Advertisement

Ambio

pp 1–11 | Cite as

The 4p1000 initiative: Opportunities, limitations and challenges for implementing soil organic carbon sequestration as a sustainable development strategy

  • Cornelia RumpelEmail author
  • Farshad Amiraslani
  • Claire Chenu
  • Magaly Garcia Cardenas
  • Martin Kaonga
  • Lydie-Stella Koutika
  • Jagdish Ladha
  • Beata Madari
  • Yasuhito Shirato
  • Pete Smith
  • Brahim Soudi
  • Jean-François Soussana
  • David Whitehead
  • Eva Wollenberg
Perspective

Abstract

Climate change adaptation, mitigation and food security may be addressed at the same time by enhancing soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration through environmentally sound land management practices. This is promoted by the “4 per 1000” Initiative, a multi-stakeholder platform aiming at increasing SOC storage through sustainable practices. The scientific and technical committee of the Initiative is working to identify indicators, research priorities and region-specific practices needed for their implementation. The Initiative received its name due to the global importance of soils for climate change, which can be illustrated by a thought experiment showing that an annual growth rate of only 0.4% of the standing global SOC stocks would have the potential to counterbalance the current increase in atmospheric CO2. However, there are numerous barriers to the rise in SOC stocks and while SOC sequestration can contribute to partly offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, its main benefits are related to increased soil quality and climate change adaptation. The Initiative provides a collaborative platform for policy makers, practitioners, scientists and stakeholders to engage in finding solutions. Criticism of the Initiative has been related to the poor definition of its numerical target, which was not understood as an aspirational goal. The objective of this paper is to present the aims of the initiative, to discuss critical issues and to present challenges for its implementation. We identify barriers, risks and trade-offs and advocate for collaboration between multiple parties in order to stimulate innovation and to initiate the transition of agricultural systems toward sustainability.

Keywords

Carbon sequestration Climate change Food security Soil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge the executive secretariat of the 4p1000 initiative, Charlotte Verger and Claire Weill for their valuable contributions during the preparation of this manuscript. The input of PS contributes to the UK NERC-funded Soils-R-GGREAT project (NE/P019455/1).

