Suchergebnisse

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the biggest threats against public health in the world. Antimicrobial substances are used within all different sectors and contribute to development of AMR. Global action against irresponsible use of antibiotics and further development of AMR has been of great concern in the last years and risk factors are being pointed out. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a precarious role in the matter. Insufficient health care systems, poor law enforcement and, high accessibility of over-the-counter drugs (OTCs) are contributing to the unregulated use of antibiotics. Poorly developed surveillance programmes make it hard to correctly analyse the situation of both antimicrobial use (AMU) and AMR. Bangladesh, like its neighbouring countries, faces a lot of challenges regarding public health. One of the major concerns related to public health is access to safe food. Food products can be contaminated with toxins, chemical substances, and microbial organisms, including AMR-bacteria. Furthermore, national programmes for surveillance of AMU and AMR are inadequate. In this study, data from previously done field studies by Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI), Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and newly collected information from interviews were put together to analyse the AMR situation in Bangladesh. Sampling of food products (tomato, chicken, fish) from traditional markets and supermarkets was done at three locations representing rural, peri-urban, and urban areas from November 2018 to June 2019. Samples were tested for prevalence of Salmonella spp, Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae. Samples positive for bacteria were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility through disc diffusion test. As a supplement to the analysis of samples, questionnaires to the vendors of the food products were made to provide background information. During 2020, statistical analysis of previously collected data and interviews with stakeholders working with AMR was made. The interviews aimed to serve as baseline information about current conditions regarding AMU and AMR. 320 cultivations of 1589 (20.1%) were positive for bacterial prevalence. 319 of these were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility where 203 (63.6%) were found to be multidrug-resistant (MDR) (resistant to three or more antibiotic groups). Furthermore, interviews with stakeholders stated that surveillance of AMU and AMR in Bangladesh is inadequate, especially within the animal and agriculture sector, and that a one health approach on a government level is needed to improve the situation. To be able to fully analyse the AMR situation in Bangladesh, a nation-wide study would need to be conducted, within all sectors, including both AMU and AMR testing.

The global growth in energy demand continues, but the way of meeting rising energy needs is not sustainable. The use of biomass energy is a widely accepted strategy towards sustainable development that sees the fastest rate with the most of increase in power generation followed by strong rises in the consumption of biofuels for transport. Agriculture, forestry and wood energy sector are the leading sources of biomass for bioenergy. However, to be acceptable, biomass feedstock must be produced sustainably. Bioenergy from sustainably managed systems could provide a renewable and carbon neutral source of energy. Bioenergy systems can be relatively complex, intersectoral and site- and scale-specific. The environmental benefits of biomass-for-energy production systems can vary strongly, depending on site properties, climate, management system and input intensities. Bioenergy supply is closely linked to issues of water and land use. It is important to understand the effects of introducing it as well as it is necessary to promote integrated and synergic policies and approaches in the sectors of forestry, agriculture, energy, industry and environment. Biofuels offer attractive solutions to reducing GHG emissions, addressing energy security concerns and have also other socio-economic advantages. Currently produced biofuels are classified as first-generation. Some first-generation biofuels, such as for example ethanol from corn possibly have a limited role in the future transport fuel mix, other ones such as ethanol from sugarcane or biodiesel made from oils extracted from rerennial crops, as well as non-food and industrial crops requiring minimal input and maintenance and offering several benefits over conventional annual crops for ethanol production are promising. Sugarcane ethanol has greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoidance potential; can be produced sustainably; can be cost effective without governments support mechanisms, provide useful and valuable co-products; and, if carefully managed with due regard given to sustainable land use, can support the drive for sustainable development in many developing countries. Sugarcane ethanol - currently the most effective biofuel at displacing GHG emissions - is already mitigating GHGs in Brazil. Jatropha curcas L., a multipurpose, drought resistant, perennial plant has gained lot of importance for the production