Chapter 4. Environmental, health and socio-economic impacts of soil pollution

Socio-economic impacts of soil pollution

The effects of soil pollution on the environment and human health have been discussed in previous chapters and sections, but environmental degradation and loss of life-quality clearly affects our societies and economies. The information previously presented illustrates that soil pollution is a global problem, but are the effects the same for everyone everywhere on the planet? This section focuses on answering this question.

4.4.1. Social impacts of soil pollution

As discussed in the previous sections, the population groups most susceptible to health impacts from soil pollution are foetuses, children and pregnant women, but other vulnerable population groups are often overlooked, such as the poor (Figure 29). As shown in Figure 14, low- and middle-income countries exhibit the highest rates of environmentally attributable mortality and burden of diseases, but differences exist between the health status of different social groups within a country (Prüss-Ustün et al., 2016). The world’s most impoverished people are often associated with ethnic and religious minority groups, both in developing and more developed countries (Sexton, 2014). As the Lancet report on pollution and health clearly reflects, pollution disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable: “nearly 92 percent of pollution-related deaths occur in low-income and middle-income countries and, in countries at every income level, disease caused by pollution is most prevalent among minorities and the marginalised” (Landrigan et al., 2018). The most impoverished countries and regions have the least access to clean technologies, to pollution remediation technologies, and the environmental and food safety regulations are often weaker (Haller, Flores-Carmenate and Jonsson, 2020). In addition, these poor populations are often settled near or in contaminated areas, and are frequently targeted by the installation of new potentially polluting activities such as mines or landfills (Banzhaf et al., 2017; Johnston and Hricko, 2017; Skelton and Miller, 2016).

Figure 29. Main criteria that accentuate vulnerability to soil pollution.

Apart from differences in exposure to soil pollution and access to clean green spaces and healthy food, other socio-economic aspects play a role in the unequal distribution of the burden of disease attributed to the environment, such as access to public health services or health insurance, environmental and urban development policies and access to clean technologies (Mackie and Haščič, 2019; Walker, Mitchell and Pearce, 2018). However, given the complexity of these factors and the broad scope, an in-depth analysis of these factors is not included in this publication, but must be considered in future works.

With a large part of the world’s population moving from rural areas to urban centres (Figure 30), especially in less developed countries (Figure 31), large cities are expanding and occupying former peri-urban agricultural and industrial land that could present different concentrations and mixtures of contaminants (Luyckx, Tonelli and Stanifer, 2018). Urban sprawl often comes at the expense of prime agricultural land, threatening food security and disproportionately affecting minority groups on these farms who suffer the loss of their land and livelihoods while being exposed to soil contaminants. The most disadvantaged groups, ethnic minorities and lowest-income families are being relegated to these areas and could be exposed to higher environmental risks with less access to clean, green areas (O’Brien et al., 2017; Pasetto, Mattioli and Marsili, 2019). As reflected in the Ostrava Declaration adopted by WHO European Region members at the Sixth International Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health, environmental pollution affects the most vulnerable populations hardest, exacerbating inequalities and making the Sustainable Development Goals difficult to achieve (WHO, 2017c).

Figure 30. Growth rates of urban and rural populations for the period 1950 to 2018.

Source: developed from FAOSTAT, 2019.

Figure 31. Urban population growth between 1990 and 2019. 29 countries have experienced a decrease in the percentage of urban population, although only Armenia, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, and Poland have experienced a decrease in the total population in the same period.

Source: UN, 2020 modified with data from World Bank, 2019.

In addition, due to urban expansion, industries are relocating to smaller communities, where control measures are less strict (Pecina et al., 2021). Villages and small towns engaged in home-based businesses or small manufacturing and recycling enterprises are mostly inhabited by low-income families, many of whom belong to ethnic minorities, and who often have to choose between production associated with the use of toxic compounds for their livelihoods and their health, with the latter often disadvantaged in the decision (Johnston and Hricko, 2017). “It is better to have something to eat today and die in a year from pollution than to starve today”, as the old chief of a village in the Red River delta of Vietnam explains (Dang, Mahanty and Mackay, 2013). As a result, the percentage of the population directly exposed to soil pollution is expected to increase in the coming decades if adequate political actions and planning are not advanced.

