It could be mistaken for any technical seminar, but the stakes here are unusually high. Over four days, from August 18 to 21, 2025, government officials, technical specialists, and international experts gathered for an in-person workshop on Policies, Measures, and Transparency Roadmaps. Their mission is to ensure that countries in the region can meet the new reporting requirements of accountability under the Paris Agreement.
Why Transparency Matters
At first glance, transparency may sound like paperwork: reports filed with international agencies, charts of emissions, statistics buried in annexes. But in the climate world, transparency is a foundation. It’s how nations build trust with one another, with investors, and with their own citizens.
Under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), every country is required to regularly submit comprehensive deliverables: GHG national inventories, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), mitigation progress, adaptation plans, and climate finance tracking. These submissions, known as Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), form the backbone of global climate accountability.
“Without robust data and transparent reporting systems, commitments risk being little more than words on paper,” explains Richard Martínez, Latin American Project Manager at GHGMI.
From Gaps to Roadmaps
This workshop, part of the ReCATH project implemented by the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency (ICAT), was designed to help countries move from identifying gaps to laying out clear roadmaps.
In its first year, ReCATH conducted a detailed analysis of national greenhouse gas inventories, mitigation policies, and tracking systems across the eight SICA states—Belize, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama—along with Cuba. That analysis found persistent weaknesses: reliance on external consultants, fragmented monitoring systems, and insufficient institutional continuity.
The Panama workshop marked the next step: hands-on technical assistance to help countries assess their mitigation policies, prepare GHG projections, and design integrated roadmaps for climate transparency.
“The idea is not just to fix today’s reporting problem,” says Matej Gasperic, GHGMI’s Director of Mitigation. “It’s also to build systems that countries can sustain, own, and operate by their own experts.”
A Multi-Layered Agenda
Over four packed days, the agenda unfolded like a blueprint for strengthening transparency systems:
- Day 1 began with assessments of greenhouse gas inventories, with participants splitting into groups for AFOLU (agriculture, forestry, and land use) and energy/industrial/waste sectors. GHGMI’s Richard Martínez facilitated discussions on transparency progress, gaps, and needs. Matej Gasperic presented sectoral findings, guiding technical debates about inventory improvements.
- Day 2 shifted to policies and measures (PAMs) and greenhouse gas projections. Country teams presented their “homework,” sharing progress and challenges. Roundtables allowed peers to critique each other’s approaches and brainstorm fixes.
- Day 3 focused on climate finance and adaptation, bringing in perspectives on how to track support, assess regional vulnerabilities, and address loss and damage.
- Day 4 culminated in roadmap-building: identifying which elements—inventories, projections, adaptation, or finance—should be prioritized in each national context, and agreeing on a common regional framework for next steps.
Human Dimension
What stood out, however, was not only the technical content but the human energy. For many participants, this was one of the few opportunities to meet colleagues from across the region grappling with similar challenges.
“There’s a kind of solidarity when you realize you’re not alone in struggling with limited data or scarce institutional support,” notes Richard. “You can learn from someone else’s workaround—and maybe they can learn from yours.”
For GHGMI, which co-facilitated alongside partners from Libélula and other institutions, this peer learning was as important as any technical manual. Building a community of practice across borders, they argue, is essential for resilience and succession planning.
Transparency as Trust
The workshop’s framing—transparency as the foundation of trust—resonated strongly. Trust among countries relies on the assurance that credible numbers support their neighbors’ pledges. Trust with international donors requires that finance is tracked and spent effectively. And trust domestically means citizens deserve to see that climate policies are more than speeches.
As one session explored, transparency is not bureaucracy; it’s evidence. Evidence that can shape investment decisions, inform adaptation planning, and underpin negotiations.
“We often say transparency is technical, but it’s also profoundly political,” observes Matej. “If you don’t have the data, you don’t have credibility. And without credibility, ambition collapses.”
Challenges Ahead
Still, no one left Panama under the illusion that the task is easy. Building and maintaining national GHG inventories requires reliable data streams, trained personnel, and cross-ministerial cooperation. Tracking mitigation policies means aligning different agencies and sectors. Finance and adaptation reporting pose their own challenges, often complicated by limited resources and shifting donor requirements.
Several participants highlighted the risk of turnover, noting that technical staff trained today may move to other posts tomorrow, thereby leaving countries vulnerable to knowledge loss. That is why the ReCATH project emphasizes institutional continuity—ensuring that systems, not just individuals, carry the expertise forward.
A Regional Commitment
The regional character of the workshop was also striking. By working together, the SICA states and Cuba hope to develop not just national roadmaps but a shared regional approach. Such alignment could make their reporting more coherent, amplify their collective voice in international negotiations, and facilitate regional data sharing.
The workshop concluded with participants prioritizing the most urgent transparency elements for their contexts: some countries focused on inventories, while others concentrated on projections or adaptation. Yet the shared commitment was clear: to strengthen transparency systems as a way of strengthening trust.
Looking Forward
As the final session wrapped up, participants were asked to reflect on their role in carrying the roadmap forward. For GHGMI, this is exactly the kind of engagement it was founded to support—building long-term technical capacity, not just delivering one-off trainings.
“This is about the credibility of the Paris Agreement itself,” says Richard. “If countries can show transparently where they stand, we can all move forward with more confidence.”
From laptops in Panama City to policy rooms in San Salvador or Santo Domingo, the story is the same: without transparency, climate action falters. But with it, trust grows; and with trust comes the possibility of real ambition.
Comments