Soil Analytical Capabilities for Sustainable Land Management Across National Soil Services in the Mediterranean

Abstract

Soil monitoring is essential for pursuing several sustainable development goals including ‘Zero Hunger’ and ‘Life on Land’. This study examined the status of national soil monitoring laboratories in Mediterranean countries through a multi-country survey to assess strengths and gaps. The results showed that most national soil labs performed basic tests related to soil health and agricultural management, such as texture, pH, and nutrient analysis. However, fewer labs performed more specific tests that are also relevant to these applications such as compaction and biological analysis. Furthermore, tests required for assessing soil pollution, such as heavy metals, were conducted only by few labs. This was mostly due to a lack of equipment like atomic absorption spectrometers. In total, 75% of labs reported good quality of the instruments and frequent calibration. The staff were generally well qualified, with most holding graduate degrees, and women comprised 58% of the staff. Many national services started using electronic reports and provided result interpretation for end users, but not all used lab information systems. The findings highlight the need for better equipment, more advanced testing, and stronger digital management systems. Addressing these issues will help harmonize soil data and support sustainable land management and agriculture in the region.

1. Introduction

Soil is an essential interface between the hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere. Although its thickness corresponds to only one ten-millionth of the Earth’s radius, it plays a crucial role in global ecosystems’ health. It is fundamental to human life on Earth, providing 98.8% of human calories [1,2] and supporting vital ecosystem services such as biomass production, carbon storage, nutrient cycling, water regulation, and biodiversity preservation [3,4]. Thus, soil plays a multifunctional role in pursuing several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land) [2,5]. Despite their crucial importance, approximately 33% of soils worldwide are deteriorating, with croplands accounting for 29% of this degradation [1,5,6]. This deterioration leads to issues such as erosion, salinization, depletion of organic carbon, and loss of biodiversity, costing the global economy approximately $400 billion each year [6]. These issues are particularly relevant in the Mediterranean region due to the wide range of land degradation factors and the high soil variability in the region [7].

Soil monitoring is vital for guiding efforts on sustaining ecosystem services and involves regular chemical, physical, and biological assessments [8]. Physical soil analysis is essential for assessing properties such as texture, structure, porosity, bulk density, and water-holding capacity, all of which affect root penetration, water infiltration, and aeration, which are essential for plant growth [9]. These properties can also affect nutrient retention, erosion, floods, carbon sequestration, and climate change mitigation [9]. Furthermore, these properties can also affect technology selection related to soil sensors used in smart agriculture and hydrological applications like drought monitoring [10,11]. Analysis of chemical properties offers important insights into soil fertility and contamination risks by measuring nutrients (Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Potassium), cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, pollutants like heavy metals, and organic matter [12]. Biological analysis provides insights into soil health through factors such as enzyme activity, fungi biodiversity, bacteria, and earthworms, which are essential for nutrient cycling and fixation, and decomposition of organic matter [13,14,15]. Supplementary approaches have been developed, mainly via remote sensing, to improve the spatial distribution and mapping of soil properties instead of relying solely on traditional interpolation methods [16,17]. The integration of remotely sensed data can also complement soil information in a wide range of hydrological and environmental applications [18,19,20]. Integration of supplementary data sources can circumvent data availability issues, and reduce the efforts, costs, and environmental disturbances associated with sampling and analysis [11,21,22]. Other supplementary methods also include sensor technologies, which are used for in situ measurements, dynamic monitoring, and smart agriculture systems, and lab analysis remains the gold standard for validating these types of sensors [10,23,24]. These advancements highlight the critical need to invest in developing soil sampling and analytical frameworks, not only to uphold laboratory standards, but also to enhance the reliability and integration of emerging technologies across diverse environmental contexts and applications. Developing analysis methods has been the focal effort for many researchers around the world. For example, spectroscopic-based techniques had been developed to enable faster measurement of soil carbon and nitrogen [25]. Passive sampling methods have been developed to enhance the detection of pollutants such as heavy metals and microplastics [26]. Advanced metagenomic techniques have revealed the complex relationships between microbial communities and soil health, including their role in disease prevention [27,28]. Additionally, new indicators like dehydrogenase activity have been used to signal early soil contamination [29]. With the wide range of analytical techniques available, and in development, exploring the variations across different laboratories within the same region is essential. This can help identify the reliability of soil information from different sources and support the integration and compiling of multi-national databases for applications like regional soil mapping [7,16].

