From the Cancun Adaptation Framework to the Paris Agreement

Abstract

In almost 15 years of representation under the United Nations, the world has witnessed how the treatment of adaptation has evolved at international level (and the repercussions this evolution has had at national level): from the beginning of the negotiation of what would later be called the Nairobi Work Program (NWP), with debates as to whether climate change was the product of human-induced climate change, to the adoption of the Paris Agreement and its subsequent implementation, where, based on scientific evidence, there is no longer a margin of doubt in establishing the relationship among anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and the related spectrum of effects that are materializing today. The advances made during the period that led to the Cancun Adaptation Framework were of great significance and far-reaching. They allowed for the establishment of different lines of work that in the following years evolved, incorporating new elements, and allowing adaptation to gain space in the international agenda with subsequent internalization within countries. Today it is fair to say that what was once more of a political discourse, today is a reality: adaptation is as relevant todeveloping countries and is more important than mitigation. Independent of the internal differences that arose during the years under the adaptation discussions, which were not minor challenges, we always knew that our strength was in reaching internal consensus and positions. It was clear from the beginning that if Argentina (or any of the other country for that matter) was required to negotiate on its own, it would have no chance of reaching the outcomes achieved through the unity of capabilities and mutual support in the G77 and China.