At the COP 21, in France, a few years back, an initiative was proposed to increase the carbon content of soils by 0.4% or 4 per 1000 per year. The claim was made that, in so doing, soils could compensate the amount of carbon released annually by the consumption of fossil fuels. Nobody argues that storing more carbon in soils is a good thing. But this initiative has been the object of significant controversy since its inception, for a variety of reasons, in particular the fact that its goal cannot realistically be reached. This raises the risk that some politicians, erroneously believing that soils offer a rapid solution to global warming, would stop all efforts toward a transition to renewable energies. Recently, in a letter to AMBIO, Robert E. White argued that the name of the initiative should be changed to something like "the soil carbon storage initiative". What do you think?
The "4 per 1000" initiative aims to increase the soil organic matter content and carbon sequestration, through the implementation of agricultural practices adapted to local environmental, social and economic conditions, as proposed in particular by the agro-ecology, agroforestry, conservation agriculture or landscape management. But you may call it as soil carbon storage initiative as it increased soil stability by lowering soil disturbances and the rate of organic matter decomposition, in turn reducing the amount of carbon lost back into the atmosphere. It also encourage plant and animal inputs, improve diversity and number of soil microbes, provide living cover of soil.
I think , "4p1000" looks more meaningful and seems more attractive. ..
Corrigendum: In my original question, I should have written "Robert E. White and I"...
Otherwise, to answer Anoop, yes, perhaps, "4p1000" sounds like it means business, but is it not misleading?
Philippe
Philippe, such words will always catch the researchers , whosoever comes across, otherwise carbon storage initiatives could have number of strategies . But putting 4p 1000 sums up with an ultimate objective. Thats what i feel ...
The ‘’4 per mille’’ concept as described by Chabbi et al. (2017) and Minasny et al. (2017), aims to promote land management practices that can lead to an increase in SOC stock at the rate of 4‰ (0.4%) of the initial value per year for 20 years. It was envisaged that, if this rate of C sequestration was achieved for global soils to a depth of 40 cm, the atmospheric C sequestered in soils would equal annual CO2-C emissions from fossil fuels of 8.9 Gt, and eventually the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be halted (Minasny et al. 2017). Poulton et al. (2018) evaluated this initiative by analyzing rates of SOC increase in treatments in 16 long-term experiments (LTE) in the temperate region of the south-east United Kingdom and expressed their concern about the severe limitations to achieving the “4 per 1000” goal in practical agriculture over large areas.
For Indian tropical soils, Pathak et al. (2011) on the basis of economics of SOC sequestration reported that in a majority of LTEs, the NPK plus FYM (10t ha-1) treatment showed higher SOC and also higher net return than that under NPK treatment. They suggested that application of FYM with NPK is a cost effective, win-win technology for Indian farmers. Paradoxically, the short and long-term experiments on Indian tropical soils reported during the recent past and in recent times indicate that these soils have reached a quasi-equilibrium stage and seldom show OC content (0-30 cm) > 1%. It is noted that even the SOC content (0-30 cm depth) of an LTE of 28 years on SAT Vertisols (with clay smectite ~ 90%) using sorghum-wheat cropping system with recommended doses of NPK fertilizers plus FYM (10t ha-1) show a value of 0.73 % only (Datta et al. 2018). The agricultural management practices advocated through the national agricultural research system (NARS) for the last several decades did not cause any decline in SOC in the major crop growing zones of the country under SAT climate (Bhattacharyya et al. 2007,2008). The increase in OC in agricultural soils (maximum up to ≤ 1% in 0-30 cm depth) observed in SAT areas through NARS interventions (Bhattacharyya et al. 2007,2008) appears enough to provide ecosystem services in growing self-sufficiency in food production and food stocks since independence and such interventions since post-green revolution period have helped in increased OC sequestration in all soil types without leading to increased emissions of greenhouse gases to any alarming proportion (Pal et al. 2015). However, it is intriguing that why the SAT soils (non-acidic, calcareous and dominated either by mixed or smectitic clay minerals) under decades long NARS management for agricultural crops, do not have OC > 1%? Factors preventing the further rise in OC beyond 1% are not yet known. Does it suggest that at present, the aspiration of “4 per 1000” concept loses its relevance in SAT soils when they are cultivated for agricultural crops?
In view of the above it would be prudent not to insists in using ‘’4 per mille’’ concept universally. Thus, I would endorse the change suggested by Prof. Baveye or any other suitable one that is likely to emerge from this RG posting.