Harmonization and standardization are particularly important in the context of the Mediterranean region that has very diverse soil types and socioeconomic dynamics, and specific issues like high salinity and alkalinity, low organic matter content, climate extremes, and frequent water stress conditions [30,31,32,33]. However, despite the advancements in available measurement and analysis methods, we know little about how the Mediterranean countries differ in equipment, personnel, and practices of soil analyses. This limits the potential to design integrated soil monitoring and information systems for the region due to the high uncertainty involved in how the data was produced. This information gap also affects the capacity to produce accurate and reliable integrated soil mapping in the region, including land degradation mapping to provide sound decision support [32,33,34].

This has been recognized as an important priority by FAO’s Global Soil Partnership (GSP) initiatives like the Global Soil Laboratory Network (GLOSOLAN). This initiative was established in 2017 to build and strengthen the capacity of laboratories in soil analysis (https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/glosolan/en/ accessed on 29 July 2025). In this context, the SOILS4MED project, funded by PRIMA, aims to enhance the availability, accessibility, and comparability of soil data across the Mediterranean region. Amongst the project activities, a systematic survey on the status of laboratory infrastructures was conducted, involving 11 Mediterranean countries. The objective was to identify gaps and needs that impede the development and operationalization of integrated soil monitoring and information systems. This data can help lay the groundwork for harmonizing soil monitoring efforts and fostering sustainable soil management practices adapted to the specific regional needs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Survey Design and Distribution

The survey instrument was a structured questionnaire divided into thematic modules such as analytical protocols and staffing. The survey followed a modular format to ensure consistency and enable cross-country comparisons. Each module comprised closed- and open-ended items to capture both quantitative metrics and qualitative insights. Key informants were identified via the GSP network in 11 Mediterranean countries. The GSP network was selected as it has been operating since 2012 and is globally recognized mechanism [35]. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to GSP focal points and soil monitoring authorities in Egypt, Greece, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Algeria, and Tunisia. However, four countries (Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt) did not provide full responses on laboratory infrastructure.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Responses were collected between March and June 2024 through an online survey platform. A list of contacted laboratories that responded to the survey is shown in

Table 1. National soil analysis labs participating in the surveys.

Country	Responding National Lab	Lab ID
Greece	Soil Science Laboratory of Athens (ELGO DIMITRA)	GRC1
Jordan	Soil and water analysis laboratories of the National Agricultural Research Center	JOR1
Lebanon	Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute	LBN1
Libya	Soil and Water Laboratory—Sidi Al-Masry—Agriculture Research Center—Ministry of Agriculture—Tripoli, Libya	LBY1
Libya	The main laboratory of the Agricultural Research Center	LBY2
Libya	Soil laboratory of Misurata Agricultural Research Station	LBY3
Palestine	The Soil Analysis Lab of The Ministry of Agriculture	PSE1
Palestine	Soil Research Laboratory of The Ministry of Agriculture	PSE2
Palestine	Testing Laboratories Center—Birzeity University	PSE3
Palestine	Nablus Central Laboratory	PSE4
Syria	Lab of the General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research	SYR1
Tunisia	Central Laboratory of Soil Analysis	TUN1

.

Completed questionnaires underwent consistency checks and follow-up validation calls. Data were consolidated into a centralized, secure database with version control and routine backups. Quantitative variables were summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative responses were coded thematically to identify common barriers, best practices, and capacity gaps.

3. Results

3.1. Analytical Capabilities and Methods

The surveyed national soil laboratories conduct a wide range of soil analyses, focusing mainly on soil chemical (22 analyses) and physical properties (11 analyses), with limited soil microbiological analysis (7 analyses). Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 show summaries of soil labs’ analyses performed for the physical, chemical, and biological soil properties, respectively. Most labs consistently conduct texture analysis (sand, silt, clay), bulk density, and aggregate stability, indicating strong foundational capacity. However, advanced tests like infiltration rate, compaction, and clay mineralogy were less common, suggesting equipment or training gaps in soil structural assessments. Core chemical soil parameters, like carbon, pH, and nutrients were the most measured parameters. One of the main alarming findings was the notable lack of investment in new technologies, such as Vis–NIR or MIR spectroscopy, and the lack of collecting spectra for future use. These properties can reveal significant insights, complement soil information, and support the production of higher resolution soil maps [16,17,36].

