Skip Navigation
Burkina Faso

Sign Protocols of Operations Where Competence Shall Be Transferred to Municipalities and Regions (BF0001)



Action Plan: Burkina Faso Action Plan 2017-2019

Action Plan Cycle: 2017

Status: Inactive


Lead Institution: Ministry of territorial administration and decentralization (MATD)

Support Institution(s): All relevant ministries, territorial communities and their umbrella structures, CIFOEB, Labocitoyenneté

Policy Areas

Capacity Building, Fiscal Openness, Local Commitments, Publication of Budget/Fiscal Information, Sustainable Development Goals

IRM Review

IRM Report: Burkina Faso Design Report 2017-2019

Starred: Pending IRM Review

Early Results: Pending IRM Review

Design i

Verifiable: Yes

Relevant to OGP Values: Pending IRM Review

Potential Impact:

Implementation i

Completion: Pending IRM Review


What is the public issue for which the commitment is made to address?: Incomplete transfer of competence to territorial communities (CT); What is the commitment?: Issue: Raise the awareness of local stakeholders in the exercise of their powers; Overall objective: Improve local governance Expected outcome: The 21 protocols of operations relating to the transfer of competence are signed.; How will this commitment contribute towardsaddressing the public issue?: The transfer of competence shall be completed only if eleven (11) operation protocols are signed between governors and mayors of their respective regions, on one hand and ten (10) operation protocols are signed between governors and the presidents of regional councils, on the other hand. The commitment shall enable: • Local stakeholders to gather necessary resources to satisfy the needs of local populations; • Territorial communities and citizens to know the budget allotted by the government to each territorial community and area of competence; • The record of assets to be transferred to each area of competence • The ministry to transfer actually financial resources to territorial communities To implement this commitment, the following shall be done: • Make an inventory of the assets to be transferred to territorial communities • Validate the general inventory report • Make models of operation protocols available to local stakeholders; Why is this commitment relevant in terms of OGP values?: This commitment is relevant because it enables: • The accountability of local representatives towards citizens; • The liability of local representatives for the management of areas transferred; • An improved civic participation at local level; Additional information: • the budget of inventory and dissemination of protocols signed: • in line with the item 1 of PNDES • in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 1 to 15 • in line with CSMOD • in line with PADEL • in line with local development plans (PCD and PRD)

IRM Midterm Status Summary

1. Sign protocols of operations to perform in the 21 areas where competencies shall be transferred to municipalities (11) and regions (10)

Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan:

“Sign protocols of operations to perform in the 21 areas where competence shall be transferred to municipalities (11) and regions (10)”

Issue: Raise the awareness of local stakeholders in the exercise of their powers

Overall objective: Improve local governance

Expected outcome: The 21 protocols of operations relating to the transfer of competence are signed.


Validate the general inventory report of assets to be transferred to territorial communities

Initiate interdepartmental orders relating to public assets allocation to territorial communities

Sign twenty-one (21) operation protocols

Start Date:  November 2017                                                                       End Date:  June 2019

Action Plan is available here

Context and Objectives

This commitment addresses the incomplete transfer of competencies and financial resources from the central government to territorial municipalities. Twenty-one decrees govern these competence and resources transfers; yet, territorial communities are unaware of the content of their new powers. [1] Transfers are also ineffective because: budget classifications are not well suited to manage transferred funds; the resources transferred place financial burdens of those who conduct these duties in the field; [2] local agencies are reluctant in implementing laws; and there are difficulties in passing and executing the transfer agreements. [3]

According to Burkina Faso’s Government Information Service, other factors have hindered the process. The multiplicity of involved actors delays the transfer; there is a mismatch between resources allocated and the financial needs on the ground; and the territories prepare their budget in October, two months before the adoption of the finance law, which contains key data for budget planning and impacts the final amount of resources disbursed. [4] This timing prevents territorial communities from knowing the budget and resources the central government allocates. It also undermines local officials’ accountability for their budget management because they do not know the resources they will be allocated.

