Recently, the COP-29 has left people globally with many questions regarding the future of our planet and sustainable development, especially because of the negative coverage of the organised international meeting. Therefore, I decided to find answers to questions, which would satisfy me and the whole school community. This led me to interview a COP-29 attendee from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Sung-Ah Kyun.
Sung-Ah Kyun is “associate director and head of green policy and climate analytics in the climate and strategy delivery department of EBRD”, responsible for “everything green-related”. For example, environmental topics but mainly climate finance, reducing emissions and “trying to help countries’ clients improve their climate resilience and adapt to changing climate”.
Note: The full interview is attached at the bottom of the article.
COP-29, hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan was considered controversial from the start due to Azerbaijan’s dependency on fossil fuels for its economy (Petro State), therefore Azerbaijan was an unexpected host. However, Sung-Ah Kyun believes that despite this, COP-29 was successful, because the participation level was high and the international meeting was well-organised. Although concerns remained about climate finance, especially with the need to renew the $100 billion annual goal established in 2009. For context, in 2009, there was a Copenhagen agreement, in which developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion per year to developing countries to invest in clean technologies. Reaching an agreement was a significant achievement, even if it wasn’t perfect. Other discussions, like carbon markets and agriculture and food systems, were of interest. The only “disappointment” was that there wasn’t stronger action on fossil fuel phase-out, as Sung-Ah Kyun stated.
As for the negative coverage of the international event, Sung- Ah Kyun states that it is all to do with “viewpoint”. Those who are invested and really concerned about the world and sustainability and climate change, would undoubtedly view this as a disappointing outcome. However, it is important to “not only stay in the negative because that doesn’t solve anything, right?” She highlighted how it is important to focus on the achievements and successes – the fact that a deal was even reached was a success in itself. Sung-Ah Kyun also outlined that we “live on the same planet”, therefore everyone should “should do a bit more” in order to also help the developing countries to develop in a sustainable way. For example, through the already existing “low carbon technologies”.
To answer the question about why there have been so many COP meetings (29, the first COP being 1995 – nearly 30 years ago), Sung- Ah Kyun told us that the “problem has not been resolved essentially”. This is because the problem of climate change and global warming requires continuity of international meetings, which provide a platform for partnerships and negotiations. Seen as there are more than 190 countries, some of which neither attend COP meetings nor have been “signed up to the Paris Peace Conference”, ‘solving’ the problem of climate change takes a long time. Some are critical of the COP meetings, however reaching agreements show that the international meetings are functional, while not perfect.
She also stated that international cooperation is strained, due to “trade wars, global regional fragmentation, increasing tensions between countries”. Also, the future of multilateralism and other international agreements are not guaranteed, unless we all “work on it” and “evolve”. After all, “If you take [COP meetings] out of the equation, what are you really asking for that we no longer resolve things internationally and through international cooperation?” Sung-Ah Kyun questions.
Furthermore, I chose to question Sung-Ah Kyun on what her experience attending COP-29 was. In the bigger picture, she states that COP meetings, despite only having an observer position (not contributing to negotiations), is important for gaining partnerships, meeting many different people from different parts of the world, with different “competency skills sets”. Also, it allows the EBRD to work closely with other multilateral banks, and “negotiators appreciate” it and there are a lot of side events. However, to add a “personal flavour”, Sung-Ah Kyun pointed out that the venue itself is very big, resulting in lots of walking and running. It is very “noisy” and energy-draining, meaning that those surrounding you are all tired and jet-lagged, who walk “like zombies”.
At the end of the interview, I asked Sung-Ah Kyun to give some advice for us, regarding our future decisions. Her advice was to be open minded, exploring and “learning” and “investing” in your interests, because although you may not know exactly what career you will have, the skills you have already learnt will be very useful to you in the future. Also, “don’t get hung up on whether you got your dream right”. Meanwhile, it is also necessary that you understand yourself better, for example your inspirations and motivations, as if you ever question yourself, you will know yourself better and trust the decisions you make along the line.