Fewer national labs measure soil degradation parameters like organic pollutant contamination or salinization. Only one lab reported performing clay mineralogy identification, two labs reported performing soil compaction tests, and three labs perform soil infiltration tests. The litter of the O horizon was reportedly only analyzed by soil labs of Greece and Tunisia. Preparation of the litter included oven-drying (<70 °C), crushing by hand to a fine powder, and sieving. The litter was then analyzed for organic matter (main test). In Greece, organic carbon, macronutrients, and micronutrients analyses were also conducted on litter samples. Biological analysis was the least-covered category. Few labs analyze microbial diversity or soil respiration, and only isolated mentions exist of fauna (earthworms, mites, nematodes). This indicates a regional need to strengthen biological indicators in soil health assessments, which is especially important for sustainability and regenerative practices.

The results also showed a wide range of soil testing methods, with some variability, among the different respondent soil labs (

Table 2. Analytical methods adopted by different labs across the Mediterranean region.

Soil Property	Method	Laboratories Using the Method	Uniformity Index **
Organic Carbon	Walkley and Black method	JOR1, LBN1, LBY1, LBY3, SYR1, TUN1	86%
	Photometric method	GRC1
pH	Soil-water suspensions	LBN1, LBY3, PSE1, PSE2, PSE3, TUN1	60%
	Saturated paste extract (SPE)	GRC1, JOR1, PSE4, SYR1
Electrical Conductivity (EC)	Soil-water suspensions	GRC1, LBY3, PSE1, PSE2, PSE3,	60%
	Saturated paste extract (SPE)	JOR1, LBN1, LBY3, PSE4, SYR1, TUN1
Total Nitrogen	Kjeldahl method	GRC1, JOR1, LBN1, LBY1, LBY2, LBY3, PSE1, PSE2, PSE3, SYR1, TUN1	100%
Available Phosphorus	Olsen method	GRC1, JOR1, LBY1, LBY3, PSE3, SYR1, TUN1	88%
	Spectrophotometer	PSE4
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)	Ammonium Acetate	JOR1, LBN1, LBY3, PSE3, PSE4, SYR1, TUN1	88%
	Barium Chloride (BaCl2) method	GRC1
Exchangeable Cations (Ca, Mg, K, Na)	Ammonium Acetate	JOR1, LBN1, LBY3, PSE3, SYR1, TUN1	55%
	Atomic absorption spectroscopy	GRC1
	Flame photometry	LBY2, PSE1, PSE2, PSE4
	ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma	PSE3
Heavy Metals	Aqua Regia	SYR1	20%
	Atomic absorption	JOR1
	DTPA	GRC1
	ICP	PSE3
	Soil digestion	JOR1
	Spectrophotometer	TUN1
Pesticides	GC-MS and LC-MS	PSE3	NA
Soil Moisture	Gravimetric	GRC1, JOR1, LBY2, LBY3, PSE3, SYR1	86%
	Pressure plate	LBY1
Soil Texture *	Hydrometer	GRC1, JOR1, LBN1, LBY1, LBY2, LBY3, PSE1, PSE2, PSE4, SYR1	83%
	Pipette	TUN1
	Sieve analysis	PSE3
Clay percentage *	Hydrometer	GRC1, JOR1, LBN1, LBY2, LBY3, PSE1, PSE2, PSE4, SYR1	90%
	Pipette	TUN1
	Sieve analysis	LBY1, PSE3
Sand percentage *	Hydrometer	LBN1, PSE4	50%
	Gravimetric	JOR1
	Sedimentation	GRC1, LBY2, PSE1, PSE2, TUN1
	Sieve analysis	LBY1, LBY3, PSE3, SYR1
Silt percentage *	Hydrometer	JOR1, LBN1, LBY2, LBY3, PSE1, PSE2, PSE4, SYR1	71%
	Sedimentation	GRC1
	Sieve analysis	LBY1, PSE3, TUN1
Aggregate stability	Aggregate stability test	SYR1, TUN1	NA
	Wet sieving	JOR1
Bulk density	Core sampling	GRC1, JOR1, LBY1, LBY2, LBY3, SYR1	100%
Gravel percentage	Sieve analysis	JOR1, LBY1, PSE3, SYR1, TUN1	63%
	Sedimentation	JOR1, LBY2
	Visual estimation	GRC1, LBY3
Soil Microbiology Analysis	Standard method	JOR1, PSE3	NA

* Specific soil particle sizes were distinguished from texture because labs reported varying methods for each property. This is because clients can request different methods for each particle size or for overall texture. ** Color graded indication of analysis uniformity representing high (green), moderate (yellow, brown), and poor (red) consistency in the adoption of analytical methods across different labs.