To that end, the commitment’s objective is to enhance local governance and get governors, mayors, and presidents of regional councils to sign 21 protocols of operations that will make the transfer of competencies operational. This will require the central government to fully transfer economic resources.

The protocols will also help identify the responsibilities of asset management and competencies of the central government, regions, and territorial communities. [5] By signing the protocols of operation, territorial communities commit to developing an action plan, allocating a budget line for asset management, and abiding to a code of conduct. [6]

The commitment’s relevance to OGP values is unclear. While the commitment’s design assumes that the protocols will be available for local stakeholders, the activities and implementation approach of the commitment is mainly focused on preparing and signing the protocols. These are internally facing actions.

According to government officials interviewed for this report, the Government of Burkina Faso will also disclose budget data on territorial communities’ assets through the Assets Inventory General Report. This document will list the movable and immovable property of each municipality and the methods and challenges faced during the transfer. [7] However, this is not mentioned in the commitment.  Both government and CSO representatives interviewed for this report claim that the protocols will enable citizens to submit complaints and demand the effective transfer of resources in case it does not take place. [8]

A representative of Open Burkina Project, a CSO directly involved in promoting transparency, accountability, and civic participation, believes that officials will no longer be able to blame budget gaps on insufficient resources from the central government. [9] Therefore, local authorities will be fully accountable to their citizens on budget management, although there is no specific mention on how they will be accountable before the law. [10]

As written in the action plan, this commitment is verifiable as the commitment has a measurable, quantifiable target: the signatures of 21 operations protocols relating to transfer of competencies and resources from central government to territorial communities. Out of these protocols, 11 are between regional governors and mayors and 10 are between regional governors and the presidents of regional councils.

The goal is to enable territorial communities to have full management of their resources and enforce accountability of local authorities. However, the activities are limited to creating the legal and operational framework for transferring assets and resources to the territorial communities. While a positive step toward effective transfers, the commitment activities do not significantly address other constraints faced by the decentralization process (e.g., inconsistencies in allocated funds and the financial burdens of implementation). Therefore, the code of potential impact for this commitment is minor.

Next steps

The relevance of this commitment is unclear. As designed in the action plan, the commitment’s activities focus on preparing and signing protocols, which are internally facing actions. The commitment itself focuses on the formalization of legal agreements without any elements of disclosure, participation, or accountability.

Although the commitment addresses an important policy area, the proposed activities do not confront the main constraints of the decentralization process at the local level.

A commitment that links the effort to formalize protocols to a participatory budget cycle and public accountability mechanism at the local level, will not only make this commitment relevant to OGP values but also would increase its ambition. A more ambitious version of this commitment would be one that considers including the following recommendations:

  • The commitment focuses on empowering local authorities and stakeholders to effectively carry out the decentralization process (as opposed to focusing on the activities to achieve this as an end in itself). For example, instead of seeing the adoption of protocols as the objective, this could be one of the milestones that would allow local constituencies to be empowered to implement the decentralization process.
  • The milestones should address the roots of the problem. Good problem identification at the co-creation stage remains key.
  • Signature of protocols of operation within a specific timeframe.
  • Establishing a coordinating committee or working group to identify and work toward the amendment of internal, administrative, and procedural barriers that limit the operational transfer of competencies. This working group can include representatives from all levels of government involved in the transfer process.
  • Setting up a participatory budget exercise at the local level to include citizens and local authorities in budget discussions and decision-making. Consider alignment with the national budget process timeline to address issues mentioned above. Note that Commitment 13 (Arranging Areas for Community Dialogue and Questioning on Local Budget Management EDIC) suggests a similar process. Consider a commitment that joins both Commitments 13 and 1.
  • Establishing a mechanism through which citizens can participate in oversight activities on budget planning and management. A public accountability mechanism would need to include a channel for citizens to provide input and for the local and central governments to respond.
[1] Government officials, email from Sidi Barry (Permanent Secretariat of Modernization of Management and Good Governance) to IRM researcher, 26 Feb. 2019. [2] Fabé Mamadou Ouattara, “Transfer of resources to local authorities: 15 billion CFA francs for municipalities in 2016” Sidwaya No. 81 34 (Burkina Faso House for Business, 5 Apr. 2016),és-territoriales-15-milliards-de-fcfa-pour-les. [3] Ministry of Economics, Finance and Development, “Transfer of resources to local authorities: more than 57 billion CFA francs will be released for municipalities in 2017” (Ouaga, 19 Jan. 2017), [4] “Cronicle of the Government, Competences and resources transfer in the context of decentralization: more than 67 billion CFA Francs transferred to territories” (Information Service, Government of Burkina Faso, 24 Jul. 2013), [5] Responses from government authorities, sent by email to Sidy Barry, government representative from the Permanent Secretariat of Modernization of Management and Good Governance. Interview by IRM researcher, 26 February 2019. [6] Sidy Barry, government representative from the Permanent Secretariat of Modernization of Management and Good Governance. 26 February 2019. [7] Sidy Barry, government representative from the Permanent Secretariat of Modernization of Management and Good Governance. 26 February 2019. [8] Tinto Idriss (Open Burkina Project), interview by IRM researcher, 15 Feb. 2019. [9] Tinto Idriss (Open Burkina Project), interview by IRM researcher, 15 Feb. 2019. [10] Idriss, interview. by IRM researcher.


  1. Implement Community Policing

    BF0014, 2019, Capacity Building

  2. Awareness-Raising About Tax Compliance

    BF0015, 2019, Fiscal Openness

  3. Mining Sector Transparency

    BF0016, 2019, Access to Information

  4. Asset Declaration Reform

    BF0017, 2019, Anti-Corruption

  5. Modernize Civil Status System

    BF0018, 2019, Capacity Building

  6. Complaint Processing System

    BF0019, 2019, Capacity Building

  7. Access to Justice for Vulnerable People

    BF0020, 2019, Access to Justice

  8. Socio-Economic Empowerment for Women and Youth

    BF0021, 2019, Capacity Building

  9. Increase Women's Representation in Decision-Making

    BF0022, 2019, Capacity Building

  10. Popularize the Virtual Counter of Public Administration (GVAP)

    BF0023, 2019, E-Government

  11. Strengthen Communication About Open Government

    BF0024, 2019, E-Government

  12. Sign Protocols of Operations Where Competence Shall Be Transferred to Municipalities and Regions

    BF0001, 2017, Capacity Building

  13. Respect Time Limit Required for Issuing Legal Acts

    BF0002, 2017, Access to Justice

  14. Vulnerable Persons Access to Legal Aid Funds

    BF0003, 2017, Access to Justice

  15. Online Registration for Post-Baccalaureate and Baccalaureate Competitions

    BF0004, 2017, Capacity Building

  16. Registration and Complaints Handling Mechanism

    BF0005, 2017, Capacity Building

  17. Specialized Judicial Areas for Economic Crimes

    BF0006, 2017, Access to Justice

  18. Citizen Committees to Control Racket in Public Administration

    BF0007, 2017, Anti-Corruption

  19. Capacities of Disciplinary Committees

    BF0008, 2017, Access to Justice

  20. Virtual Window of Public Administration

    BF0009, 2017, Access to Information

  21. Right of Access to Public Information and to Administrative Documents

    BF0010, 2017, Access to Information

  22. Ministry and Public Institution Data in Open Format

    BF0011, 2017, Access to Information

  23. Access Information and Citizen Involvement in State Budget

    BF0012, 2017, Capacity Building

  24. Community Dialogue on Local Budget (EDIC)

    BF0013, 2017, Capacity Building

Open Government Partnership