• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Implementation Frameworks for International Summits or Conferences

Implementation Frameworks for International Summits or Conferences

Helpdesk Report
  • Zenobia Ismail
January 2019

Question

What frameworks for implementation or public accountability have been used by international summits or conferences?

Summary

International summits and conferences bring together a variety of stakeholders including high-level government actors, to discuss and agree on resolutions to tackle global problems. However, the extent to which the resolutions are implemented varies. Likewise, the extent to which governments and other stakeholders can be held accountable for the commitments that they make at the conference or summit varies.

Implementation and enforcement of commitments may be improved by an effective framework for accountability that specifies clear targets for progress which can be monitored. The targets
usually have to be set at a global, regional and country level. Governments and other stakeholders are more likely to implement resolutions if support is provided by the implementation partners. Such support includes funding, training, technical assistance or further high-level meetings.

This rapid literature review examined the accountability mechanisms used by seven global summits or conferences: the United Nations Conference for Sustainable Development (2012), the World Health Organisation Ministerial Conference on Ending TB (2017), the Nuclear Security Summit (2016), World Conference on Indigenous People (2014), One Planet Summit (2017), the Montréal Protocol (1997), and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2015). In addition, two other global agreements were reviewed: Sustainable Energy for All (2011) and the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. There is no grey literature on this topic and the only articles in the academic, peer reviewed literature relate to examining the effectiveness of the Montréal Protocol. Therefore, the review relied on an assessment of the processes or frameworks for reporting and monitoring which are described in the conference or summit documents. Some of the documents were not up to date. Moreover, it was not clear whether the accountability framework was put in place at the start of the conference or summit or if it was adopted later.

The review of the accountability frameworks used in the aforementioned conferences, summits or global agreements ascertained the following findings:

  • An organisational structure is necessary for implementing the resolutions or commitments. The organisational structure can be very complex and layered, such as the Ten Year Framework Programme which focuses on implementing the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (2012);
  • Financial support may be necessary to incentivise implementation, especially for developing countries. The Montréal Protocol provided funding for developing countries to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting substances. Similarly, the Nuclear Security Summit provides financial support, technical assistance or training to help countries to dispose of hazardous material;
  • Measurable targets must be set at global, regional and country-level;
  • Targets and reporting can be disaggregated to reveal discrepancies according to age or sex. For example, such disaggregation is required for monitoring progress towards eliminating  tuberculosis;
  • Countries report their progress by providing a country report;
  • Reporting progress and monitoring are best facilitated if there are other agreements, conventions or protocols that facilitate such reporting. For example, the WHO Conference on Ending TB utilises existing conventions that are already used for global reporting of tuberculosis infections or tuberculosis-related deaths;
  • Monitoring and reporting tend to be more robust when there is a designated organisational body that manages the resolution. For example, the Secretariat for the Montréal Protocol, and
  • The documentation relating to the Nuclear Security Summit and the One Planet Summit is not explicit with regard to which entity is responsible for monitoring implementation and
    progress.
file type icon See Full Report [398.80KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Ismail, Z. (2018). Implementation Frameworks for International Summits or Conferences. K4D Helpdesk Report. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham

Related Content

Civil Society and Accountability in Rwanda
Helpdesk Report
2019
Higher education, developmental leadership and good governance
Helpdesk Report
2017
Transparency and accountability initiatives in the extractives sector
Helpdesk Report
2017
Parliamentary transparency and accountability
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by FCDO are © FCDO Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more