The regulation adopted on 24 September 2026 under the presidency of Captain Ibrahim Traoré requires non-governmental organisations operating in Burkina Faso to devote at least 80 % of their resources to direct investments in the field. Presented by the authorities as a measure of transparency and efficiency, the text will produce consequences that extend far beyond accounting: in health centres, in training rooms and in the communities that depend on these organisations for essential services. Understanding what those consequences could be is the central question the new framework raises.
The first effects will be felt by the people who rely on these services
The stated intention is straightforward: curtail administrative expenditure so that a larger share of funding reaches the population. Few would dispute the principle. Yet the practical application of such a threshold may translate into changed budgets, renegotiated programmes and, in some cases, interrupted activities precisely the outcomes beneficiaries are least equipped to absorb.
When an organisation is compelled to compress the functions that keep its operations running, the impact is not absorbed by the institution alone. It is passed on to the households, local partners and small suppliers whose activity is tied to the rhythm of those projects.
Oversight costs form part of the delivery chain
An organisation does not operate on equipment and infrastructure alone. It must also finance bookkeeping, audits, logistics, project monitoring and the training of its teams. These items are frequently indispensable rather than superfluous.
Why control functions cannot simply be trimmed
An auditor does not build a health centre, but may be the person who prevents a fraud. A logistics officer does not treat a patient, but ensures that medical supplies arrive where they are needed. Stripping back such functions to satisfy an imposed ratio therefore risks weakening the very safeguards meant to protect the money being spent.
The unresolved definition of a direct investment
Among the principal questions left open by the measure is what exactly constitutes a direct field investment. Constructing a health centre is easy to identify. The salaries of the staff who run it, maintenance, training, the transport of materials and the monitoring of beneficiaries are considerably less obvious.
Salaries, upkeep and training: inside or outside the 80 %?
Without a precise definition, applying the threshold becomes a complex exercise. The government will need to state clearly which costs fall within the 80 % and which are excluded, since that distinction will determine which programmes survive and which do not.
A single ratio applied to very different mandates
Not all organisations follow the same model. One that builds schools will naturally carry a heavier load of material expenditure. Another, specialising in training, legal assistance or social protection, will invest above all in human skills.
Organisations that invest in people rather than buildings
Subjecting both to an identical ratio risks penalising certain activities without demonstrating that they are any less useful. The consequence would be a distortion of the sector rather than a genuine improvement in how it performs.
A distortion effect that could damage the intended beneficiaries
There is a real danger that an organisation unable to reach 80 % is pushed towards artificially restructuring its budget cutting oversight positions or favouring expenditure that is easy to classify as direct. Spending more in the field, however, does not automatically produce more results.
Efficiency should be judged on impact: the number of beneficiaries, the quality of services, the cost of interventions, the results achieved and the durability of projects. A percentage alone tells us very little about any of these.
Stronger oversight can be built on other instruments
If the objective is genuinely to protect development funding, other avenues remain available and may prove more effective:
Independent audits conducted outside the institutions being assessed
Public disclosure of accounts and financial statements
Full traceability of funds from donor to end recipient
Direct inspection of projects in the field
Meaningful sanctions in cases of misappropriation
Such mechanisms verify how resources are actually used. The 80 % threshold, by contrast, primarily measures how they are distributed.
A decision whose value will be judged on results
The government of Ibrahim Traoré may legitimately demand greater transparency from non-governmental organisations. But a percentage guarantees neither sound management nor effectiveness. The decisive question is therefore simple: will this rule concretely improve the assistance delivered to populations, or will it force certain organisations to alter their working methods purely to satisfy an administrative ratio?
Only practice will settle the matter. In the meantime, one observation deserves attention: within an organisation of this kind, an expenditure that is invisible on the ground is sometimes the very expense that ensures the money gets there at all.
By Martin Ngu — Politics and National Security