of biodiesel. However, it is important to point out that nearly all of studies have overstated the impacts of first-generation biofuels on global agricultural and land markets due to the fact that they have ignored the role of biofuel by-products. However, feed by-products of first-generation biofuels, such as dried distillers grains with soluble and oilseed meals are used in the livestock industry as protein and energy sources mitigates the price impacts of biofuel production as well as reduce the demand for cropland and moderate the indirect land use consequences. The production of second generation biofuels is expected to start within a few years. Many of the problems associated with first-generation biofuels can be solved by the production of second generation biofuels manufactured from abundant ligno-cellulosic materials such as cereal straw, sugar cane bagasse, forest residues, wastes and dedicated feedstocks (purpose-grown vegetative grasses, short rotation forests and other energy crops). These feedstocks are not food competitive, do not require additional agricultural land and can be grown on marginal and wasteland. Depending on the feedstock choice and the cultivation technique, second-generation biofuel production has the potential to provide benefits such as consuming waste residues and making use of abandoned land. As much as 97-98% of GHG emissions could be avoided by substituting a fossil fuel with wood fuel. Forest fertilization is an attractive option for increasing energy security and reducing net GHG emission. In addition to carbon dioxide the emissions of methane and nitrous oxides may be important factors in GHG balance of biofuels. Forest management rules, best practices for nitrogen fertilizer use and development of second generation technologies use reduce these emissions. Soils have an important role in the global budget of greenhouse gases. However, the effects of biomass production on soil properties are entirely site and practice-specific and little is known about long-term impact. Soil biological systems are resilient and they do not show any lasting impacts due to intensive site management activities. Land management practices can change dramatically the characteristic and gas exchange of an ecosystem. GHG benefits from biomass feedstock use are in some cases significantly lower if the effects of direct¹ or indirect (ILUC²) land use change are taken into account. LUC and ILUC can impact the GHG emission by affecting carbon balance in soil and thus ecosystem. To understand carbon fluxes in an ecosystem large ecosystem units and time scale are critical. Mitigation measures of the impact of land use change on greenhouse gas emissions include the use of residues as feedstock, cultivation of feedstock on abandoned arable land and use of feedstock by-products as substitutes for primary crops as animal feed. Cropping management is the other key factor in estimating GHG emissions associated with LUC and there is significant opportunity to reduce the potential carbon debt and GHG emissions through improved crop and soil management practices, including crop choice, intensity of inputs, harvesting strategy, and tilling practices. Also a system with whole trees harvesting with nutrient compensation is closely to being greenhouse-gas-neutral. Biochar applied to the soil offers a direct method for sequestrating C and generating bioenergy. However, the most recent studies showing that emissions resulting from ILUC are significant have not been systematically compared and summarized and current practices for estimating the effects of ILUC suffer from large uncertainties. Therefore, it seems to be delicate to include the ILUC effects in the GHG emission balance at a country level. The land availability is an important factor in determining bioenergy sustainability. However, even though food and biofuel/biomass can compete for land, this is not inevitably the case. The pattern of completion competition will e.g. depend on whether food security policies are in place. Moreover, the great potential for uncomplicated biomass production lies in using residues and organic waste, introduction of second generation biofuels which are more efficient in use of land and bioresources as well as restoration of degraded and wasted areas. Agroforestry has high potential for simultaneously satisfying many important objectives at ecosystems, economic and social levels. For example, as a very flexible, but low-input system, alley cropping can supply biomass resources in a sustainable way and at the same time provide ecological benefits in Central Europe. A farming system that integrates woody crops with conventional agricultural crops/pasture can more fully utilize the basic resources of water, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and sunlight, thereby producing greater total biomass yield. Overall, whether food prices will rise in parallel to an increase in biofuel demand will depend, more on trade barriers, subsidies, policies and limitations of marketing infrastructure than on lack of physical capacity. There are plant species that provide not only biofuel resources but also has the potential to sequestrate carbon to soil. For example, reed canary grass (RCG, Phalaris arundinacea L.) indicates