). Some tests, like those for organic carbon, nitrogen, pH, and soil texture, are commonly used and follow international standards. Others, like advanced equipment tests for heavy metals or pesticides (e.g., ICP or GC-MS), are only performed in a few labs, which suggests that not all labs have access to high-tech instruments. Basic physical tests such as hydrometer and sieve analysis are widely applied, showing strong consistency across labs. But certain tests, like pressure plate for soil moisture or wet sieving for stability, are used less often, which could mean some labs lack equipment or training for more detailed analyses. In some cases, labs use different methods for the same property (for example, pH and electrical conductivity), which might depend on local preferences or available tools. The limited use of environmental or biological tests also points to areas where lab capacity could be improved. The harmonization of soil analysis methods was also examined; to quantify harmonization of analytical approaches across the labs, a simple formula was used to derive a “Uniformity Index”. The Uniformity Index for a given parameter was the number of labs using the single most common method divided by the total labs analyzing that parameter × 100%. For example, six labs used the Walkley and Black method to analyze organic carbon; out of seven total labs that analyzed that parameter, this was assigned a uniformity index of 86% (6/7 × 100%). This assessment excluded properties that were only reportedly tested in less than five labs. The results demonstrate that a mix of physical and chemical soil properties were within the most consistent in terms of analysis methods across different labs (i.e., >80%). This was also the case for moderately consistent parameters (50–80%), and also within the least harmonized methods. There was no specific pattern related to which properties were most harmonized in terms of analysis method, for example, agronomy-related parameters were within the top, moderate, and lower ends.

3.2. Laboratory Infrastructure and Instrumentation

To gauge the national labs’ capacity for routine and advanced soil analyses, the survey included a question on the availability of five core instruments: atomic absorption spectrometer, flame photometer, spectrophotometer, pH meter, and EC meter (Figure 4). The wide availability of flame photometers, spectrophotometers, pH meters, and EC meters reflects a strong baseline for routine soil testing. Flame photometers let labs quickly reliably measure key cations (K, Na, Ca), while spectrophotometers handle colorimetric assays for phosphorus, organic carbon, and other nutrients. Widespread pH meters ensure soil acidity is assessed consistently, a must for interpreting nutrient availability. And EC meters give all labs the ability to screen for salinity, which is critical for irrigation planning and salt management. Together, these instruments form the core toolkit that enables labs to deliver the essential soil health data farmers and agronomists depend on. These basic analyses are essential for SDG 2 ‘Zero Hunger’ in the context of crop productivity, and to SDG 15 ‘Life on Land’ in the context of monitoring land degradation. Their broad availability means that basic fertility, salinity, and contaminant monitoring can be carried out efficiently and uniformly across the region. The limited availability of atomic absorption spectroscopy represents a serious bottleneck for any work on trace metals and micronutrients. Atomic absorption remains the gold standard for accurately measuring elements like zinc, copper, lead, and cadmium. Without it, laboratories must either send samples out to partner facilities (adding cost and turnaround time) or rely on less sensitive methods that may miss low-level contamination or subtle nutrient imbalances. In practice, this gap could slow down pollution monitoring, compromise food-safety testing, and limit farmers’ ability to fine-tune micronutrient fertilization. Addressing this shortfall by equipping more labs with atomic absorption spectrometers, or creating shared regional centers, should be a top priority for building a robust, harmonized soil-testing network. Atomic absorption spectrometers are by far the most expensive, while pH and EC meters are relatively affordable for any lab. This could explain the availability of these instruments.

