As the newly confirmed Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue began his tenure in late April, one of his first tasks was the development of a proposal to restructure USDA administration and establish a new position for the undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. The impacts of the proposed restructuring could have benefits for many priority issues and audiences, but could also have mixed effects on some programs and constituencies. As the restructuring plan is considered and implemented, there are several potential lessons for agriculture and agricultural policy stakeholders.

The secretary of agriculture was charged with establishing a new undersecretary position for trade as part of the 2014 Farm Bill legislation. The previous administration did not act on the mandate, noting the difficulty of restructuring the massive USDA administration and workforce. Perdue quickly moved forward with a restructuring plan that establishes the trade position while keeping the number of USDA undersecretary positions constant at seven, by eliminating the existing undersecretary post for rural development. The proposed restructuring also affects the administration of farm and conservation programs.

The undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs would assume the oversight of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and its work on agricultural trade programs, foreign food assistance and foreign agricultural affairs, including agricultural attaches at U.S. embassies worldwide. The new trade post would become USDA's chief advocate for U.S. agricultural trade, an area where Perdue has already been integrally involved, representing the agricultural perspective with the White House. This post would bring formal leadership to the issue, although there are several questions about the future of several programs in this area. The president's budget proposal has called for eliminating or reducing foreign food aid delivered through USDA and there have been some calls for cuts to trade promotion programs as well. How this post would address these issues and programs will be a critical question for whichever undersecretary nominee moves through Senate consideration.

With the new separate mission area, FAS would be moved from the current undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, which also oversees the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management Agency. The restructuring plan renames this position to undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation and adds the Natural Resources Conservation Service to the portfolio of FSA and RMA. This merger would effectively bring all three major agencies serving U.S. agricultural producers together in one area. The move mimics previous efforts in USDA to co-locate FSA and NRCS offices into single local service centers to more effectively serve producers and landowners at a single location.

The proposed move of NRCS has drawn mixed reaction among interest groups. There is a clear logic to the shift. If you look at the nation's land resources, outside of the federal lands concentrated in the west, the land base is predominantly in private hands and the private land is overwhelmingly in agriculture. The NRCS portfolio of voluntary conservation programs and conservation compliance primarily involves the same agricultural producers and landowners affected by FSA and RMA programs. There have been concerns from some quarters that shifting conservation and compliance programs to the same mission area as farm programs would diminish the focus on natural resource protection in favor of production. That is likely to be a question for the undersecretary nominee.

While NRCS functions would move, the current undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment would remain and would focus solely on the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service maintains its functions of both managing federal forestlands, as well as a small portfolio of private forestland stewardship programs.

The loudest responses to Perdue’s restructuring proposal have come from rural development interests, where the new plan would eliminate the undersecretary for Rural Development. The rural development mission area covers several programs, including rural housing, utilities and business development among others. Perdue has suggested the move would elevate rural development programs by having them answer directly to the secretary, but the elimination of the post has some worried that the programs would be diminished.

The president's budget proposal had also targeted some of the rural development programs for cuts or elimination, so the uncertainty and concern are real about the intended direction of rural development programs. At the same time, issues such as broadband access, described by some as the next critical rural utility (following previous rural electrification and telecommunications efforts), are high on the radar, so rural development efforts should not simply disappear from the agenda.

The four other undersecretary positions would remain unchanged at present. The undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services oversees food assistance programs and nutrition policy. The undersecretary for Food Safety oversees the Food Safety and Inspection Service, as well as partnerships with other department and agencies on food safety issues. The undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs manages animal and plant health inspection, as well as market information and regulation programs and policies. Finally, the undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics oversees several agencies focused on research, analysis and education, including linkages to the nation's land-grant universities.

The proposed USDA restructuring elevates the focus on agricultural trade as called for in the 2014 Farm Bill. It also restructures existing administration, potentially streamlining the delivery of some services like farm and conservation programs, but also raising questions about the attention to other issues and objectives, particularly in the area of rural development. As the plan is reviewed and implemented, we are sure to see some clues as to how various programs and constituencies will fare in a new USDA and in an ever-changing policy environment.

Lubben is an Extension policy specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.