the potential as a carbon sink. Harvest residues are increasingly utilized to produce energy. Sweden developed a series of recommendations and good-practice guidelines (GPG) for whole tree harvesting practices. Water has a multifarious relationship to energy. Biofuel production will have a relatively minor impact on the global water use. It is critically important to use low-quality water sources and to select the crops and countries that (under current production circumstances) produce bioenergy feedstock in the water-efficient way. However, local and regional impacts of biofuel production could be substantial. Knowledge of watershed characteristics, local hydrology and natural peak flow patterns coupled with site planning, location choice and species choice, are all factors that will determine whether or not this relationship is sustainable. For example, bioethanol's water requirements can range from 5 to 2138 L per liter of ethanol depending on regional irrigation practices. Moreover, sugarcane in Brazil evaporates 2,200 liters for every liter of ethanol, but this demand is met by abundant rainfall. Biomass production can have both positive and negative effects on species diversity. However, woodfuel production systems as well as agroforestry have the potential to increase biodiversity. A regional energy planning could have an important role to play in order to achieve energy-efficient and cost-efficient energy systems. Closing the loop through the optimization of all resources is essential to minimize conflicts in resource requirements as a result of increased biomass feedstock production. A systems approach where the agricultural, forestry, energy, and environmental sectors are considered as components of a single system, and environmental liabilities are used as recoverable resources for biomass feedstock production has the potential to significantly improve the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of biofuels. The LCA (life cycle analysis) approach takes into account all the input and output flows occurring in biomass production systems. The source of biomass has a big impact on LCA outcomes and there is a broad agreement in the scientific community that LCA is one of the best methodologies for the GHG balance calculation of biomass systems. Overall, maximizing benefits of bioenergy while minimizing negative impacts is most likely to occur in the presence of adequate knowledge and frameworks, such as for example certification systems, policy and guidelines. Criteria for achieving sustainability and best land use practices when producing biomass for energy must be established and adopted. ___________ ¹ Direct land-use change occurs when feedstock for biofuels purposes (e.g. soybean for biodiesel) displace a prior land-use (e.g. forest), thereby generating possible changes in the carbon stock of that land. ² Indirect land-use change (ILUC) occurs when pressure on agriculture due to the displacement of previous activity or use of the biomass induces land-use changes on other lands.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a widely debated concept among academics, practitioners and non-practitioners. By definition, CSR concerns the economic, legal, political, environmental and social responsibilities of a business to its stakeholders and society at large. The conventional view of the role of business in society is to act as a market place and make a profit, in a space where demand meets supply. However, extending the role of CSR to include ethical responsibilities often raises questions of why and how? In this thesis, a qualitative research design was used to examine how businesses, more specifically Swedish food retailers, approach their extended responsibilities in society. The analysis focused in particular on collaborations between retail food businesses and other actors. Food retailers hold a key position in forming a link between producers and consumers in the value chain. They are socially and economically tied to a number of problems facing consumers on local level and in the wider global community, such as climate change, food security and public health. Such problems are often complex and based on value conflicts among various stakeholders, and therefore cannot be resolved in isolation. In conditions of social connectedness, responsibility lies with all actors, with businesses considered to have a privileged position in terms of their negotiating power and ability for collective action. The food retail sector is therefore an interesting empirical setting for studying CSR. In four empirical studies, different CSR activities in Swedish food retailers' approaches to taking responsibility for social, environmental or political issues linked directly or indirectly linked to their operations were scrutinised. These activities included different forms of stakeholder engagement, such as partnership, dialogue or multi-stakeholder initiatives. The results indicated that through CSR, food retailers in collaboration with other actors can co-create value and proactively engage in driving (social) change. Responsibility can thus be viewed as the shared objective of collaborations between businesses, organisations and society at large, rather than being attributable to a single actor.

