You’d be forgiven for thinking that Copenhagen wasn’t a roaring success, reading the media reports that have come out in the last few weeks. To some extent, that’s true – there isn’t yet a legally binding treaty, and there are a number of key issues that the international community hasn’t been able to agree upon. After all, the UN process works so that all 192 countries have to agree to decisions by consensus – so if just one country isn’t happy, a decision doesn’t fly.

Upstream water diversion pond for refurbished 105kW micro hydro plant near Kibuye, Rwanda

But the meeting did deliver the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord – so far signed by a group representing 49 countries – agreed that the international community would aim to keep global warming to two degrees; agree on ‘fast-start’ funding of $10bn per year to 2012, rising to $100bn of climate finance per year by 2020; and firm up national emissions reduction offers by the end of January 2010.

Turbine and generator unit manned by locally-trained operators

And there were many other things going on alongside the main negotiations, with some unsung but important steps forward during the two weeks that were Copenhagen. One of the big bits of news for the UK was that a new fund was launched to support the deployment of renewable energy in low income countries.

Over $260 million has been pledged by five countries (UK, Netherlands, US, Norway and Switzerland) to the new Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program (SREP). The new fund is part of the $6bn Climate Investment Funds, which are administered by the World Bank.

The programme will support at least five low income countries to transform their energy sectors, making them more accessible, reliable and sustainable, and so contributing to economic growth.

SREP will seek to:

• help developing world governments to scale-up the building of wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric power plants by offering practical, financial and policy support;
• make investing in renewable energy less risky by underwriting the additional capital costs associated with renewable energy; and
• encourage private sector investment in renewables by providing initial start-up funding.

The UK is contributing £50m ($82m) to SREP, as part of the UK’s commitment to provide ‘fast-start’ climate finance before 2012. This contribution will see the UK become the largest donor to this global initiative to help boost the renewable energy sector in low-income countries.

So there’s plenty of reason that those two weeks in December can go down in the record books as Hopenhagen. It wasn’t the end of the process by any means, but it certainly took us a big step forward.

Low energy bulbs are one way individuals can reduce their carbon emissions. (Credit: Joe Colburn)

In discussing the ongoing climate conversation I'm having with my brother in my last two blogs, I've talked about the evidence behind the need to tackle climate change, and about why we need to assist developing countries to grow their economies and reduce poverty in a low carbon way.

But my brother's question that kicked off my musings was about why a relative handful of people in developed countries would bother to reduce their own individual emissions.

In the scenario I set out in my last post, for developing countries to limit their emissions to 2.5 tonnes per capita, developed countries would have to reduce their own emissions to zero. That's a pretty massive ask: the UK at the moment emits 8.94  tonnes per capita. 

My brother's right that we can't meet the climate change targets we must set ourselves by a privileged few lowering their meat consumption. The biggest effects will come from governments committing to serious cuts at Copenhagen, and from a real change in, for example, how industry works, how we meet our energy needs, and how we travel.  

But individuals emit a significant proportion of developed countries' emissions.  In the UK, more than 40 per cent of CO2 emissions come directly from what individuals do – for example, using electricity in the home and driving cars. So we all need to take responsibility too. There are lots of great campaigns around to help us do that – you can sign up to reduce your emissions by 10% by 2010 and the UK government has a dedicated website to help. 

After all these debates and our protracted question and answer session, my brother proved last night that he understands where I'm coming from – and is a mighty fine brother. I went to his place for dinner, expecting to have to swap one of my weekend meat-eating days. But no. He'd been to the local Chinese supermarket to buy tofu, and he cooked up a delicious vegan feast.

Brotherly challenge: managed to get him along to the Prove It exhibition over the weekend

As I said in my last post, my brother and I have been debating climate change through the unexpected medium of Facebook. First he asked about science; next he commented that, “A million people giving up meat to appease Mother Gaia will do nothing to offset the effect of a billion people giving up subsistence farming, and building cities and heavy industry.” 

