Every year, billions of dollars in aid, development funding and humanitarian assistance flow into some of Africa’s most unstable regions. Behind those figures are teams trying to keep programmes moving, suppliers trying to deliver under pressure and communities waiting for support that often cannot afford to be delayed. Yet a portion of that investment still disappears into a gap that too few organisations name plainly: the space between what a report says happened and what actually occurred.
This is not primarily a problem of intent. The NGOs, donor agencies and development contractors operating in fragile states across many parts of the world are largely staffed by professionals who care deeply about outcomes. We often find that the people closest to the work are the first to recognise when something does not feel right, even when the formal reporting pack appears complete.
The problem is structural – the tools they rely on, including desk-based reviews, remote monitoring and periodic field visits, were built for environments where access is predictable, institutions are functional, and supply chains are visible. Fragile states are none of those things.
The access gap is wider than most organisations admit
In high-risk environments, the last mile of a supply chain is often the most important and the least visible. A client once described receiving flawless delivery notes for goods that local contacts later said had never reached the intended site. Vendors subcontract to actors that would never pass a compliance screen. Beneficiary lists are manipulated. Goods get diverted. Partner organisations operate with minimal oversight because no one with accountability can physically get to where the work is happening.
This is not a failure of diligence in any ordinary sense. It is a structural mismatch between the demands of operating in complex, conflict-affected environments and the assurance infrastructure most organisations have in place. Traditional audits typically lack the field presence, local intelligence networks and security capability required to operate effectively in these contexts. They may confirm that a process was followed, but they do not always establish what happened on the ground.
The compliance pressure is intensifying
At the same time, regulatory and donor expectations are moving in the opposite direction. OECD guidelines, FATF frameworks and major donor policies increasingly require organisations to demonstrate not just that they conducted due diligence, but that it was meaningful. ESG commitments now extend into supply chains, requiring visibility into labour practices, conflict actor exposure and sanctions risk at levels that were, until recently, considered aspirational rather than mandatory.
Organisations operating in fragile states now find themselves caught between the realities of limited access and the requirements of enhanced accountability. One of our team members experienced this tension during a review where the project team had strong documentation, but the field picture told a more complicated story. Closing that gap requires a different model, one built around field intelligence, trusted local networks and integrated assurance capability.
A different kind of advisory firm
What fragile-state operations require is not a repackaged version of conventional consulting. It is a purpose-built model that places human intelligence, supply chain visibility and independent field verification at the centre of the service offering. It recognises that the risk profile of working in Mogadishu or Juba is categorically different from working in Nairobi or Accra and that the operating model must be priced, staffed and managed accordingly.
The organisations that will lead on accountability in fragile environments over the next decade are those that recognise this now and invest in the infrastructure to address it, before a diversion incident, sanctions exposure or donor audit forces the issue.
In the next article in this series, we examine what a credible integrated risk and intelligence offering looks like in practice and why the service model matters as much as the service itself.
