A critique of the paper ‘Soil carbon 4 per mille’ by Minasny et al. (2017)

Can changes in forest management contribute to the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere? Literature review, discussion and Polish example

“…The paper analyses the role of forestation of the tree stand, forest soil and yards storing fuel wood (wood storage). I agree with the statements of Minasny et al (2017) and White et al (2018) that 'only radical land use change coupled with enhanced C sequestration technology has the potential to mitigate climate change'. On the basis of the collected materials, it was found that the most important role in this process can be forest soil.…”

“…Minasny et al (2017) summarize SOC accumulation rates for various countries and climatic conditions as: afforestation (~0.6 t C/ha/yr), conversion to pasture (~0.5 t C/ha/yr), organic amendments (~0.5 t C/ha/yr), residue incorporation (~0.35 t C/ha/yr), no or reduced till (~0.3 t C/ha/yr), and crop rotation (~0.2 t C/ha/yr). While the soil organic carbon (SOC) rates for organic amendments, residue incorporation, no or reduced till and crop rotation may be considered disputable, as it was indicated by White et al (2017) that the figures for afforestation and conversion to pasture are fully justified. For this reason, these measures may contribute to increased SOC and in turn promote the realisation of the COP 21 guidelines.…”

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

“…More specific criticisms of the Initiative in relation to biophysical, agronomic and socioeconomic issues are presented in Table 1 and discussed below. These include (1) biophysical limits (demands in terms of water, nutrients and energy), and other barriers such as (2) the trade-off effects, (3) climate change effects and (4) the socioeconomic implications for the agricultural sector, including cultural issues and governance (Baveye et al, 2018;de Vries 2017;van den Bygaaert 2017;White et al, 2018;van Groeningen et al, 2017;Poulton et al, 2018).…”

“…Farmers are likely to implement management changes only if there are clear cobenefits, in terms of yields and long-term economic profitability. Some authors have suggested that the achievement of 0.4% SOC increase will not be feasible since farmers are unlikely to adopt new management practices given the low trading price of carbon and more profitable alternative uses of carbon-rich materials (White et al, 2018;Poulton et al, 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, United Kingdom

“…This is especially relevant in the light of the reported widespread incidence of land degradation globally (UNCCD, 2017). However, there have been significant criticisms of the initiative by several authors (van Groeningen, van Kessel, Hungate, & Oenema, 2017;Baveye, Berthelin, Tessier, & Lemaire, 2018;de Vries, 2018;VandenBygaart, 2018;White, Davidson, Lam, & Chen, 2018), suggesting that there are many situations where the 4& rate of increase in SOC is not feasible for land managers in practical situations and that some of the experimental examples given by are not representative of what is practically achievable in wide-scale agriculture. There also appear to be differences of opinion as to whether the 4& goal is a specific target, an aspiration goal or even "more of a concept (or even a slogan)" as suggested by Minasny et al (2018).…”