While many of the studies linking socio-economic status and/or ethnicity to risk of exposure to environmental hazards focus primarily on air or noise pollution, some relevant papers exist that demonstrate inequalities in exposure to soil and land pollution and health outcomes (Casey et al., 2017; Samoli et al., 2019). The statistics of the Healthy People 2020 report provided by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion of the United States of America Government show clear examples of these disparities (ODPHP, 2017). Cancer deaths in the American population have gradually declined since 2007, but the number of cases per 100 000 population remains significantly higher in African-Americans than in non-Latino or Hispanic Whites. While 4.9 foetal deaths per 1 000 live births plus foetal deaths after 20 weeks of gestation were recorded in 2017 for non-Latino or Hispanic Whites, this rate rose to 10.0 for Blacks or African-Americans (ODPHP, 2017). Exposure to environmental contaminants also shows disparities and remains higher for ethnic minorities. For example, arsenic exposure indicated by blood and urine levels was three times higher in Asian American populations than in white American populations in 2017, while levels of BDE (a flame retardant from the PBDEs family) ranged from 242 ng/g lipid in African Americans to 163 ng/g lipid in non-Latino or Hispanic whites (ODPHP, 2017). Egendorf and co-workers also pointed out that the children from the most deprived communities are more exposed to soil contaminants (Egendorf et al., 2020).

Similar results have also been reported in other regions and countries. The WHO Regional Office for Europe compiled several publications reflecting an increased incidence of health risks associated with social inequalities in different countries in the region (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2010). One of the publications cited in this report showed that industrial activities and waste management facilities (landfills and incinerators) are mainly located in areas with the lowest household incomes in Italy, England and Wales (Forastiere et al., 2011). More deprived populations are usually located in areas with a lower access to safe urban green areas, which affects human health, development and well-being (Liotta et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2017). In addition, other publications suggest that the Roma and migrant populations in Central and Eastern Europe are disproportionally exposed to environmental hazards (CEPL, HEAL and The Coalition for Environmental Justice, 2007). From a more local perspective, Flacke and co-workers (2016) analysed the differences in environmental indicators between districts in the German city of Dortmund, observing that those districts with a more impoverished population had the lowest environmental quality, which refers to higher levels of air and noise pollution and less availability of green areas (Flacke et al., 2016). In this context, the term of environmental justice must be mentioned. According to US EPA, environmental justice refers to “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (US EPA, 2014). When talking about environmental justice in terms of pollution, other considerations related to human health and well-being must be included (Figure 32). Thus, environmental justice also refers to equitable exposure to environmental risk factors and the burden of disease attributable to the environment, regardless of income level or ethnicity, as well as an equitable distribution of environmental benefits or ecosystem services, such as access to healthy green spaces, safe food and a clean indoor and outdoor environment (Johnson, 2011).

Figure 32. Key principles of environmental justice in the context of soil pollution.

The social and scientific movements emerged in the United States, but international movements promoting environmental justice have emerged worldwide, recognizing the negative relationship between socio-economic differences, environmental quality and health outcomes (Nadybal et al., 2020). However, the body of evidence is unevenly distributed, with much information for the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand (Pearce et al., 2011), while for other countries or regions such studies are virtually non-existent or in the very early stages (Pasetto, Mattioli and Marsili, 2019). The Environmental Justice Atlas¹² aims to give visibility to the mobilisation of social groups against environmental conflicts and provides a rough idea of the existing pollution load in each region. The inequitable exposure to pollution varies between regions, countries and also within countries, cities and neighbourhoods, so that site-specific data must be analysed to establish the best policies and technical measures to apply in each case (Mackie and Haščič, 2019). Therefore, progress must also be made in collecting epidemiological and demographic data with comparison to geo-referenced data on pollution sources. Based on the information provided in the previous sections and that presented in the regional assessments in Chapter 6, we are far from achieving environmental justice for all. However, new approaches of citizen science observatories¹³ and awareness-raising platforms can contribute to democratise the access to soil pollution information and the actions to reduce risk for all (Filippelli et al., 2020).

Poverty and a less robust political and legislative system is often seen as the Achilles heel of least developed countries in tackling greener and more sustainable growth. However, past experiences have shown that poorer countries are not totally unable to address soil pollution problems, but often lack the technical capacity and technologies to do so. This makes the transfer of knowledge and technologies from more developed countries essential to address socio-economic disparities caused by environmental degradation, although knowledge transfer must be aligned and integrated with indigenous and local knowledge to achieve community acceptance. As Hilton pointed out, many developing countries were able to quickly adopt regulations and measures to reduce lead in gasoline once developed countries shared technological advances and sound data on health impact (Hilton, 2006). This point was also highlighted by the countries contributing to this report, of which almost 40 percent indicated that lack of access to appropriate technology to remediate polluted soils is the main technical constraint to addressing pollution problems (Figure 33). There was greater agreement when considering the financial constraints to tackling soil pollution effectively, with more than half of the respondents considering the lack of incentives for medium- or long-term remediation or reclamation interventions as the main barrier in their country mitigating the effects of soil pollution.