Full Interview:
Could you please introduce yourself and talk a bit about yourself?
My name is Sung-Ah Kyun. I’m an associate director and head of green policy and climate analytics in the climate and strategy delivery department of EBRD. That’s a mouthful, but in short, basically I work for the green slash climate team of the bank, which is responsible for everything green related. And when we say green, it means climate and other environmental topics like nature as well, so nature finance, but as EBRD, most of our green finance is in climate, is predominantly climate finance. So, which means we do a lot of work in reducing emissions and trying to help countries’ clients improve their climate resilience and adapt to changing climate.
It’s very nice to meet you. I’m Giorgia. So can you start by telling us what your main takeaways from COP-29 are?
Yes, I think this COP, COP-29, hosted by Azerbaijan in Baku, was quite a controversial one from the get go, because if you recall last year’s COP, which was hosted in Dubai, UAE, Azerbaijan became a host a bit unexpectedly in the sense that it wasn’t one of the candidate countries who were thought were going to host the COP so, it kind of came as a surprise decision, I would say.
And so, there was a lot of skepticism around how a Petro state, a country that is very heavily fossil fuel dependent in terms of its economy (you know, an economy that exports a lot of the fossil fuels) would do in terms of hosting a global climate conference. So, despite the scepticism, I personally feel like as a host, they did quite well. There was a lot of let’s say positive things in the sense that the COP logistically it was just well organised.
There weren’t many issues with the venue and how they hosted the conference and so, I think in general, as the host like hosting a COP, a very big international event that was well managed by the host country, now to going to the substance, I think there was also a lot of worries as to whether being this year really a conference about finance and it’s the year where countries have to renew their climate finance goal. Just to give context, in 2009, there was a Copenhagen agreement, where developed countries will, essentially be around 100 billion per year of climate finance be invested going to the developing countries, and that goal had to be renewed. So this year was about agreeing to that, which is a very contentious issue, especially considering where the world is today, which is quite fragmented; a lot of the developing countries are struggling, both economically and politically.
And so it’s a very different environment compared to where the world was when the Paris Agreement was signed and before then too.
So, considering that very challenging global context, regardless of the outcome of the COP 29 decision, which is very well reported in the media about the general, 300 billion finance outcome or goal?
The fact that there was a deal is perceived, at least by myself, but many of my colleagues, as to be a successful outcome, knowing how difficult it is to reach an international consensus like that.
So that’s a major feat in terms of the outcome. But of course, there were other issues. So, it depends on kind of how detailed you want to go into, but there were other agreements on Article 6, which is all about carbon markets and kind of the related mechanisms, that was even in the COP arena or the COP venue, and there were many, many side events. Actually the level of participation was quite high – well higher than what was expected.
So you had less of a financial sector participation this year at the COP compared to previous years, but the general level of participation was pretty high and some of the areas that were kind of white, you notice a lot of interest were for example in Agri food systems, a lot more in agriculture.
We think that adaptation will also be an area that will become increasingly important alongside more inclusive growth models, making sure that the transitions are well managed socially, economically. You notice that I mean the topics are so wide that I wouldn’t cover all of them. But what I can say is that, despite some of the negative reporting and a lot of disappointment, for example, that there wasn’t a stronger outcome, for example on fossil fuel phase out, which would have been great if that was achieved. That was a bit of a disappointment. But you know, there has been progress made, and you see that in, you know among the many, many organisations and institutions and people who come to this event, and show all the kind of progress that has been made up to date and their future plans, right?
Why do you think there are so many COP meetings?And why do you think all these meetings are necessary?
Well, I guess it shows that the problem has not been solved essentially, right?
One can arguably say that it’s one of the few remaining international platforms convening place where countries still get together, trying to resolve a common problem in, as much as possible, a constructive manner through the existing international climate agreement and its related architecture. So even though it is messy, and one can question how impactful these things are, at the same time, these conferences, which happen annually, and of course there are technical meetings that kind of lead up to these main events throughout the years, they provide a continuity of making sure that we still work on this problem because the issue has not been resolved and in fact it’s been exacerbating. And if you remove this meeting, where else would you have been able to even discuss a common goal on climate finance, for example?
