The authorities in Burkina Faso have entrusted a single figure with a considerable responsibility. Under the regulation adopted on 24 September 2026 during the presidency of Captain Ibrahim Traoré, non-governmental organisations are now required to direct at least 80% of their resources towards direct investment in the field. The measure is presented as a tool for transparency and efficiency: fewer administrative costs, and more money reaching the communities that need it. Yet the stakes extend well beyond the arithmetic. Can a fixed percentage genuinely improve the way aid is delivered, or does it risk weakening the very structures that make that aid possible?
Inside the new framework: what the threshold requires
The text adopted on 24 September 2026 obliges NGOs operating in the country to allocate no less than 80% of their resources to direct investment on the ground. Its declared purpose is to limit administrative expenditure so that a greater share of funding benefits local populations. The principle sounds simple enough. Whether it withstands practical scrutiny is a different question altogether.
Why a percentage cannot measure effectiveness
An NGO does not function on equipment and infrastructure alone. It must also finance accounting, audits, logistics, project monitoring and the training of its teams.
The functions that never appear on site
These expenditures are frequently indispensable. An auditor does not build a health centre, yet an auditor can prevent a fraud. A logistician does not treat a patient, yet a logistician ensures that supplies actually reach their destination.
Not visible, yet decisive
Trimming such functions in order to satisfy an imposed ratio could therefore weaken the control mechanisms on which sound management depends.
The unresolved question: what counts as direct investment?
This is among the principal issues the measure leaves open. The construction of a health centre is easily identified as direct investment. Other items are far less clear-cut:
- the salaries of the staff working in that centre;
- the maintenance of buildings and equipment;
- the training of personnel;
- the transport of materials;
- the monitoring of beneficiaries.
Without a precise definition, applying the threshold becomes complicated. The government must therefore state plainly what falls inside the 80% and what is excluded from it.
One standard applied to dissimilar missions
Not every NGO follows the same model. An organisation that builds schools will naturally record a higher proportion of material expenditure. Another, specialising in training, legal assistance or social protection, will invest above all in human skills. Subjecting all of them to an identical ratio risks penalising certain activities without ever demonstrating that those activities are less useful.
The risk of distorted budgeting
An organisation unable to reach the 80% threshold could be tempted to reshape its budget artificially. It might reduce oversight positions or favour expenditure that is easily classified as direct. Spending more in the field, however, does not automatically produce more results. Effectiveness has to be judged on impact: the number of beneficiaries, the quality of services, the cost of interventions, the outcomes achieved and the durability of projects.
Alternative levers for genuine oversight
If the true objective is to protect funding, other instruments are available: independent audits, publication of accounts, traceability of funds, project inspections and sanctions in cases of misappropriation. Such mechanisms verify how resources are actually used. The 80% threshold, by contrast, chiefly measures how they are distributed.
The test ahead: evidence, not a ratio
The government of Ibrahim Traoré may legitimately ask NGOs for greater transparency. A percentage, however, guarantees neither good management nor efficiency. The real question is straightforward: will this rule concretely improve the assistance provided to populations, or will it compel certain organisations to alter their operations solely to satisfy an administrative ratio? The answer will have to be assessed against the facts. Within an NGO, a cost that remains invisible in the field is sometimes precisely what ensures that the money arrives there.