Bhattacharyya T, Chandran P, Ray SK, Pal DK, Venugopalan MV, Mandal C, Wani SP (2007) Changes in levels of carbon in soils over years of two important food production zones of India. Curr Sci 93:1854–186
Bhattacharyya T, Pal DK, Chandran P, Ray SK, Mandal C, Telpande B (2008) Soil carbon storage capacity as a tool to prioritise areas for carbon sequestration. Curr Sci 95:482-494
Chabbi A, Lehmann J, Ciais P et al. (2017) Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nature Climate Change 7: 307-309
Datta A, Mandal B, Badole S, Chaitanya KA, Mazumdar SP, Padhan D, Basak N, Barman A, Kundu R, Narkhede WN (2018) Interrelationship of biomass yield, carbon input, aggregation, carbon pools and its sequestration in Vertisols under long-term sorghum-wheat cropping system in semi-arid tropics. Soil Tillage Res 184: 164-175
Minasny B, Malone BP, McBratney AB et al. (2017) Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292: 59-86. doi.org/10.1016/j.Geoderma.2017.01.002
Pal DK, Wani SP, Sahrawat KL (2015) Carbon sequestration in Indian soils: present status and the potential. Proc Natl Acad Sci, Biol Sci (NASB), India, 85: 337-358.DOI:10.1007/s40011-014-0351-6
Pathak H, Byjesh K, Chakrabarti B, Aggarwal PK (2011) Potential and cost of carbon sequestration in Indian agriculture: estimates from long-term field experiments. Field Crops Res 120:102–111
Poulton P, Johnston J, Macdonald A, White R, Powlson D (2018) Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, UK. Global Change Biology. Doi: 10.1111/gcb.14066
The “4 per Thousand” proposal is based on the premise of sequestering atmospheric carbon in world soils at the rate of 0.4%/ yr (Le Foll, 2015). This is true that soil across the world can't have that much of sequestration rate. While this is not a normative target for all countries, it is intended to highlight that even small increases in the soil carbon can play a crucial role in improving soil fertility, productivity and achieving the long-term objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. I think the '4 per thousand' is appropriate. There is no harm if we aim big...
For me it was very attractive and this let me to try to find out more information and more papers speaking about it. As well, it is unforgetable name.
The initiative is of great importance to advertise for importance of soil carbon in soils and for off-setting carbon emission through carbon sequestration. Managing soils and using new technologies and systems are important issues that balance mitigation, adaptation and risk. To achieve the quantitative target is difficult for arid lands and harsh climate. Changing name will not affect much the objectives and achievements volunteered .
The following papers are interesting to read:
Le Foll, S. 2015.4 per 1000: A New Program for Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture. Paris, France: French Minister of Agriculture,Agrifood and Forestry.
B. Minasny et al. / Geoderma 292 (2017) 59–86
Lal, R., 2016. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 20A–25A.
Chambers et al. 2016. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 68A–74A.
All the best
4p1000 initiative raised awareness among politicians and scientists on the ability of the soils to sequester carbon. While C sequestration would require additional nitrogen in already degraded soils, the initiative successfully initiated a conversation about the matter and motivated researchers to look closely at the approach to achieve this goal. Changing the name doesn't matter, what matters is the action of scientists, stakeholders and politicians to enhance soil C. The recent actions by China and Ethiopia in planting trees were remarkable. Climate change can be controlled in medium-term if all stakeholders are engaged in the fight. To measure soil C stocks and stock changes, please read the recent FAO LEAP guidelines here: http://www.fao.org/3/CA2934EN/ca2934en.pdf
Best, Aimable
In my opinion, soil carbon storage is a slow process shown, among others, by low-level human activities in some vegetation entities like forests and pastures. I therefore agree with this intended name change.
I am glad to see that there are still some people considering this question of the name of the initiative. As far as I am concerned, I continue to believe very firmly (and I will keep writing) that the "4p1000" name has the potential to seriously mislead policy makers, and that it is unethical for scientists to promote something that they are fully aware is a false promise. Defenders of the initiative argue that if it is presented as an "aspiration" or "thought experiment", no harm is done, and that its catchy name allows them to attract funding they would otherwise not be able to get. But... my impression is that very few policy makers will understand that "4p1000" is not an attainable goal. In that context, it will be very damaging if the "4p1000" initiative convinces even one policy-maker that there are reasons not to move speedily in the transition to renewable forms of energy.
For those who are interested in the debate on carbon sequestration in soils, we have written another paper on the topic. I append it here. It is being published by Frontiers. The final version (in open access) will be downloadable at this URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2020.579904/abstract.
Philippe
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy
- Energy-Generating Resources
- Renewable Energy