References

  1. Barre, P., H. Durand, C. Chenu, P. Meunier, D. Montagne, G. Castel, D. Billiou, L. Soucemarianadin, et al. 2017. Geological control of soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks at the landscape scale. Geoderma 285: 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baveye, P.C., J. Berthelin, D. Tessier, and G. Lemaire. 2018. The “4 per 1000” initiative: A credibility issue for the soil science community? Geoderma 309: 118–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chabbi, A., J. Lehmann, P. Ciais, H.W. Loescher, M.F. Cotrufo, A. Don, M. SanClements, L. Schipper, et al. 2017. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nature Climate Change 7: 307–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chenu, C., D.A. Angers, P. Barré, D. Derrien, D. Arrouays, and J. Balesdent. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research 118: 42–51.Google Scholar
  5. Corbeels, M., K. Naudin, H. Guibert, E. Torquebiau, and R. Cardinael. 2019. Is 4 per 1000 soil carbon storage attainable with agroforestry and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa? Soil & Tillage Research 188: 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Vries, W. 2018. Soil carbon 4 per mille: A good initiative but let’s manage not only the soil but also the expectations: Comment on Minasny et al. (2017). Geoderma 292: 59–86.Google Scholar
  7. Diacono, M., and F. Montemurro. 2010. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agriculture for Sustainable Development 30: 401–422.Google Scholar
  8. Ditzler, L., T.A. Breland, C. Francis, M. Chakraborty, D.K. Singh, A. Srivastava, F. Eyhorn, J.C.J. Groot, et al. 2018. Identifying viable nutrient management interventions at the farm level: The case of smallholder organic Basmati rice production in Uttarakhand, India. Agricultural Systems 161: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank, S., P. Havlík, J.F. Soussana, A. Levesque, H. Valin, L. Wollenberg, U. Kleinwechter, O. Fricko, et al. 2017. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environmental Research Letters 12: 105004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fujisaki, K., T. Chevallier, L. Chapuis-Lardy, A. Albrecht, T. Razafimbelo, D. Masse, and J.-L. Chotte. 2018. Soil carbon stock changes in tropical croplands are mainly driven by carbon inputs: A synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 259: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchinson, J.J., C.A. Campbell, and R. Desjardins. 2007. Some perspectives on carbon sequestration in agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142: 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In Prepared by the national greenhouse gas Inventories programme, eds. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe. Japan: IGES.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, R.B., E.G. Jobbágy, R. Avissar, S.R. Baidya, D.F. Barrett, C.W. Cook, K.A. Farley, D.C. le Maitre, et al. 2005. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 5756: 1944–1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirkby, C.A., A.E. Richardson, L.J. Wade, J.B. Passioura, G.D. Batten, C. Blanchard, and J.A. Kirkegaard. 2014. Nutrient availability limits carbon storage in agricultural soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 68: 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kon Kam King, J., C. Granjou, J. Fournil, and L. Cecillon. 2018. Soil sciences and the French 4 per 1000 Initiative—The promises of underground carbon. Energy Research & Social Science 45: 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ladha, J.K., C.K. Reddy, A.T. Padre, and C.V. Kessel. 2011. Role of nitrogen fertilization in sustaining organic matter in cultivated soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 40: 1756–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304: 1623–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lal, R. 2019. Promoting “4 Per Thousand” and “Adapting African Agriculture” by south-south cooperation: Conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification. Soil and Tillage Research 118: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leifeld, J., and L. Menichetti. 2018. The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nature Communications 9: 1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lugato, E., A. Leip, and A. Jones. 2018. Mitigation potential of soil carbon management overestimated by neglecting N2O emissions. Nature Climate Change 8: 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maroušek, J., M. Vochozka, J. Plachý, and J. Žák. 2017. Glory and misery of biochar. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 19: 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Minasny, B., D. Arrouays, A.B. McBratney, D.A. Angers, A. Chambers, V. Chaplot, and L. Winowiecki. 2018. Rejoinder to Comments on Minasny et al., 2017 Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292: 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nath, J.A., R. Lal, G.W. Siles, K. Dasa, and A.K. Das. 2018. Managing India’s small landholder farms for food security and achieving the “4 per Thousand” target. The Science of the Total Environment 634: 1024–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pan, W.L., W.S. Schillinger, F.L. Young, E. Kirby, and G.G. Yorgey, et al. 2017. Integrating old principles and new technologies into win-win scenarios for farm and climate. Frontiers in Environmental Science.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00076.
  25. Paustian, K., J. Lehmann, S. Ogle, D. Reay, G.P. Robertson, and P. Smith. 2016. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pingali, P.L. 2012. Green revolution: impacts, limits and the path ahead. PNAS 109: 12302–12308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pittelkow, C.M., X. Liang, B.A. Linquist, K.J. van Groenigen, J. Lee, M.E. Lundy, N. van Gestel, J. Six, et al. 2015. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517: 365–368.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poeplau, C., and A. Don. 2015. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200: 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poulton, P., J. Johnston, A. MacDonald, R. White, and D. Powlson. 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 12: 3218–3221.Google Scholar
  30. Powlson, D.S., A.P. Whitmore, and A.W.T. Goulding. 2011. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. European Journal of Soil Science 62: 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rumpel, C., F. Amiraslani, L.-S. Koutika, P. Smith, D. Whitehead, and E. Wollenberg. 2018. Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature 564: 32–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanderman, J., C. Creamer, W.T. Baisden, M. Farrell, and S. Fallon. 2017. Greater soil carbon stocks and faster turnover rates with increasing agricultural productivity. Soil 3: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scharlemann, J.P.W., E.V.J. Tanner, R. Hiederer, and V. Kapos. 2014. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Manag. 5: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schiefer, J., G.J. Lair, C. Lüthgens, E.M. Wild, P. Steiner, and W.H. Blum. 2018. The increase of soil organic carbon as proposed by the “4/1000 initiative” is strongly limited by the status of soil development—A case study along a substrate age gradient in Central Europe. The Science of the Total Environment 628–629: 840–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, P. 2016. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Global Change Biology 22: 1315–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, P., S.J. Davis, F. Creutzig, S. Fuss, J. Minx, B. Gabrielle, et al. 2016. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 6: 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sommer, R., and D. Bossio. 2014. Dynamics and climate change mitigation potential of soil organic carbon sequestration. Journal Environmental Management 144: 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soussana, J.F., S. Lutfalla, R. Lal, C. Chenu, and P. Ciais. 2017. Letter to the editor: answer to the viewpoint “sequestering soil organic carbon: a nitrogen dilemma” by van Groenigen et al. (2017). Environmental Science and Technology 51: 11502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soussana, J.F., S. Lutfalla, F. Ehrhardt, T. Rosenstock, C. Lamanna, P. Havlík, and R. Lal. 2019. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the “4 per 1000 - soils for food security and climate” initiative. Soil and Tillage Research 188: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B.L. Befort. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Science USA 108: 20260–20264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trost, B., A. Prochnow, K. Drastig, A. Meyer-Aurich, F. Ellmer, and M. Baumecker. 2013. Irrigation, soil organic carbon and N2O emissions. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 733–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UNFCCC. 2018. Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (decision 4/CP.23).Google Scholar
  43. Van Groenigen, J.W., C. Van Kessel, B.A. Hungate, O. Oenema, D.S. Powlson, and K.J. Van Groenigen. 2017. Sequestering soil organic carbon: A nitrogen dilemma. Environmental Science and Technology 51: 4738–4739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. VandenBygaart, A.J. 2018. Comments on soil carbon 4 per mille by Minasny et al. 2017. Geoderma 309: 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White, R.E., B. Davidson, S.K. Lam, and D. Chen. 2018. A critique of the paper “Soil carbon 4 per mille” by Minasny et al. (2017). Geoderma 309: 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, Institute for Ecology and Environmental SciencesThiverval-GrignonFrance
  2. 2.Department of RS/GIS, Faculty of GeographyUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  3. 3.AgroParisTech, UMR Ecosys INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-SaclayThiverval-GrignonFrance
  4. 4.Faculty of EngineeringUniversidad Mayor de San AndrésLa PazBolivia
  5. 5.Cambridge Center for EnvironmentCambridgeUK
  6. 6.CRDPIPointe-NoireRepublic of the Congo
  7. 7.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  8. 8.Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, National Rice and Bean Research Center (Embrapa Arroz e Feijão)Santo Antônio de GoiásBrazil
  9. 9.National Agriculture and Food Research OrganizationTsukubaJapan
  10. 10.Institute of Biological & Environmental SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  11. 11.Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan IIRabatMorocco
  12. 12.INRA, Institut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueParisFrance
  13. 13.Manaaki Whenua − Landcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand
  14. 14.Gund Institute for EnvironmentUniversity of Vermont and CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food SecurityBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations