By Asanda Zurah 

On 24 September 2026, as a 2026 Nalafem Fellow, I participated  in the COFEM engagement, “Accountability in Action: Turning EVAWG Commitment into Funded, Measurable Delivery.” The virtual engagement focused on a question central to efforts to end violence against women and girls (EVAWG), what happens after a commitment is made?

A policy, strategy, action plan or public commitment can establish an important direction, but it does not, by itself, guarantee that women and girls will experience better protection, services or access to justice. Accountability requires us to follow commitments across the stages that determine whether they translate into practice: policy design, financing, implementation and oversight.

The process begins with policy design. We need to know exactly what has been promised, who is responsible, what targets have been set and how progress is expected to be measured. Commitments that are too broad, without clear responsibilities or measurable actions, can be difficult to track. Policy analysis should therefore ask not only whether EVAWG is recognised, but whether the commitment creates clear obligations that can be monitored.

Financing is the next critical step . This is where a commitment becomes a question of resources. It is not enough to identify a budget announcement or broad allocation. We need to ask whether the commitment is reflected in an approved budget, whether resources were released, what was actually spent, and whether expenditure supported the intended intervention. Financing questions should also consider whether resources reach groups and communities facing greater barriers to access.

From there, attention must turn to implementation. This requires looking beyond activity counts to examine whether women and girls can actually access the services and protections that policies promise. Are services available, safe, confidential, affordable and accessible? Are providers adequately trained and staffed? Are referral pathways functional? Are monitoring systems capturing quality, inclusion and outcomes rather than simply recording that an activity took place?

Finally, effective oversight is needed to ensure that commitments are followed through. Someone must be able to ask what happened to the commitment, identify gaps and require a response. Oversight should therefore involve clear responsibilities, reporting, follow-up and verification. Accountability does not end when a letter is sent or a report is produced; it requires tracking the response and whether corrective action follows.

One of the practical tools highlighted during the engagement was the accountability ask, identifying the responsible actor, specifying the action required, establishing a timeframe and identifying the evidence or mechanism that will verify progress. This moves advocacy from a broad statement, such as “government should do more”, towards a specific demand that can be followed up and assessed. For example, rather than calling for greater government action to address EVAWG, advocates could ask the responsible ministry to publish its implementation plan, identify the budget allocated to a specific intervention, and report on progress against agreed targets within a defined timeframe. Such a request makes it easier to track whether commitments are being fulfilled and to identify where further action is needed.

The engagement also reinforced the importance of evidence and protection in advocacy. Women’s rights organisations can contribute community evidence, document implementation gaps and connect lived realities to policy and budget questions. At the same time, accountability work should not depend on exposing survivors or requiring them to disclose sensitive experiences. Survivor autonomy, confidentiality, dignity and safety must remain central to accountability efforts.

The value of accountability tools lies in their continued use, tracing commitments into budgets, identifying responsible actors, gathering evidence, setting specific demands and monitoring follow-up. The central lesson is simple. A commitment should be the beginning of accountability, not the end of it. We need to ask what was promised, whether it was financed, whether it was implemented, who is responsible for oversight, and what specific action can be demanded and verified. Moving from commitments to delivery means making responsibilities clear, resources traceable, evidence usable and progress measurable.