Heritage cereals, a group of cereals that have not been subjected to modern crop breeding, have been getting attention due to their generally high genetic diversity, traits like high drought and disease tolerance as well as high nutritional values. Knowledge about how consumers relate to heritage cereals in Sweden is limited, and therefore this thesis aims to, firstly, explore acceptance, awareness and preferences among a specific consumer group; students in the agriculture program at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and, secondly, quality perception in relation to heritage cereals among consumers, bakers and retailers, in a Swedish context. The thesis used a mixed-method approach, and is based on quantitative data from a survey to capture perspectives from the student consumer group and semi-structured interviews with bakers and retailers to gain additional perspectives about food quality. The findings from this study suggests that the awareness of heritage cereals is high among the specific consumer group. Bread and pasta make up the most preferred food products, and supermarkets were the most preferred shopping location. Gender had some influence on differences within the group, while high similarities were found between the different educational backgrounds. Results from the survey indicate that taste and Swedish food production are two very important food quality aspects for heritage cereals. Additionally, quality aspects like health, environmental impact, organic and local production were also found to be important to consumers, bakers and retailers. Consuming heritage cereals can also be seen as a tool to support sustainable food systems and different political discourses, avoiding risks associated with industrial farming and express belonging to certain cultural identities. These were also important dimensions of heritage cereal food quality. ; Kulturspannmål, en grupp av spannmål som inte genomgått modern växtförädling, har under de senaste åren fått allt mer uppmärksamhet på grund av ...

Agriculture provides the most essential service to mankind, as production of crops in sufficient amounts is necessary for food security and livelihood. This chapter examines the question of whether organic agriculture can produce enough food to meet future demand. This question relates to a moral imperative and any evaluation must therefore be based on objective scientific facts excluding ideological bias, political correctness, economic incentives or environmental opinions. The chapter begins by defining the conditions necessary for a stringent evaluation of crop yields and explains potential pitfalls. Yield data from national statistics, organic and conventional long-term experiments and comparative studies are then compiled and evaluated, followed by a discussion of the main factors behind low-yielding production. In a global perspective, the scientific literature shows that organic yields are between 25 and 50% lower than conventional yields, depending on whether the organic system has access to animal manure. The amount of manure available on organic farms is usually not sufficient to produce similar crop yields as in conventional systems and therefore green manures are commonly used. However, organic crop yields reported for rotations with green manure require correction for years without crop export from the field, which reduces average yield over the crop rotation. When organic yields are similar to those in conventional production, nutrient input through manure is usually higher than nutrient addition in conventional agriculture, but such high inputs are usually only possible through transfer of large amounts of manure from conventional to organic production. The main factors limiting organic yields are lower nutrient availability, poorer weed control and limited possibilities to improve the nutrient status of infertile soils. It is thus very likely that the rules that actually define organic agriculture, i.e. exclusive use of manures and untreated minerals, greatly limit the potential to increase yields. Our analysis of some yield-related statements repeatedly used by advocates of organic agriculture reached the following conclusions: Organic manure is a severely limited resource, unavailable in quantities sufficient for sustaining high crop yields; legumes are not a free and environmentally sound N source that can replace inorganic fertilisers throughout; and low native soil fertility cannot be overcome with local inputs and untreated minerals alone. Agricultural methods severely limiting crop yields are counter-productive. Lower organic yields require compensation through expansion of cropland – the alternative is famine. Combining expected population growth and projected land demand reveals that low-yielding agriculture is an unrealistic option for production of sufficient crops in the future. In addition, accelerated conversion of natural ecosystems into cropland would cause significant loss of natural habitats. Further improvement of conventional agriculture based on innovations, enhanced efficiency and improved agronomic practices seems to be the only way to produce sufficient food supply for a growing world population while minimising the negative environmental impact.

