Comment on: "Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and resources: a critique" by Edixhoven et al. (2014) – clarifying comments and thoughts on key conceptions, conclusions and interpretation to allow for sustainable action

Several recent papers deal with concerns about the longevity of the supply of the mineral phosphorus. The paper by Edixhoven et al. (2014), for instance, expresses doubts about whether the upward estimate of reserves by the IFDC (2006, 2010) and the USGS (2010) provides an accurate, reliable, and comparable picture, as it is based on reports that do not clearly differentiate between phosphate ore and phosphate products (i.e., marketable phosphate rock concentrate). Further, the indistinct use of the terms reserves and resources is criticized. Edixhoven et al. (2014) call for a differentiated inventory of world phosphate reserves including "guidelines which determine the appropriate drill hole distances and a detailed granularity". The claim that "humanity is on the safe side" with respect to future phosphate supply is doubted, as the validity of the IFDC's upgrading of the Moroccan data to 50 Gt phosphate is questioned. The main achievement of Edixhoven et al. (2014) is to elaborate that in the literature frequently used data on phosphate rock ore and phosphate concentrate are not properly distinguished, resulting in incorrect summary figures. In addition, it is commendable to raise the question how transparency concerning reserve and resources data and information on the geopotential of phosphate can be achieved because phosphorus is a special element. As fertilizer, it cannot be substituted and there are no unlimited resources as for the other main nutrients potassium in sea water and nitrogen in the air. However, the paper by Edixhoven et al. (2014) contains in the opinion of the authors some incorrect statements. Our comment elaborates first that several statements, such as that the upgrading of the Moroccan data is "solely based" on one scientific paper, are incorrect. Secondly, the paper comments on and illuminates a set of, in our opinion, misleading statements. These include the fact that the dynamic nature of reserves (which depend on price, technology, innovation for exploiting low-grade deposits, etc.) is acknowledged, but the right conclusions are not drawn, including the mixing of finiteness and staticness, and the way in which the critique of the USGS upgrading of the Moroccan reserves has been linked to Peak P. In particular, we clarify that reserves are primarily company data that serve mining companies for their strategic planning and may, by no means, be used as proxy data for providing global Peak P estimates. Likewise, we elaborate that