Figure 33. Technical barriers to the abatement of soil pollution according to the perception of the experts who contributed to the questionnaire indicated in Chapter 1.

Many of the environmental justice principles are also addressed in the 2030 Agenda, so it seems clear that environmental justice should be taken into account when planning actions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, making progress in achieving food security through healthy, safe and nutritious food (SDG 2), while promoting access to clean and sufficient water and sanitation (SDG 6), will enable progress towards a healthier life (SDG 6), which also requires and at the same time enables access to a healthy environment (SDG 14 and SDG 15). All of these aspects, if achieved, would promote greater environmental justice for the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution as an indispensable prerequisite. However, Menton and co-workers (2020) argue that the SDGs have some weaknesses that will not guarantee the achievement of environmental justice, especially those goals and targets that focus on governmental action and give less importance to social participation (SDG 16), which is fundamental to environmental conservation and protection (Menton et al., 2020). The prioritisation of economic growth (SDG 8) and the vague recognition of inequality in access to resources is another weakness that Menton’s team identifies in their paper; the consideration of income as the sole indicator of poverty could increase the risk of exposure to contaminants and thus environmental injustice. This could lead to the installation of industries and extractive activities in poorer regions that would slightly increase the incomes of local populations directly or indirectly, while polluting soils and water and thus jeopardising rights of access to a safe environment for these populations (Menton et al., 2020).

Therefore, there is still a substantial work ahead to achieve environmental justice for all and to significantly reduce the unequal exposure of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, not through equitable risk sharing but by reducing the risk posed by soil pollution globally through prevention, control and remediation actions. To this end, international cooperation is essential in terms of knowledge and technology transfer, but also in the advancement of international regulatory mechanisms.

4.4.2. Economic costs of soil pollution

Soil pollution has a direct cost of remediation and management that is easily perceived by society and policy makers. The cost of identifying and characterizing potentially polluted soils is very high, and risk management strategies are often applied, which rely on a more detailed desk study, which is often less costly than laboratory analysis of multiple samples. The cost of remediation varies from site to site depending on the characteristics of the site, such as the size of the affected area, the concentration of contaminants, the environmental compartments to be remediated (topsoil, vadose zone, groundwater, surface water), the protective measures for the population during the remediation work, the acceptable level to be achieved depending on the land use after remediation, as well as the technology chosen (Darmendrail et al., 2004). Some of the countries contributing to this report indicated that they spend an average ranging from tens of thousands of dollars annually, as reported by countries such as Ecuador or the Kingdom of Eswatini, to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually, as in the case of Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, or Belgium. National experts estimate that the cost of remediating all polluted soils in China could run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

There are, however, other indirect costs that are often neglected, leading to underestimation of the impacts of soil pollution (Figure 34). Many ecosystem services are hampered by soil pollution (see section 3), losing productivity and resilience in the long term. An example of estimating the cost of pollution due to loss of ecosystem services was carried out by Garcia and co-workers in relation to the collapse of the Samarco Corporation mine-tailings dam. The authors estimated that the toxic sludge affected over 8 million hectares and resulted in the loss of ecosystem services worth USD 521 million per year (Garcia et al., 2017).

Figure 34. Quantifiable economic losses due to soil pollution are loss of soil productivity and reduction of crop yields, contamination of food products and loss of marketability, reduction of biodiversity, and reduction of water quality.

