Know more

Our use of cookies

Cookies are a set of data stored on a user’s device when the user browses a web site. The data is in a file containing an ID number, the name of the server which deposited it and, in some cases, an expiry date. We use cookies to record information about your visit, language of preference, and other parameters on the site in order to optimise your next visit and make the site even more useful to you.

To improve your experience, we use cookies to store certain browsing information and provide secure navigation, and to collect statistics with a view to improve the site’s features. For a complete list of the cookies we use, download “Ghostery”, a free plug-in for browsers which can detect, and, in some cases, block cookies.

Ghostery is available here for free:

You can also visit the CNIL web site for instructions on how to configure your browser to manage cookie storage on your device.

In the case of third-party advertising cookies, you can also visit the following site:, offered by digital advertising professionals within the European Digital Advertising Alliance (EDAA). From the site, you can deny or accept the cookies used by advertising professionals who are members.

It is also possible to block certain third-party cookies directly via publishers:

Cookie type

Means of blocking

Analytical and performance cookies

Google Analytics

Targeted advertising cookies


The following types of cookies may be used on our websites:

Mandatory cookies

Functional cookies

Social media and advertising cookies

These cookies are needed to ensure the proper functioning of the site and cannot be disabled. They help ensure a secure connection and the basic availability of our website.

These cookies allow us to analyse site use in order to measure and optimise performance. They allow us to store your sign-in information and display the different components of our website in a more coherent way.

These cookies are used by advertising agencies such as Google and by social media sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Among other things, they allow pages to be shared on social media, the posting of comments, and the publication (on our site or elsewhere) of ads that reflect your centres of interest.

Our EZPublish content management system (CMS) uses CAS and PHP session cookies and the New Relic cookie for monitoring purposes (IP, response times).

These cookies are deleted at the end of the browsing session (when you log off or close your browser window)

Our EZPublish content management system (CMS) uses the XiTi cookie to measure traffic. Our service provider is AT Internet. This company stores data (IPs, date and time of access, length of the visit and pages viewed) for six months.

Our EZPublish content management system (CMS) does not use this type of cookie.

For more information about the cookies we use, contact INRA’s Data Protection Officer by email at or by post at:

24, chemin de Borde Rouge –Auzeville – CS52627
31326 Castanet Tolosan CEDEX - France

Dernière mise à jour : Mai 2018

Menu Logo Principal

CIRCASA project

Interview with Dr. Emanuele Lugato

JRC researcher stresses the importance of studying the carbon and nitrogen cycles in a combined way

The recent paper “Mitigation potential of soil carbon management overestimated by neglecting N2O emissions” sparked a lively debate among the scientific community working on climate change mitigation, which in turn brought the issue to the attention of different stakeholders. The study, which presents a process-based model application using about 8,000 soil sampling locations in the EU, may apparently dampen the enthusiasm for international initiatives on carbon sequestration in agricultural soils such as the ‘4p1000’. We interviewed Emanuele Lugato (EU Commission - JRC), lead author of the paper to understand a bit more about this study and the possible policy implications of these research findings.


Dr. Lugato, in your opinion, what is the main shortcoming of the 4p1000 initiative? Has it perhaps failed to take into account the N cycle?

“If you look at the scientific literature, there are a lot of inputs and comments about the 4p1000 initiative. I think it is a good initiative to raise awareness on soils and their potential for carbon sequestration. Indeed, there are many positive aspects. However, a criticism is that the initiative is focused on a global soil carbon pool and that regional characteristics and constraints are not sufficiently considered. For instance, I think that permafrost and high-latitude regions should be given particular attention. So, I believe that the initiative could be a bit more targeted to understand the local dimensions, in particular for agricultural soil that can be actively managed to sequester carbon. In fact, agricultural soils are, generally, far from carbon saturation compared to soils under other land use and not nitrogen limited, a constraint that was raised to criticize the global 4p1000 target.  On the other hand, to really mitigate climate change, we cannot look at the C cycle in isolation. In the paper, we explain that there may be a risk of offsetting the carbon sequestration capacity if C management is supplying additional N leading to possible higher N2O emissions. 

For these reasons, the overall 4p1000 approach risks being too simplistic. I think we should regard this initiative as an important statement, whose value currently lies more in its broad message than in its scientific aspects”.

Reading your paper, the focus really seems to be on the nitrogen cycle: is there a need for further research in this field? Or where should future research look at?

“In the paper, we acknowledge that accumulating carbon in agricultural soils is, of course important, but at the same time, we stress that this does not automatically equate to climate change mitigation. While the application of nitrogen-fixing cover crops can yield important effects in terms of C accumulation in the short term, altering the nitrogen cycle actually leads to higher net emissions in the long term. So, when the 4p1000 talks about mitigation, it should not forget about the central role of nitrogen: as the carbon sink reaches equilibrium in the long-term, emissions of N2O could continue permanently. It is in light of these important factors that we wanted to be somewhat provocative and explorative in our paper.

As far as scientific research is concerned, I would not say that there is a lack of research on the nitrogen cycle. The same could be said for the carbon cycle. What is actually needed is more integrated research that investigates the two cycles together, in a systematic way. Since there are feedbacks between the two, we should definitely look at them as combined issues.”

What would you respond if someone said that your model cannot be fully representative since it only includes two scenarios of mitigation practice options all over Europe? One may say that these two options are just a few from the whole puzzle.

“This is true, but the purpose of our paper was not to explore a full set of management practices. That would have not been possible in the scope of a single academic paper and perhaps is not even realistic to cover all the possible scenarios. What we wanted to do is to highlight the effects of large-scale feedback and to do that we chose two scenarios among the possible options. The purpose of our paper was purely to highlight the biophysical response of agroecosystems and to raise awareness about it. We did not aim to make recommendations. But I think that one of the strengths of our work is that we have the appropriate tools to help identify the best policy options in the European Union. So, if we could summarise the message of our paper in a few words, I think that it would be: “do not forget nitrogen if you want to mitigate climate change!”