Another aspect of harmonization across national soil labs was the consistency in measurement quality, even from the same instrument type. While determining the error metrics was not possible, this information can be derived from the variability in other factors, including calibration frequency and the condition of the core four instruments. The survey results demonstrated that most labs followed a fixed calibration schedule, half of those labs performed calibration at least once per month or more (Figure 5). Using different calibration schedules for different devices is not unusual, especially in chemical analysis [37]. No labs reported not performing any calibration and the results showed some uniformity in the calibration frequency selected across different labs. This supports moderate consistency of quality of soil measurements reported by different labs, at least for pH, EC, and nutrient concentrations. The labs participating in the survey were also asked about the condition of the measurement instruments, specifically, the flame photometers, spectrophotometers, pH meters, and EC meters. The results were positive, showing that 75% of the responding labs reported the condition of their instruments as good or excellent (Figure 6). However, the remaining quarter, marked as fair (17%) or poor (8%), suggests a maintenance gap that could skew analyses and slow harmonization across facilities. When some labs work with worn or under-calibrated devices, their results may drift from those produced in better-equipped centers, making direct comparisons tricky. To achieve true regional harmony, it is crucial to invest in regular servicing, standardized calibration schedules, and inter-lab proficiency tests. By lifting every lab into the “good” or “excellent” bracket, the network will deliver consistently accurate data, strengthening confidence in soil health assessments and harmonized monitoring across the board.

3.3. Personnel and Data Management

One of the aspects of interest with regard to harmonizations was the gender balance and staff qualifications across different countries (Figure 7). The analysis of gender distribution across soil labs in different countries reveals a female majority in most cases. As shown, females represented 58% of the total staff, exceeding males at 42%. Across individual labs, only Greece showed a balanced distribution, and only a few labs showed a male-dominated composition, while others were heavily female-dominated. This pattern was consistent across countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia, where females made up the majority of the workforce, while Libya presented a mixed picture. These findings highlight the significant participation of women in soil laboratory work in the region, potentially reflecting inclusive hiring practices or sectoral preferences. However, the observed variability among labs and countries suggests that local contexts still play a decisive role in shaping gender dynamics in this sector. A discrete-choice survey by Alon and DiPrete [38] found that women tend to choose majors and career fields with higher female representation, while men more often prioritize high-earning and traditionally male fields. This suggests that laboratory or science roles, where women are already well represented, appeal more to female students when selecting career paths.

Analysis of staff qualifications (Figure 8) revealed that staff in soil laboratories predominantly hold academic degrees, with Bachelor’s degrees (44%) and Master’s degrees (34%) being the most common. Only 18% of staff possessed high school qualifications, while 5% held doctoral degrees. Country-wise, Libya, Syria, and Palestine employed the largest numbers of staff, with Libya showing a high proportion of Bachelor’s degree holders. Tunisia and Syria exhibited notable numbers of Master’s holders, while doctoral representation remained low across all countries.

This reflected a workforce that was academically well qualified, especially at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, which likely enhanced technical competence in laboratory operations. The limited presence of Ph.D. holders suggests that research-intensive roles may not have been the primary focus of most of these labs. The overall reliance on university graduates supports a good degree of harmonization amongst staff capabilities. The survey additionally focused on laboratory results in terms of format and interpretation.

The results show that most labs prefer to provide results in electronic format, with 92% of them offering electronic lab reports (Figure 9).

This suggests a strong move toward digital services. On the other hand, 75% of labs still provide hard copy results, meaning that printed reports are still common but not as widespread as electronic ones. Only Tunisia did not offer electronic reports, while only one lab in Palestine, Libya, and Jordan did not offer hard copies. While all other labs (67%) are using both formats, electronic reporting is now the main way results are shared. With regard to lab results interpretation, the results show that 67% of labs provided interpretation along with lab results, either by default or by request, while 33% did not (Figure 10).

This means that most labs help clients understand the test outcomes, which adds value to their service. However, not all labs offer this support. For lab information systems, 58% of labs use such systems, but 42% still do not. This suggests that more than half of the labs have moved toward digital or standardized management, but many are still working without a formal lab information system. There is still room for more labs to adopt both result interpretation and digital information systems. The lack of using lab information systems amongst 48% of labs in the sample could suggest limited harmony in terms of relevant procedures. However, this is not very clear due to the lack of data on the different lab information systems and their contribution to lab results and quality.

