Burkina Faso’s government is presenting its new NGO regulation as an instrument of transparency and efficiency. Adopted on 24 September 2026 under the chairmanship of Captain Ibrahim Traoré, the measure requires non-governmental organisations to allocate at least 80 % of their resources to direct field investments.
On paper, the principle appears straightforward: curb administrative spending so that a larger share of funding reaches the populations. Yet the logic behind this ration deserves closer scrutiny the decisive question being whether a fixed percentage can genuinely translate into better aid.
A ratio that does not measure effectiveness
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 not necessarily superfluous.
An auditor does not build a health centre, but can prevent fraud. A logistician does not treat a patient, but ensures that supplies reach their destination.
Cutting these functions in order to meet an imposed ratio could therefore weaken oversight mechanisms precisely the safeguards meant to protect the funds at stake.
The unresolved question of what counts as ‘direct investment’
This is among the principal ambiguities left open by the measure.
Constructing a health centre is easily identifiable. But what of the salaries of the staff working there? Maintenance? Training? Transport of equipment? Monitoring of beneficiaries?
Without a precise definition, applying the threshold may prove complex.
The government must therefore clarify exactly what falls within the 80 % and what is excluded from it.
One rule applied to dissimilar missions
Not all NGOs share the same operating model.
An organisation that builds schools will naturally record higher material expenditure. Another, specialising in training, legal assistance or social protection, will invest primarily in human skills.
Applying an identical ratio to all risks penalising certain activities without demonstrating that they are any less useful.
The danger of unintended consequences
An organisation unable to reach the 80 % mark could be induced to alter its budget artificially.
It might reduce oversight positions or favour expenditures that are easily classifiable as ‘direct’.
Yet spending more in the field does not automatically yield greater results.
Effectiveness must be measured by impact: the number of beneficiaries, the quality of services, the cost of interventions, the results achieved and the sustainability of projects.
Alternative avenues for strengthening oversight
If the genuine objective is to protect financing, the government has other instruments at its disposal: independent audits, publication of accounts, traceability of funds, project inspections and sanctions in cases of diversion.
These mechanisms make it possible to verify how resources are actually used.
The 80 % threshold, by contrast, measures above all how they are distributed.
A measure that will have to prove itself
The government of Ibrahim Traoré may legitimately demand greater transparency from NGOs. But a percentage guarantees neither sound management nor efficiency.
The real question is therefore straightforward: 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 outcome must be assessed on the facts.
For within an NGO, an expenditure that is invisible in the field may sometimes be precisely what ensures that the money arrives there.
By Marguerite Ndongo — Political and Security Analyst
More Stories
What does Gabon’s UN vice-presidency really change for Libreville’s global standing?
Mali: can the army break the fuel blockade strangling central Mali after Djenné attack?
Candide Azannaï case: does Benin’s justice system risk anything by keeping him behind bars?