So why do you think it takes this long for the world to realise the need to act or as you said, to ‘solve the problem’?
Well, you’re talking about 190 plus countries, right? Not all of them [attended]. Also, not all countries in the world signed up to the Paris Agreement. So, we’re talking about Member States of the EU under the UNF Triple C Convention, and those that have come into the Paris Agreement are the main stakeholders in terms of negotiating these deals or international agreements and that’s a very, very large number of people that are being represented, right? So and you’re talking about people with all kinds of various different political, social, economic contexts and, on the flip side, you can say well, actually considering how complicated it is, you’re still able to get them [to] agree on a common agreement, and I think that just goes to show that, it’s very, very difficult to have international agreement and you still are able to achieve it. That means that to a certain extent the existing system, I’m not saying is perfect, surely not, but it is there something that it delivers. So certainly, there is something working.
How many more COP meetings do you think there will be?
When do you think the problem will be resolved?
Well, I think that the issue is also that we’re living in a world where we’re increasingly multilateralism is being a bit undermined. You observe the global news today; there’s a lot of concerns about trade wars, global regional fragmentation, and increasing tension between countries.
It is not a given that international cooperation, multilateralism, will continue, as it has continued unless it is taken, unless the adequate amount of efforts are made and we continue to evolve and work on it, meaning that, the COPs are just a means, right means the end.
And yes, there’s a question of whether COPs are the most effective way of resolving a problem but that probably then is more of a question: Is it a question of evolution or is it just throwing everything out, what is replacing that?
If you take that out of the equation, what are you really asking for that we no longer, you know, resolve things internationally and through international cooperation?
I think it’s a bit of a fundamental question to answer there.
During COP 29, there was quite a lot of negative coverage on it. So, what was your take on that?
Viewpoint, of course, has its own validity and I think generally if you’re very concerned about where the world is, you’re disappointed. And I think that’s a very fair feeling to have as well as, objectively speaking, it’s not ambitious enough considering the challenge, right? But I think it’s important to also see through the lens that there’s a lot to be done further, so we have to keep on working harder.
But let’s not only stay in the negative because that doesn’t solve anything, right? So, let’s try to leverage on what we were able to achieve and then, you know, really question why we cannot, why despite all that, you know tension and late hours of being inside negotiators rooms and all these countries flying into Azerbaijan and getting together in the room, trying to bang out an agreement, why they ended up only getting to that point? That probably means that there are a lot of other things that need to be resolved. And I think if you are being critical, it also means that you may want to play a bigger role in trying to, you know, take part in trying to improve the situations where, when negotiations get in, negotiators get into the room, they have a bit more leverage they have more wiggle room to be able to negotiate. And I think, fundamentally, though, this is a climate conference, right?
But it’s also a finance COP, right? Meaning a lot of what we can’t agree on climate ambition is linked without realities of everyone living, trying to get by essentially, and if people are struggling right – many, many people around the world are really struggling to live a, you know standard of living that everyone deserves to have – then you know you’re kind of asking for a lot. So, I think the question is, we all can do a bit more, and certainly I think it’s important for those who emit the most and have emitted the most to recognise that and ensure that they also do their part. In fact, if you look at it, you know, a lot of the developing countries right, in particularly smaller, least developing countries, their emission is very small, right.
It’s kind of, we are to be asking countries that don’t really emit to begin with, the right to decarbonize. For them it is not about decarbonisation. For them, the main question is how do I develop but in a sustainable manner? Meaning for them, sustainability, they’re also the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, right? They are the ones who are suffering right now because of all these natural disasters (drought, flooding, water, extreme weather, what not). So, they are the ones who have to live in a weak infrastructure that’s not resilient, and they’re the ones who often have to move away, find other places to work.