4. Discussion

The survey showed that national soil services in the Mediterranean region had a strong base in testing soil properties. Most labs regularly checked important soil features like texture, pH, and nutrients. These tests are key for understanding soil health, helping farmers, and supporting sustainable land management efforts [39,40]. However, some important tests, such as soil compaction, infiltration, and biological properties, were performed by fewer labs. This means some labs may lack the capacity for advanced soil testing, especially for tracking soil pollution or health. Furthermore, identifying thresholds like field capacity is essential for irrigation decision support and management [41,42]. Many labs had the basic instruments they needed, like pH meters, EC meters, and spectrophotometers. These tools help measure soil acidity, salinity, and nutrients. However, not many labs owned atomic absorption spectrometers, which are needed to check heavy metals and micronutrients. These findings are consistent with patterns observed in the global assessments of soil lab capacity. A 2020 FAO report confirms that many laboratories in developing regions were equipped for routine soil analyses but lacked advanced instrumentation, highlighting limited capacity for metal testing [43]. Limited access to these analysis types could slow down pollution checks or stop labs from giving farmers the full advice they need [44]. While most labs follow regular calibration schedules and report their instruments in good condition, some labs still have older or poorly maintained equipment. It has been established by previous researchers that these factors could affect the quality of the soil analytical results [45,46,47,48]. The people working in these labs were generally well qualified, with most staff holding bachelor’s or master’s degrees. This suggests that a lack of more sophisticated instruments is not likely related to knowledge or staff capacity and education, but rather to financial resources—particularly since the most limited instrument, atomic absorption spectroscopy, is also the most expensive. Also, women made up most of the lab workforce in several countries. This reflects an important role for women in soil testing work and shows good access for female professionals in this field.

When it comes to sharing results, most labs offered electronic reports, showing a clear move toward digital services. Hard copy reports were still common, but electronic formats were becoming the main choice. About two-thirds of the labs also helped clients understand the results through interpretation reports. However, only a little over half use lab information systems. This means that many labs still have room to improve how they manage and share information. More consistent use of systems could help bring better harmonization and service quality across the region. Research from other regions supports this idea: when labs provided electronic results and interpretations, extension services and farmer uptake improved, and technology integration in general was shown to have a positive effect [49,50].

5. Conclusions

This study provided a comprehensive overview of the current capacities, practices, and gaps in soil laboratories across the Mediterranean region. The survey results indicate that most laboratories have solid foundational capabilities in analyzing key soil chemical and physical properties which are critical for soil health monitoring, agricultural management, and ecosystem services. However, significant gaps remain in advanced soil testing, particularly in biological analyses, pollution assessment, and soil compaction tests. These gaps highlight a need for further investment in laboratory equipment, training, and methodological harmonization.

The availability of core instruments like pH meters, EC meters, and spectrophotometers is widespread, supporting the labs’ ability to perform routine analyses. However, the limited access to high-cost instruments such as atomic absorption spectrometers remains a critical bottleneck, especially for heavy metal analysis and micronutrient testing. This equipment gap, coupled with variations in calibration practices and instrument maintenance, may impact on data quality and comparability across labs. Ensuring regular calibration and investing in equipment upgrades are essential steps toward achieving reliable and harmonized soil data.

On the human resources front, the workforce is generally well qualified, with a notable representation of women, especially in technical roles. This reflects positive gender dynamics and a good level of technical expertise across the region. Yet, the low presence of doctoral-level staff suggests that research-oriented soil analysis and innovation may not be a key focus for many labs.

Data management practices show promising trends, with most labs offering electronic reporting and a significant portion providing interpretation of results. However, the use of laboratory information systems (LIS) is not yet widespread. Strengthening LIS adoption could improve data traceability, client services, and integration with national and regional monitoring systems.

Overall, this study highlights the strengths and opportunities within the region’s soil laboratories. Addressing identified gaps, especially in equipment availability, advanced testing capacity, and digital information systems, will enhance harmonization, data quality, and decision-support capabilities. Funding and support across the region should be provided for standardizing advanced testing methods, expanding access to key instruments, ensuring regular calibration, strengthening LIS adoption, and investing in training and research capacity. Regional collaboration and shared protocols will improve data quality, comparability, and support sustainable land management across the Mediterranean region. These improvements are vital for supporting sustainable agriculture, land management, and resilience-building efforts in the face of regional environmental challenges.