Biodrivmedel blev efter millennieskiftet en alltmer prioriterad energikälla för EU och ansågs kunna stävja både klimathot och energissäkerhetsproblem samtidigt som drivmedelsproduktionen skulle gynna sysselsättningen i jordbruket. EUkommissionen formulerade 2007 ett mål om att ersätta 10 % av transportenergin till biodrivmedel. Snabbt uppkom dock en strid mellan en grupp av aktörer (miljörörelse och livsmedelsindustri) som såg biodrivmedelssatsningen som ett hot mot både miljön och livsmedelssäkerheten medan en annan grupp bestående av företrädesvis biodrivmedelsintressenter såg det som viktigt att behålla och utveckla EU:s mål för att rädda både klimat och miljö. Motsättningarna som uppkommit väcker frågor kring vilka logiker som legat bakom detta. Avhandlingens syfte är att analysera EU:s biodrivmedelspolicy, vilka aktörer och nätverk som har format denna process, vilka problem och lösningar som dessa aktörer och nätverk argumenterat för i processen, samt hur de har agerat för att mobilisera stöd för sina ståndpunkter. Detta har kopplats till teorier om nätverksstyrning, förekomsten av utlösande händelser i policyprocessen, resursberoende i nätverksmodellen samt på vilket sätt managementteori utövat inflytande. Metoden har varit att utifrån dokumentstudier rekonstruera det historiska förloppet och de aktörer som medverkat i processen. Avhandlingens visar att en förhållandevis liten grupp aktörer har haft ett stort inflytande över policyprocessen från det att problemen som biodrivmedel var satta att lösa definierades i slutet av 80-talet till det att hållbarhetsstandarder utvecklades och implementerades. Dessa aktörer har funnits i policynätverkens kärna och har som ett av sina centrala mål velat utarbeta globala regelverk för råvaruhandeln. De miljöorganisationer som medverkat i processen har genom resursberoenden till stor del varit underordnade denna grupp. Processerna har innehållit ett stort inslag av strategisk planläggning men även utlösande händelser som klimat- och livsmedelskriser har varit viktiga för att motivera politiska beslut. ; Biofuels became a prioritized energy source for the EU in the new millennium. It was believed that biofuels would suppress both climate change and problems with energy security, and would simultaneously benefit agricultural employment. The EU Commission decided in 2007 that 10 % of the energy used in transportation would be replaced by biofuels. This was, however, soon criticized by a group of actors (environmental associations and the food industry) that saw the biofuels initiative as a threat to both the environment and food security. The biofuels proponents, on the other hand, argued that it was important to maintain and develop the EU's biofuels objectives to save both the climate and the environment. These contradictions raised my interest to understand and analyze the logics that lie behind these different perspectives on the same issue. The aim of this thesis is to analyze the EU's biofuels policy, which actors and networks shaped this process, which problems and solutions these actors and networks put forward in the process, and how they have acted to mobilize support for their positions. Theoretically, I have applied theories on policy networks, the occurrence of triggering events in the policy process, resource dependence between actors and networks, and how management theory can be used to understand how policy develops. The main results are that a relatively small group of actors has had a strong influence on the policy process. These actors have been at the core of the policy community. The environmental organizations involved in the process have been subordinate to this policy community through resource dependencies. One actor network was formed that wanted to increase the amount of biofuels, while another was formed to protect the forest and soil from heavy exploitation. It took over 20 years before these contradicting efforts collided. This thesis concludes that the process contained large elements of strategic planning and that triggering events such as climate and food crises have been important to justify political decisions.

