{"id":5176,"date":"2018-01-26T02:55:53","date_gmt":"2018-01-26T02:55:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/task38.ieabioenergy.com\/?page_id=5176"},"modified":"2018-01-26T02:56:52","modified_gmt":"2018-01-26T02:56:52","slug":"copenhagen-statement","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/task38.ieabioenergy.com\/copenhagen-statement\/","title":{"rendered":"Copenhagen Statement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u00a0This statement is an outcome of the workshop on \u201cForests, bioenergy and climate change mitigation\u201d, held May 19-20, 2014 in Copenhagen[1]<\/a>\u00a0, which had the following objectives:<\/span><\/p>\n Concerns regarding global climate change led to the adoption of the long-term target to limit global warming to 2\u00b0C. Current scientific understanding indicates that peak warming is insensitive to CO2 emission trajectories\u00a0[3]<\/a>\u00a0; that is, timing of emissions is not critical in relation to the 2\u00b0C target. On the other hand, policymakers may judge that additional climate targets are needed to facilitate climate change mitigation, such as short-term national emission reduction targets. Such targets constrain the possible emission trajectory profile and shift focus toward gases with shorter atmospheric lifetimes; thus timing of GHG emissions is relevant for such policy targets.<\/p>\n As noted in the IPCC AR5 report \u201c..scenarios reaching atmospheric concentration levels of about 450 ppm CO2eq by 2100 (consistent with a likely chance to keep temperature change below 2 \u00b0C relative to pre-industrial levels) include substantial cuts in anthropogenic GHG emissions by mid-century through large-scale changes in energy systems \u2026 [and that] bioenergy can play a critical role for mitigation, but there are issues to consider, such as the sustainability of practices and the efficiency of bioenergy systems\u201d. It is further noted that: \u201cthe scientific debate about the overall climate impact related to land-use competition effects of specific bioenergy pathways remains unresolved[4]<\/a>\u00a0.\u00a0 Fossil fuel use transfers carbon from the slow domain of the carbon cycle, where turnover times exceed 10,000 years, to the fast domain (the atmosphere, ocean, vegetation and soil); bioenergy systems operate within the fast domain, where vegetation and soil carbon have turnover times of 1-100 and 10-500 years, respectively\u00a0[5]<\/a>\u00a0. A reduction of deforestation and more efficient use of forest biomass for wood-based products and energy, maximising GHG mitigation per unit biomass, are needed in parallel.<\/p>\n Policies frame markets for bioenergy and the broader bioeconomy, and forest management will react to that, as well as forest product markets. Forest management often has a long-term focus, which presents a challenge for development of policies intending to support near-term climate targets.<\/p>\n Forest management influences the dynamics of forest carbon stocks. In many countries, forest carbon stocks have increased over recent decades, but deforestation has reduced carbon stocks in other regions (sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, South-East Asia). Currently, the vast majority of forest managers receive no revenue from maintaining or increasing forest C stocks.Forest governance differs between countries and regions, which is relevant when considering the implications of the increasing trade in bioenergy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The estimation of carbon fluxes from forest bioenergy in national inventories under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) follows IPCC guidelines for national GHG reporting. This means that annual forest carbon releases or sinks are allocated to the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, and CO2 emissions from biomass use are excluded\u00a0[6]<\/a>\u00a0in the energy sector to avoid double counting. This is different from GHG accounting in life cycle assessment (LCA), which has a cross-sectoral and cross-border view and sums GHG emissions over the life cycle of a specific product or service to which the impact of those emissions is attributed.<\/p>\n Both approaches ask different questions, and different actors apply them with different scopes. When IPCC \u201ctier 1\u201d data\u00a0[7]<\/a>\u00a0are used in LCA studies\u00a0 to obtain estimates of biomass and soil carbon fluxes, caution and transparency are needed as these data were intended for national level reporting and may not be appropriate at finer scales.<\/p>\n Various metrics have been proposed for quantifying climate change effects. Depending on the purpose of the assessment, different metrics may be preferred. Global Warming Potential (GWP)\u00a0[8]<\/a>\u00a0is the most commonly used metric but, the Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) may be a more appropriate metric in some circumstances.\u00a0 Application of more than one metric is informative for policy development.<\/p>\n\n
1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Framing the Issue<\/h1>\n
2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Modelling: scope, data and limitations<\/h1>\n
2.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Treatment Of Bioenergy Under The UNFCCC And In Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)<\/h3>\n
2.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Modelling And LCA Approaches For Assessing Forest Bioenergy<\/h3>\n