Phew, I thought. This question's not about science, but about my day-to-day work: low carbon development. I reckon I can answer this one. 

First off, it's true that a small action by a minority in developed countries won't make the huge difference we need. And it's also true that developing countries have to be part of the solution too – one of the main things we’re pushing for this week at Copenhagen. 

If we're to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius – widely accepted as the most we can allow before things get truly dangerous – then, with the world's population set to rise to nine billion by 2050, each person needs to emit no more than two tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.  Even if developed countries reduce their emissions to zero, developing countries will still have to limit theirs to 2.5 tonnes per person to ensure we hit that stay under that limit. 

Deep in thought: my brother and I review the evidence for climate change

But at the same time, developing countries need to be able to develop and reduce poverty. Developed countries had the chance to do that – and, through developing in an industrial way, emitted the greenhouse gases that have got us to where we are today. 

So the key is assisting developing countries to avoid the same kind of high emission development – to avoid getting locked in to high carbon technologies and energy supplies – and instead to develop in a low carbon way. 

An example of low carbon development in Rwanda: Kirambo Health Center installs solar panels. Photo credit: SolarEnima

That means, for example, developing and adopting low carbon technologies, increasing energy efficiency, and building low carbon mass transport systems and buildings. And there are real opportunities in this for economies to grow: increased efficiency means savings; new green industries mean new jobs and innovation. (In fact, check out my colleague Shan’s latest blog on the low carbon development opportunities for India). The UK government works on programmes to assist developing countries in exactly these kinds of ways, such as the Climate Technology Fund and the catchily titled Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program. 

So where does that leave developed countries, and is it worth individuals making an effort to reduce their emissions, as I'm doing through eating less meat? I'll turn to that in the third of this series of blogs.

Cows - big methane culprits?

It’s funny, I’ve got the Copenhagen conference coming out of my ears - trying to keep up with latest developments, seeing where the sticking points are – yet one of the most interesting climate change discussions I’ve had this week was with my brother. On Facebook. Who’d have thought it?

It sounds unlikely, but it's true.  It all started when I became a weekday vegetarian a few weeks ago, for climate change reasons.  I posted something on Facebook about my confusion over whether to stop eating meat (since animals, especially cows, produce methane, which is worse still than carbon dioxide in terms of climate change ) or whether I had to include dairy (since cows produce far more methane than other animals meats), or whether swapping to soy milk was still worse (because soya production has been one of the most important causes of deforestation, and therefore climate change).

My brother – unlike me, scientifically minded, and brilliantly so – replied with a series of searching questions on the science of climate change, along with queries about the difference that individuals can make in developed and developing countries.  These three issues: the science of climate change, how the developing world can grow in a low carbon way, and the role of the developed world,  will be the subjects of my next three blogs. 

So first: the science.

Like lots of people, my brother's not a climate change denier, but does have difficulty finding the evidence in an accessible, freely available form.  He was worried, for example, that some of the research that the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] used didn't appear to have been peer-reviewed and therefore might not be of sufficient quality.  Yet the IPCC is the body we rely on as the trusted  provider of the science behind climate change, because they are made up of a wide selection of the world’s leading subjects on the matter – or to put it another way, they are the peers! He was also concerned about whether climate models can make reliable predictions.

I'm no scientist myself, but I responded to some of his questions with the Royal Society's brilliantly simple response to some of the oft-heard myths around climate change.  I've also suggested we visit the Science Museum's new Prove It exhibition , which presents all the evidence and let’s you make up your own mind. 

Will giving up weekday burgers really make an impact on climate change? Credit: Dave77459

Fine, said my brother, but still: what difference will a million people in the developed world stopping eating meat make, compared to a billion people in developing countries ceasing subsistence farming in order to develop through moving to cities and shifting their livelihoods to industry? 

Good point. Some new research suggests that among poorer countries, the percentage of people living in urban areas is expected to rise from 29.4% to 41.5% between 2010 and 2030.  For example, while the population of DRC is expected to almost double between 2005 and 2030, the population of Kinshasa is projected to increase from around 8.5m today to over 20m in 2030 and the DRC population overall become majority urban before 2035. So we’re talking about substantial changes in. 

