TY  - GEN
TI  - Rejoinder to Comments on Minasny et al., 2017 Soil carbon 4 per mille Geoderma 292, 59–86
AU  - Minasny, Budiman
AU  - Arrouays, Dominique
AU  - McBratney, Alex.B
AU  - Angers, Denis A
AU  - Chambers, Adam
AU  - Chaplot, Vincent
AU  - Chen, Zueng-Sang
AU  - Cheng, Kun
AU  - Das, Bhabani S
AU  - Field, Damien J
AU  - Gimona, Alessandro
AU  - Hedley, Carolyn
AU  - Hong, Suk Young
AU  - Mandal, Biswapati
AU  - Malone, Brendan P
AU  - Marchant, Ben P
AU  - Martin, Manuel
AU  - McConkey, Brian G
AU  - Mulder, Vera Leatitia
AU  - O'Rourke, Sharon
AU  - Richer-de-Forges, Anne C
AU  - Odeh, Inakwu
AU  - Padarian, José
AU  - Paustian, Keith
AU  - Pan, Genxing
AU  - Poggio, Laura
AU  - Savin, Igor
AU  - Stolbovoy, Vladimir
AU  - Stockmann, Uta
AU  - Sulaeman, Yiyi
AU  - Tsui, Chun-Chih
AU  - Vågen, Tor-Gunnar
AU  - van Wesemael, Bas
AU  - Winowiecki, Leigh
PY  - 2018
PB  - Elsevier BV
LA  - eng
KW  - Soil Science
AB  - We thank the authors for their thought-provoking comments on our paper. Most of the commentators agree that soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration is important for improving the quality of soil, however they argue that we have overstated the potential of soil carbon sequestration. We welcome the comments and appreciate that the issue of SOC sequestration has always been somewhat factious (Schlesinger, 2000). We shall address the significance of the quantity "4 per mille", reported sequestration rates, the limitation of carbon sequestration with time, and nutrient requirements. We clarify that our paper (Minasny et al., 2017) mainly deals with potentials for the 20 countries and regions, where SOC sequestration can also be seen as a way to improving the resilience of the soil to future climate change, that is, improving adaptation rather than mitigation. We believe that in some parts of the world where food security is threatened, the benefit of soil carbon management for adaptation should be stressed more than for mitigation. This is the reason why the 4 per mille initiative explicitly includes food security (Chabbi et al., 2017; Soussana et al., 2015). We need to add that the "4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate" initiative is just one of many national and global initiatives on SOC sequestration for mitigating climate change. The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) of the Global Soil Partnership (GSP) discussed incorporating the topic of SOC in the IPCC Assessment Report (ARs), from AR6 onwards. The IPCC has also put a focus on soil in their upcoming special report "Climate Change and Land" (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr2/). The recent FAO Global Symposium (GSOC17) assembled experts engaged in FAO, GSP and its ITPS, IPCC, UNCCD-SPI and WMO activities to work together for the common goal of appropriate SOC management as part of overall sustainable soil management within the climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable development, Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and food security agendas (http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/soil-organic-carbon-symposium/en/). The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) focused on opportunities to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and increase soil carbon sequestration while still helping to meet food security objectives (http://globalresearchalliance.org/about/). The Common Agriculture Policy in the EU is currently being revised to include the potential use of SOC as an indicator. The 4 per mille initiative was launched at COP21, where the Paris Agreement was adopted, and one of the main aims of the Paris Agreement is to stop the planet from warming an additional two Celsius degrees. The two-degree target, although suggested by scientists through modelling work, was chosen more for political and pragmatic reasons whereby countries could agree on a target that they could work towards (Tollefson, 2015). And of course, there are many scientific critiques of this target (Knutti et al., 2016). Similarly, the 4 per mille initiative comes from a politically-driven aspiration, and our paper (Minasny et al., 2017) is a response to such an aspiration, to seek and outline possibilities based on current knowledge. The important concept is that soil and agriculture are part of the solution, and it is an interim and evidence-based solution that we can implement. Now we shall respond to each of the commentaries.
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/207832
DO  - 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.026
UR  - https://www.pollux-fid.de/r/base-ftunistlouisbrus:oai:dial.uclouvain.be:boreal:207832
H1  - Pollux (Fachinformationsdienst Politikwissenschaft)
ER  -