Soil pollution reduces crop yields (Adrees et al., 2015; Aragón and Rud, 2016), and can contaminate food crops beyond regulatory thresholds, making those products unfit for market and hence affecting agricultural economics and farmers’ incomes (Kucher, Kazakova and Kucher, 2015). Soil pollution is estimated to be responsible for a loss of agricultural productivity of between 15 and 25 percent (Saha et al., 2017), although higher values have also been reported. In Ghana, Aragon and Rud estimated a 40 percent loss in agricultural productivity over eight years caused mainly by pollution from nearby mining areas (Aragón and Rud, 2016). In China, soil pollution is estimated to cause annual agricultural economic losses worth USD 20 billion due to lost productivity and food contamination (Zhou et al., 2020). However, relevant examples of contaminated food being withdrawn from the market or agricultural land abandoned due to soil pollution are rarely reported, except after major pollution accidents, as was the case after the Chernobyl accident, when more than 17 000 hectares of agricultural land were abandoned due to high levels of radiocesium-137 pollution in the area (Komissarova and Paramonova, 2019). Another example is the significant economic losses reported by rice farmers in many countries with cadmium-, copper-, and arsenic-polluted soils, with significant reduction in grain yields, which in the case of Bangladesh amounts to several million tonnes per year (Adrees et al., 2015; Huhmann et al., 2017). In addition, when farmers are unaware of the existence of contaminants in their soil, reduced yields are attributed to a lack of nutrients and this leads to increased use of fertilisers, increasing the cost to the farmer (Zhou et al., 2020).

Overall, severe soil pollution leads to land degradation and the inability to use the land for productive, residential and recreational uses, which ultimately leads to land abandonment and a depreciation of the price of adjacent land.

Other examples of disruption of the food supply chain have had a high media and economic impact. However, these cases were caused by pollution during the production chain rather than soil pollution, but provide an example of the importance of controlling contaminants in food, whatever the origin. In the summer of 1999 in Belgium, more than 1 800 pig, poultry, cattle and dairy farms received PCB-contaminated feed. Hundreds of tonnes of meat, dairy and chocolate products were withdrawn from the markets of 30 countries, at an estimated cost of USD 493 million to the Belgian agricultural sector, but the overall costs were much higher due to the loss of imported products by other countries (Buzby and Chandran, 2003). Almost ten years later, in 2008, a similar food crisis was repeated in Ireland. Around 8 percent of all Irish pork products were contaminated with dioxins and dl-PCBs (Tlustos, 2009). Some 30 000 tonnes of pork products were withdrawn from domestic and international markets and subsequently destroyed; about 170 000 pigs and 5 700 cattle were slaughtered. This incident cost the Irish exchequer more than 120 million euros along with loss of consumer confidence (Marnane, 2012).

Soil biodiversity is also threatened by soil pollution, which causes ecotoxicity and disruption to communities (see section 4.2.1.1) (FAO et al., 2020). Biodiversity plays a key role in food production, from pollination to pest control and improved plant growth (FAO et al., 2020). The OCDE estimated that the loss of all pollinators could cost the world producers USD 207 - 497 billion (OECD, 2019c). Loss of beneficial predators can ultimately lead to increased incidence of pests and diseases (Wilson and Tisdell, 2001). Farmers will therefore become increasingly dependent on pesticides to mitigate the effects of increased pest incidence, multiplying expenses and, at the same time, aggravating all the impacts caused by pesticide use, such as increased soil pollution, health effects and higher economic costs resulting from pesticide use and pesticide-related diseases (Wilson and Tisdell, 2001).

Soil pollution also causes a decrease in water quality. Nutrient leaching or mobilization by runoff lead to groundwater contamination and freshwater streams and ocean eutrophication (Quemada et al., 2013). Mobilization of other soil contaminants also cause ecotoxicity in aquatic and marine communities, affecting aquatic biodiversity and the productivity of aquatic and marine ecosystems (see section 4.2.3), leading to significant economic losses in commercial and recreational fisheries (Parris, 2011). Land-based activities, and hence soil pollution, are responsible for over 80 percent of marine pollution (Cicin-Sain et al., 2011). Taking the English agricultural sector as an example, the annual estimated cost of removing soil contaminants (nitrates, phosphates, pesticides and pathogens) to meet drinking water standards and ecological restoration of watercourses affected by eutrophication amounted to GBP 230 million (about USD 315 million), as calculated in 1996 (Pretty et al., 2000). More recent estimates attribute a cost of up to USD 340 billion to the American population from nitrogen pollution alone (Sobota et al., 2015). The global cost of water pollution could be billions of USD annually (FAO and IWMI, 2018). Drinking and irrigation water pollution requires either increased technological investment to remove the contaminants or increased economic and social costs by requiring water to be brought in from distant, uncontaminated sources (Menton et al., 2020).