Smallholder farmers are defined as key actors in the implementation of Agenda 2030, based on their importance for food security and poverty reduction, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is also true for South Africa, where smallholder farming has attracted considerable policy attention in an attempt to break the trend of rural poverty and the legacy of the apartheid era. One issue of concern is the long-term decline in arable production in fields, reflecting a wider trend of de-agrarianisation among peasantries and smallholders all over the world. In South Africa this withdrawal from field cultivation is compensated to an extent by intensification in garden cultivation. This thesis explores how smallholders perceive the role of these two different crop cultivation practices in their daily lives. The empirical data were collected during an ethnographic field study in rural South Africa in early 2020 using a variety of qualitative research methods. Drawing on the theoretical concepts of lifeworld and system world together with perspectives of livelihoods, the study shows that household agricultural production is being downscaled, with most households prioritising the continuation of garden cultivation. Garden cultivation draws upon capabilities that most households can access and is viewed as a taken-for-granted activity within the lifeworld of smallholders. Field cultivation emerges as a deliberate choice made by households who are able to access sufficient family labour and financial capital. Furthermore, arable production in fields is based on long-term experience of government involvement, resulting in a commonly shared view that a government presence in field farming is something to be expected even today. It would appear that this commonly shared view enables agricultural projects and certified seeds to be introduced that are disembedded from smallholders' local conditions, mirroring a policy belief in a New Green Revolution for Africa. This finding suggests that garden cultivation can serve as an example of crop cultivation that is attuned to local conditions, indicating the direction smallholders could take if they are to fulfil their role as promoters of sustainable development in line with Agenda 2030.

In this report we aim to analyse the economic and environmental impacts of Pillar I direct payments, and to demonstrate alternative instruments that are better suited to achieve CAP objectives. The instruments—a targeted payment to land at risk of abandonment and a tax on mineral fertilisers—were selected on the basis of the Polluter Pays and Provider Gets Principles. We do this using two state‐of‐the‐art agricultural economic simulation models. The first model, CAPRI, is used to quantify the large‐scale or aggregate impacts for individual countries, the EU and the world. The other model, AgriPoliS, is used to quantify the fine‐scale or farm and field level impacts in a selection of contrasting agricultural regions, to consider the potential influence of the large spatial variability in agricultural and environmental conditions across the EU. The results show that direct payments are keeping more farms in the sector and more land in agricultural use than would otherwise be the case, and thus avoiding land abandonment, principally in marginal regions. Particularly the area of grassland is substantially higher, because it is generally less productive than arable land and hence more dependent on direct payments for keeping it in agricultural use. The magnitudes of the impacts of direct payments on land use therefore vary strongly across regions due to spatial variability in productivity: marginal regions with large areas of less productive land are heavily influenced by direct payments, while regions with large areas of relatively productive land are hardly affected, because this land would be farmed in any case. By keeping more farmers in the sector longer, direct payments are slowing structural change, which can hamper agricultural development. However the potential benefits of faster structural change vary considerably among our study regions. In relatively productive regions direct payments are hindering development, because too many farmers are staying in the sector and preventing the consolidation of land in larger farms, which would improve their competitiveness and increase farm profits. On the contrary, the mass departure of farms that is currently avoided, will not lead to the same general benefits in marginal regions. Instead of freed land being absorbed by remaining farms, large areas of relatively unproductive land are abandoned without payments. This land is unprofitable to maintain in agricultural land use, even if integrated into larger farms, because current market prices are too low to motivate farming it. Consequently direct payments pose a serious goal conflict: the avoidance of land abandonment on the one hand, which can have negative impacts on public goods, and restricting agricultural development on the other hand. Once again this goal conflict is rooted in the spatial variability of agricultural conditions in the EU. Maintaining extensively managed farmland, particularly semi‐natural pastures, is central for conservation of biodiversity and preservation of the cultural landscape. Therefore direct payments are contributing to the provisioning of these public goods, but principally in marginal areas. Further, abandonment of land can reduce its agricultural productivity due to erosion or afforestation. Thus, direct payments are contributing to food security by preserving the productive potential of land for the future, but only marginal land since