Hmmmm……I'll try and give my perspective on these questions in the next couple of blogs.

I don’t just mean in the way many people are aware of – that is, that global temperatures are getting warmer and the world needs to act now if we are to prevent that rise reaching dangerous levels.

I also mean that the debates, the politics, the levels of understanding and the amount of time and resources governments, civil society and ordinary people are putting in to climate change are on the up.

For that reason, there’s a huge amount more to DFID’s and the UK’s efforts on climate change than the tiny areas I work on – and the need to tell the bigger story is the reason readers haven’t seen a post from me since May.

I’ve been working instead to pull together a new DFID climate change group blog. As today’s Blog Action Day is focussing on this very subject I thought it’d be the perfect time to kick it off.

We’re a mix of staff working on the policy side of things from London as well as advisers based in the country offices where we work.

I’ll hand over to the new bloggers to introduce themselves, but check back here shortly to see get the inside view of what the UK government is doing on the frontline of climate change.

This blog features as part of Blog Action Day and the Act on Copenhagen campaign

The highlight of my day was being able to approve an exciting new programme called Scaling-up Renewable Energy (SREP).

SREP will focus on scaling up the use of renewables in low income countries. Yesterday I mentioned the kind of programme that SREP might fund - perhaps providing a poor community a sub-Saharan African country with locally produced electricity which they might use to power a small mill, rather than transporting their wheat elsewhere to be processed and then bought back as flour.

The programme is exciting not only for the kind of impact it will have on the ground, but also because it will demonstrate how we can scale up finance to deliver on renewables and access to energy. These lessons could feed into the use of major sources of funding. Indeed, we discussed one of these today - the World Bank's International Development Association budget - which comes in at some $11 billion per year.

The programme isn't ready to be launched just yet. The next step is to pull in the finance from donor countries so that we can reach the minimum threshold of $250m to ensure we can have significant, scaled up impact in the countries that receive SREP funding. The UK has already announced its intention to provide £25m and we've been closely involved in the design of the programme. Now our job is to ensure others follow suit!

World Bank logo

My first couple of months have been leading up to this week, when I find myself in the international corridors of development thinking and funding that are the World Bank. You know the huge conference rooms you see in films or news pieces, where there are country names in front of attendees rather than name tags, and where one end of the table is so far from the other that microphones are an essential prop?  That's where I am right now - sitting at the back, blogging, and giving the odd bit of advice to my boss who is the UK lead on the programme currently under discussion.  Soon we'll be swapping seats and it'll be my turn to stand my country name on end each time I'm seeking the Chair's attention.

I'm now working in DFID's Climate and Environment Group, coordinating the UK's £800 million input to the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) which is shared equally between DFID and the Department for Energy and Climate Change.  The CIFs are a multi-donor, World Bank-administered set of funds and programmes to assist developing countries to build low carbon approaches and climate resilience into their national development plans.  On current exchange rates, some $6.4 billion has been pledged to the CIFs by donor countries.

This might all sound very processy and like the kind of thing that happens in the corridors of power while our real job of helping the world's poor is many miles away.  But sitting here, it occurs to me that the links between this room and that ‘real' job are tangible.  For a start, one of the frequent criticisms of the World Bank and the other international financial institutions is that developing countries are not adequately represented in governance structures and decision making.  Not so in the CIFs.  Every committee within the CIFs has equal representation of donor and recipient countries, meaning that the voices of poor countries' governments are heard in every discussion.  Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector and indigenous people's groups are also involved, and can propose agenda items or request the floor.

The reality of climate change: floods in Bangladesh (Credit: DFID)

This meeting is also a remarkable example of how to make rapid decisions on very large sums of money in order to catalyse speedy action.  So that, for example, a Bangladeshi farmer's land can be protected against rising sea levels.  Or a poor community in Tanzania can have electricity for the first time, perhaps ensuring that crop processing can be done locally, or reducing their expenditure on imported diesel.  Rapid action also means that the successes of the CIFs - and anything that doesn't work so well - can help the international community to learn lessons ahead of a critical set of climate change negotiations that take place in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.

So from the sharp end in Helmand, to the conference room in Washington, D.C., I feel I'm working to the same ends.  I'll update the blog as the week goes on and the discussions ramp up - still to come is the agreement of a new programme on scaling up renewable energy in low income countries, an update on the eight pilot countries that have accepted an offer to assist them integrate climate resilience into their development plans, and thinking about how we manage a major lesson learning event ahead of Copenhagen to ensure we're drawing lessons from the CIFs. 

In the meantime, I need to join the legions of staffers working on Capitol Hill as they take their daily run along the Mall and switch off from the high-powered discussions of the day...

Readers of this blog might be wondering what I’ve been up to since I last posted back in December.  I'm sorry to say it's nothing more interesting than a combination of Christmas, wrapping up and handing over in Afghanistan, gearing up for a complete change of jobs and moving country.  But I'm back, and will continue to blog in my new role.  I'll even have a surname from now on - although the risk is low, giving too much personal information while working somewhere like Afghanistan is not a good idea.

The beautiful Panjshir valley shows both Afghanistan’s stunning landscape and its blighted past: the valley is littered with the rusting hulls of Russian tanks and helicopters

As I leave Afghanistan, I've been reflecting on how things have changed over the time I've been in Helmand.  And, on a more personal note, on the unique experiences I've had here.

So what's changed since this time last year?  Significantly, a very strong governor, Gulab Mangal, was appointed last March.  Without his tenure, things wouldn't have progressed with anything like the speed they have.  Mangal visited London a few weeks back, capping off a year of significant progress.

DFID has supported the best functioning government department in Helmand, the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, as well as the municipal government in Lashkar Gah, to assist communities to build wells, build roads, repair canals and clear garbage.  As a result, over 425,000 people across Helmand have benefited from clean water, irrigation has been restored to 13,800 and brought to 5,800 new hectares, and 254,887 labour days have been created for 18,487 individuals.  And just two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, visited Helmand and announced that DFID will spend an extra £50 million in Afghanistan, including on a new road from Lashkar Gah to the commercial capital of Helmand, Gereshk, and on the refurbishment of a hydropower plant in Gereshk.

On the military side, I've worked with two brigades, 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando.  Perhaps their greatest achievements during my time have been the delivery of a new hydro electric turbine to the massive Kajaki dam, travelling 180 perilous kilometres with no loss of life, and Operation Sond Chara to assist the Afghan government and security forces to secure and stabilise the Nad Ali district of Helmand.

On the other hand, when I first arrived in Helmand just under 100 British troops had been killed.  As I leave, the figure stands at 152.  The youngest was 18.

So some of the unique experiences of Afghanistan - ones I'll be glad to leave behind - are those of learning that someone's life has been lost and attending the memorial services about which I've written.

But the positives of my experience massively outweigh the negatives.

It goes without saying that I'll miss the Afghan people and landscape enormously.

Taking a final look at my experience of Afghanistan: the beauty, the hardship and the enduring military presence

I'll miss the civilians and military with whom I've worked and lived for twenty four hours a day - and my work, which I've found so challenging and rewarding.

I'll miss the helicopter and Hercules commutes, especially getting to sit up front in the Hercules, look outside with night vision glasses and hear the pilots chatting when they don't realise I've got a headset on.

I'll miss hearing utterly incongruous things that would never get said in the normal course of life - like a strapping Royal Marine Commando telling me he wouldn't be joining us for a movie because I'd chosen a horror film and he'd be too scared.  Or ‘jackspeak', a language all of the Royal Navy's own for which there's a dedicated dictionary.  Or the military notion of ‘30-day pants' - about which, fortunately, I've never managed to find out too much.

And I'll miss having a radio call sign and feeling like I'm in the movies when I do my radio check each week.  So I can't resist one last opportunity.  I'll be off.  This is Echo Two Zero, over and out.

Eid in Lashkar Gah

Some of our celebrations are extended to our local partners and they, in turn, invite us to their dinners to break Ramadan fasts (called ‘Iftars') and join their Eid festivities.  To celebrate breaking the fast, I went to an Iftar with the Governor of Helmand and around 70 of our local government partners at a venue in Lashkar Gah.  We had a glorious meal of chickens stuffed with local almonds and raisins - two of Afghanistan's most delicious products - as well as goat, bread and sour yoghurt.  Last week was Eid-ul-Adha.  To celebrate, FCO, DFID and military colleagues danced the evening away to a local band (or, more accurately, sat and watched while their Afghan friends showed their moves) with the Deputy Governor and his guests, after eating an entire lamb.  

For Christmas we will invite our local counterparts to celebrate with us - though rather than serving them turkey we'll return their Eid generosity and provide a whole lamb. 

Those who are spending Christmas Day on the base will be served turkey and other roasts, with options for the vegetarians and for any of the Gurkhas who prefer something more Nepalese to our very British fare.  There'll be sprouts and stuffing and mince pies and even After Eights, as well as crackers and party poppers.  

Because the local markets don't necessarily produce the food we consume on camp, and because the quality and consistency of the supply of Afghan produce is difficult to guarantee, most of our food comes from beyond Afghanistan's borders.  From a development point of view, that's not ideal: we'd like to see the local economy supported as much as possible by the large international community, without distorting the market.

Chicken farm in Bolan, Lashkar Gah

For that reason DFID have launched a local procurement programme, to link up the supply from Afghan farmers and food processors with the demand from our hungry international military and civilians.  This time next year, we'll be writing about a delicious Christmas dinner featuring Afghan potatoes, carrots and - who knows? - turkey.  We've already got a chicken farm up and running and I'm sure we could extend our fowl thinking.  And we'll have to get creative to ensure the raisins and almonds, not to mention the famous Afghan watermelons and pomegranates, make their way onto the great British Christmas menu next time around.

Even so, there are people making valiant efforts to raise awareness of what HIV/AIDS is, how it is - and is not - transmitted, and what the implications are of contracting it.

© BBC World Service Trust

DFID funds a hugely successful radio show in Afghanistan called New Home New Life (NHNL).  The show is made by the BBC World Service Trust, the BBC's international charity.  A family-based serial drama along the lines of The Archers, NHNL has been running for 14 years.  Every episode covers different educational issues.

NHNL ran a groundbreaking HIV/AIDS storyline from July to November this year.  The story is carefully tailored to provide listeners with the facts whilst remaining culturally sensitive.  Gulalai is a midwife who has helped with a delivery to save an HIV-positive mother and her baby's life.  After the delivery, she discovers that she may have contracted the virus.

Many of the characters call AIDS "an epidemic" and "fatal".  They are unaware of how HIV is transmitted and fear they may catch it through contact with a person carrying the virus.  Gulalai's husband, Sarwar Khan, refuses to eat the food she has cooked.  He tells his family that they should shun Gulalai, forbids Gulalai from seeing their son, and decides to marry a second wife.

Yet other characters know more about HIV/AIDS.  Gulalai and her brother, Rahim, know that HIV isn't transmitted by simply being near other people.  Through the characters' conversations and relationships, we learn that HIV can't be passed on by eating or sitting together or greeting one another, and the gently negative views of Sarwar Khan's actions show us that an HIV-positive person does not need to be avoided or feared.

Happily, Gulalai finds out at the end of the storyline that she remains HIV negative - and of course, her marriage comes good in the end.

Perhaps - thanks to the efforts of those like the BBC World Service Trust - on future World AIDS Days we'll know a little bit more about AIDS in Afghanistan.

DFID will run a compilation of video and audio clips from DFID-funded TV and radio soap operas in mid-December - keep your eyes peeled!