On the other hand, the economic cost of soil pollution-related diseases and loss of human productivity are often overlooked (Shakeel and Amal, 2011). Many diseases attributed to soil pollution are chronic and require costly treatment over many years. These cause recurrent temporary sick leave leading to a reduction or effective loss of workforce and productive capacity (Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012; Hanna and Oliva, 2015). It is very difficult to quantify the total cost of disease related to soil pollution because of the multiple aspects needed to be accounted for, including direct medical costs, indirect health-related costs such as time lost from school or work, decreased economic productivity and production losses resulting from premature death (Landrigan et al., 2018). All these externalities of soil pollution have an economic impact, but these indirect costs are rarely considered when estimating the cost of soil or environmental pollution. The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health estimates that productivity losses due to pollution-related diseases could amount for between 0.6 and 0.8 per cent and 1.3 and 1.9 per cent of GDP in lower-middle-income and low-income countries, respectively. In upper-middle-income and high-income countries, pollution-related diseases may be worth billions of USD per year (Landrigan et al., 2018).

4.4.3. Benefits and trade-offs between soil pollution and the SDGs

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted an international strategy to address global challenges, reduce inequalities and ensure a future for generations to come. This strategy was materialised in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets. As already mentioned in previous chapters and sections, soil pollution is closely related to the SDGs, both positively and negatively. This section aims to briefly describe the interrelationships between different SDGs in relation to soil pollution and how action and inaction will determine their achievement (Unsustainable agricultural practices are a major source of soil pollution, especially in Europe, America and Asia. Excessive use of agrochemicals leads to soil pollution, loss of water quality and eutrophication of freshwater and marine environments. It is estimated that around 80 percent of nitrogen and between one- and three-quarters of the phosphorus applied to agricultural land is lost through leaching and erosion and enters the environment (Wurtsbaugh, Paerl and Dodds, 2019). The loss of productivity in coastal ecosystems not only threatens the survival of species in these ecosystems, but also the livelihoods of many indigenous and vulnerable populations.

On the other hand, progress that can be made towards achieving SDG 9 on education will significantly benefit soil pollution prevention. In this regard, the 2018 World Soil Day and other awareness-raising activities carried out by the Global Soil Partnership on soil pollution are a good example of the benefit of education and awareness-raising as they have made a substantial contribution to raising awareness of the fundamental role of each individual in preventing pollution. Progress on SDG 11 on industry, innovation and infrastructure, and especially with greater development and adoption of nature-based solutions will help prevent further soil pollution and contribute to developing cleaner production technologies, a reduction in the production of hazardous waste, and advancing more environmentally friendly pollution remediation technologies.

All the aforementioned data demonstrate the important role that soil pollution plays in achieving the goals set by the world’s leaders; however, soil pollution has barely been considered in two of the 169 targets (targets 3.9 and 12.4) and no indicators have been developed to quantify the progress made in controlling soil pollution, nor the real impacts on human health and the environment (Landrigan et al., 2018; UNSTAT, 2021).

Therefore, a priority for the international community is to invest in research, data collection on the concentration and spatial distribution of soil contaminants, and epidemiological to advance regulations, agreements and strategies to prevent and reduce soil pollution if we really want to achieve the goals set in the 2030 Agenda and ensure healthy soils for generations to come.

Table 4).

The clearest relationship, which has been widely discussed previously, is between poverty-food-water-health, but other aspects of the 2030 Agenda exist that are also directly influenced by and simultaneously influence soil pollution.

Poverty has been found to be associated with a higher burden of soil pollution, either because poorer countries and regions have less and laxer environmental regulation and/or because poorer populations are relegated to areas of lower environmental quality and hence lower economic value. About 79 per cent of people living in extreme poverty live in rural areas and depend heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods, mostly through agriculture (UNSTAT, 2021). Soil pollution reduces crop yields and quality, leading to reduced incomes for rural populations and exacerbating the burden of contaminants. In addition, the consumption of unsafe food leads to increased incidence of soil pollution-related diseases and increased morbidity and mortality, reducing the labour force and increasing the economic burden.

The poorest and most vulnerable populations also have less access to health services and clean water and sanitation. Children and vulnerable people are even more susceptible to the adverse health effects of soil pollution, chemicals and waste. In addition, soil pollution increases antimicrobial resistant bacteria, which reduces the effectiveness of existing antibiotics (see Section 4.2.1). Around 45 per cent of the world’s women work in vulnerable and informal jobs (World Bank, 2020), many in marginal agricultural areas, or as scavengers and recyclers (ILO, 2017), and tend to have reduced access to education and therefore have fewer resources and solutions to reduce their exposure to soil pollution.