We do as those who are, who belong to the devolved economies, considering that we co-share right, we live on the same planet. And we are the ones who have emitted a lot more – you cannot take away the right for them to develop. They also deserve the rights to develop. But you also have to help them develop in a way that’s sustainable.
There are already readily available low carbon technologies in, you know, climate resilient technologies that’s already widely available. And it could be an opportunity, where these countries can then participate in helping the global green transition, and I think we increasingly need to see this more from an opportunities perspective despite the problem being only growing, and that makes us feel a bit more helpless.
How does it feel like attending an in person, a big event like COP with all the global leaders present and making decisions about our livelihoods and the future of our planet?
Well, at the end of the day, I work for a multilateral Development Bank, so we’re an international organisation more focused on finance, right, investing in countries and clients. And so, we are not the signatories to the international agreements, we’re an observer status, which means that yes, we can observe negotiations, we don’t participate in negotiations.
Now the reason why we go to COP is:
First, negotiators and those who are making this agreement appreciate having an informed negotiation process and discussion and that’s why you have a lot of side events that are all around the main kind of negotiation area, and there’s a lot of engagement that happens through events and bilateral meetings and whatnot. So, hopefully, you are able to influence in a way that is informed, about what are important things that negotiators need to take into account when they take a position.
Also, EBRD, also works very closely with other multilateral banks, it’s a great place also to demonstrate the progress we’ve made or the lessons learned, it’s a real place to exchange information and have consultations with particularly like minded group of professionals, having assets to that kind of audience in one place is quite a useful one for anyone who is working on this. I think third is that it also helps to engage outside your normal [group], providing opportunities for new partnerships essentially. Because it’s much easier to meet everyone who may be based across the world, doing many different things, and getting to know what they do and sharing contact details. If these people are on the same panel, you’re able to immediately connect, follow up bilaterals. That helps to also establish other partnerships, working with organisations, people, who may have a very different perspective, competency skills sets that could be quite complementary. And that’s important to impact that scale, so you know, we take partnerships also as an important element to what we do. I guess those are kind of the three that come to mind.
But maybe from a personal flavour is that, I think, when you’re there, particularly for many days, you’re kind of stuck in a venue, right, that is without windows, it’s quite noisy. And so, despite it all being well-organised, you do feel – energy creeps out so, you will see many tired, jet-lagged people, kind of walking around like zombies. And it’s pretty intense, in the sense that, often, it’s not uncommon for people to be running from one place to another. It’s a big venue, right, so there is a lot of walking, running, happens as well so yeah.
Saint Augustine’s Priory, which is my school, is an independent girl only school. So, this interview is going to be read mainly by the girls on the verge of taking career decisions ahead of university (as well as some teachers). If you look backwards at when you were 16 from where you are now, what advice can you give to us?
Also, did you always dream of becoming a climate scientist and a banker?
When I look back at my age then, I think I had many dreams, and not necessarily where I am today. So, I think some do, but a lot of us do not know what you want to become until a little later in life. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t dream big, but I think whatever you’re passionate about, whatever you’re interested in, wherever you are in life, do your best, really invest in yourself, in really learning about whatever drives you because all of that will contribute to making you grow. So, lets say, for example, now you’re really interested in maths and think you want to be a mathematician. But along the line, maybe your interests might change. Maybe you don’t want to be a mathematician, maybe your interests will go to climate, let’s say. Well, your mathematical skills set and your ability to understand numbers will be super useful, for example, in doing, emissions modelling, or assessing potentials of certain technology to take up in a certain market. It’s a building block to what you can achieve. So, let’s say, be open-minded and when you’re interested in something, lean into it and try to get the most out of it, and don’t be so hung up on whether you got your dream right.
At the same time, I think it is really important to observe yourself like ‘Who inspires me? What inspires me? What makes me naturally, right, get motivated?’ If you understand yourself better, I think there’s going to be many times where you’ll question yourself, but it becomes easier to know yourself a bit better and what kind of decisions you want to take down the line.
Thank you for your time.