Transforming the products of international negotiation into concrete results has always been a difficult process. On the one hand, successful translation involves the mobilization of intangible assets, such as the political will to push through ratification and necessary changes in national legislation. On the other hand, technical details such as the implementation of an effective monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) regime are also necessary. In climate change negotiations, previous COPs have emphasized the nature of commitments and actions in light of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and respective capabilities – i.e. not all countries should be expected to commit to reducing emissions in the same way or bear the same economic burden, due to significant differences in socioeconomic development between countries. As a result, countries have been unable to agree on a legal regime that would result in mandatory cuts to carbon emissions, despite continued pressure from small island developing states and other vulnerable countries. Rather, ongoing negotiations appear to indicate a trend towards countries making emissions reduction commitments. While such a regime would likely provide greater flexibility and therefore be more attractive to large polluters, the question remains of translating policy into action: how can we be sure that emissions pathways are on the right track, and how could we know if they are Is further effort needed under such a regime? As a result, there have been concerns about whether to introduce some sort of process to ensure that ambition is sufficient: that is, to ensure that countries deliver on their best possible commitments. The responsibility for such a process is another matter: this part of the map of countries seeking financial support does not always correspond to the type of information sought or requested by the countries providing the funding. Furthermore, donor governments need to be confident that the funds they are committing are used and managed correctly, which in turn will require transparency and accountability from recipient governments. However, countries vary significantly in the degree of openness of public reporting and the rigor of national oversight mechanisms. These concerns are not exclusive to the issue of climate change and are in fact present in discussions on the Millennium Development Goals and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. also. They reflect the gap between policy and implementation, as well as the growing desire to demonstrate that we are on the right track on climate change and sustainable development.