.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.