About 80 percent of industrial and urban wastewater is discharged into the environment without prior treatment, increasing the rates of contaminants in soils and surface waters (FAO and IWMI, 2018). Although open defecation has more than halved in recent decades (UN Water, 2020), this still represents an important source of contaminants and pathogens to soils and water. These problems are most acute in poor countries, especially in the Global South. Poor water quality leads to serious health problems and reduced agricultural production due to the addition of multiple contaminants and salts to the soil (FAO and IWMI, 2018).

Around 65 percent of the world’s energy production comes from the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), which is a major source of environmental contaminants (OECD and IEA, 2014). Increasing the production of energy from renewable sources is therefore an imperative to reduce environmental impact. However, if poorly managed, the residues of the materials used in these clean energy sources could lead to soil pollution counteracting the environmental benefits (see Chapter 6, Asian region).

Current patterns of production and consumption continue to rely heavily on the extraction and overuse of natural resources. Global resource extraction has been growing steeply since the industrial revolution and if the current pattern continues, is estimated to reach levels of 180 to 200 billion tonnes by 2050, leading to rapid resource depletion, pollution and environmental degradation (UNEP, 2015). Planned obsolescence and the rapid development of technology lead to unprecedented rates of production, consumption and disposal (Keeble, 2013), generating an amount of waste with no technologies capable of processing to process it at the rate it is generated. This could release millions of tonnes of chemicals into the environment. The e-waste sector alone generated more than 50 million tonnes of waste in 2019 (Forti et al., 2020).

Despite the widespread adoption of the “polluter pays” principle, industry, mining and waste management that benefit the economic development of richer nations often have a direct negative impact on less developed countries, which see their resources exploited, their profits taken out of the country, and the wastes, contaminants and environmental degradation remaining. This also creates a problem of migration from less developed to developed countries. But as showed in the examples in section 4.4.1, environmental injustice and inequalities are not exclusive to the rich-poor country pair, but also occur at the local level within all countries of the world. To reduce inequalities between and within countries, transparency, accountability and access to accurate information are essential. Moreover, since technologies for detecting emerging contaminants are more advanced in developed countries, in addition to more environmentally friendly industrial production and soil pollution remediation technologies, active collaboration with the less developed nations to transfer knowledge and technologies would reduce the externalities of the activities in these third countries (Menton et al., 2020).

Unsustainable agricultural practices are a major source of soil pollution, especially in Europe, America and Asia. Excessive use of agrochemicals leads to soil pollution, loss of water quality and eutrophication of freshwater and marine environments. It is estimated that around 80 percent of nitrogen and between one- and three-quarters of the phosphorus applied to agricultural land is lost through leaching and erosion and enters the environment (Wurtsbaugh, Paerl and Dodds, 2019). The loss of productivity in coastal ecosystems not only threatens the survival of species in these ecosystems, but also the livelihoods of many indigenous and vulnerable populations.

On the other hand, progress that can be made towards achieving SDG 9 on education will significantly benefit soil pollution prevention. In this regard, the 2018 World Soil Day and other awareness-raising activities carried out by the Global Soil Partnership on soil pollution are a good example of the benefit of education and awareness-raising as they have made a substantial contribution to raising awareness of the fundamental role of each individual in preventing pollution. Progress on SDG 11 on industry, innovation and infrastructure, and especially with greater development and adoption of nature-based solutions will help prevent further soil pollution and contribute to developing cleaner production technologies, a reduction in the production of hazardous waste, and advancing more environmentally friendly pollution remediation technologies.

All the aforementioned data demonstrate the important role that soil pollution plays in achieving the goals set by the world’s leaders; however, soil pollution has barely been considered in two of the 169 targets (targets 3.9 and 12.4) and no indicators have been developed to quantify the progress made in controlling soil pollution, nor the real impacts on human health and the environment (Landrigan et al., 2018; UNSTAT, 2021).

Therefore, a priority for the international community is to invest in research, data collection on the concentration and spatial distribution of soil contaminants, and epidemiological to advance regulations, agreements and strategies to prevent and reduce soil pollution if we really want to achieve the goals set in the 2030 Agenda and ensure healthy soils for generations to come.

Table 4. Links between the UN Sustainable Development Goals and soil pollution