relatively productive land is farmed in any case. Production of agricultural commodities is affected to a lesser degree by direct payments than land use per se. Nevertheless, food exports from the EU are higher and imports lower as a consequence of direct payments. However, the additional supply generated by direct payments also lowers output prices, which reduces the profitability of commodity production; thereby partially offsetting the additional revenues from direct payments. The higher agricultural output brought about by direct payments causes higher levels of environmentally damaging greenhouse‐gas emissions, nutrient surpluses and pesticide use. The higher greenhouse‐gas emissions for the EU are, to some extent, moderated by lower emissions in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the net effect of direct payments is higher global emissions of greenhouse gases. The environmental impacts of higher nutrient surpluses and pesticide inputs are less conclusive, since these depend also on spatial factors, i.e., where the emissions occur. Although EU‐scale and regional emissions are higher due to direct payments, agricultural production is less intensive generally, on account of the lower output prices. Analysing the net effects of these two opposing forces requires additional biophysical modelling at relevant spatial scales, such as watersheds or landscapes, which is beyond the scope of this study. Pillar I direct payments generate a significant transfer of income to farmers and land owners who are not necessarily farmers; 40 billion euro annually. Of this transfer a substantial proportion goes to farmers in relatively productive regions and, further, to a minority of farmers that need them least. In relatively productive regions payments are not needed for continued agricultural production and preservation of farmland, but instead rather fuel higher land and rental prices, which hampers structural change. On the contrary, the need for support is greatest in marginal regions, because some form of payment to marginal land is needed to avoid its abandonment and the loss of associated public goods. Finally, the direct payments even come at the cost of lower market returns for farmers due to slower structural change (smaller and less competitive farms) and lower output prices (due to greater EU output). On the other hand the lower output prices lead to somewhat lower food prices, but at the greater cost of financing the direct payments. Our main conclusion is that Pillar I direct payments are generating serious goal conflicts due to spatial variability in conditions across the EU. On the one hand these payments are contributing to the provisioning of public goods by preserving marginal agricultural land. On the other hand they are hampering agricultural development, primarily in relatively productive regions. Payments to relatively productive land that would be farmed any way not only inflate land values (capitalisation) but also slow structural change, which are both likely to hinder agricultural development and hence the competitiveness of the EU on the global market. The direct payments also increase environmental pressure; by subsidising land use generally and the associated production, they are incapable of controlling environmentally damaging emissions, which is also in conflict with broad CAP objectives. The goal conflict arises because direct payments are universal, a payment principal that does not consider spatial variability in the EU and the associated trade‐offs in regard to development and environmental effectiveness. Our analysis considered two alternative policy instruments that have the potential to curb the identified goal conflicts associated with direct payments, by applying the Polluter Pays and Provider (of public goods) Gets Principles at appropriate spatial scales. Replacing direct payments with a payment targeted on marginal land (and associated public goods) prevents land abandonment at a lower cost, by avoiding payments to relatively productive land that is farmed in any case. This also allows surviving farms in regions with relatively productive land to compensate for lost direct payments through expansion and associated scale economies, as well as higher output prices. This instrument therefore finances the provisioning of public goods without adverse effects on development and the efficiency of agricultural production. The EU‐wide tax on mineral fertiliser demonstrates that this instrument has the potential to reduce nutrient surpluses. Since direct payments cause higher levels of polluting emissions, policy instruments targeting emissions at relevant spatial scales are needed to achieve cost‐effective abatement. Overall we find that Pillar I direct payments are not addressing the diversity of challenges facing European agriculture. In fact our quantitative analysis indicates that the potential for the current system to meet these challenges is seriously impaired by goal conflicts and spatial variability across the EU. A better policy requires that instruments are targeted on desired outcomes and designed according to sound principles, specifically the Polluter Pays and Provider Gets Principles. These principles would ensure that farmers are provided with appropriate incentives to i) generate public goods that otherwise would be underprovided; ii) mitigate environmentally damaging emissions at the lowest possible cost to society; and iii) continually strive to improve environmental performance. Such instruments are also fairer and promote a more competitive or viable agricultural sector by not obstructing structural change and hence agricultural development.