As the presidential campaign enters the homestretch toward election day, the race between the major party candidates may still be uncertain and even unpredictable. The impact on agriculture and the outlook for agricultural policy issues is even more uncertain.

MIXED OUTLOOK: The current ag policy outlook is mixed. Efforts to address the farm income situation are likely limited, short of starting debate on the new farm bill.

Through late summer, relatively little has been said on the campaign trail directly about agriculture. In reality, relatively little has been said about agricultural issues since the Iowa caucuses started the primary season back in January. There have been announcements of agricultural advisers and speculation about leadership roles in a future administration, but agricultural issues have not been big talking points in the campaign. Although agriculture may not be a focal point on the campaign trail, there is still quite a bit happening in agricultural policy circles and much more to ponder in a postelection environment.

Farm income and assistance
Amid the current downturn in farm income and the agricultural economy, there have been calls for USDA action to help producers cope with lower commodity prices and financial pressure. With increased pressure on ag borrowers and lenders, demand for USDA Farm Service Agency loan programs has risen sharply and funding authority has been depleted. Numerous calls for USDA to increase funding for loan programs could see either an administrative or legislative response to help increase the availability of loan funds to producers.

Other calls for assistance have encouraged increased government purchases of dairy products for food assistance programs and increased purchases of wheat for food aid programs. Both dairy and wheat producers have faced sharp downturns in prices and abundant or burdensome supplies. While USDA had administrative authority to make some purchases (and did so in late August for cheese), they would certainly not approach historic levels of government stock-building when loan rate-level prices were supported through dairy product purchases or commodity loan forfeitures. As such, any purchases could help bolster demand, but each sector will still be facing significant price pressure and abundant supplies will have to be absorbed by the market.

Farm bill legislation
Amid the calls for assistance in the current downturn in the farm economy, there have also been calls for revisions or reforms of farm programs under farm bill legislation. While there are some farm program issues on the radar, ranging from Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program mechanics to cotton and peanut program issues, there seems to be little opportunity or desire to open the farm bill prior to a discussion of the formal reauthorization due in 2018. Recent concerns about the mechanics of the ARC program at the county level (ARC-CO) are predominantly about the yield data used in the calculations and variations in payments from county to county. The single best solution to the yield data issue is better farmer response to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service surveys. Beyond that, some issues may be addressed in farm bill reauthorization, but it is unlikely that much can be done in the immediate future, short of opening up the farm bill and starting the process early.

It appears that the next farm bill debate will begin in earnest in early 2017 as the next Congress convenes and holds at least initial hearings on the path toward a new farm bill due in 2018. Thus, this election will determine both the leadership and the likely path for that farm bill debate in the next Congress, even if agricultural issues have not been heard much during the current presidential campaign.

Trade policy
One area that has been discussed during the campaign is trade, and the rhetoric has been overwhelmingly negative with the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement as the convenient target. While expanded trade is not a winner for all segments of the U.S. economy and any agreement would not provide immediate relief to an agricultural sector looking for market development and demand growth, the economic analysis generally shows strong potential for agriculture from TPP. Economic arguments aside, the political rhetoric suggests little opportunity for ratifying and implementing the TPP agreement in the near term, even with signals from the White House that the agreement is on its way to Congress for lame-duck session deliberation.

While it would be nearly impossible to renegotiate the agreement as the candidates have called for, one plausible scenario is that a new administration negotiates side agreements with some countries in the TPP as a precursor to ratifying and implementing the agreement in the U.S. This would keep the agreement intact, and provide the additional terms or changes pushed on the campaign trail as part of the process and provide the political cover to bring TPP to a conclusion. The trade agreements with Columbia, South Korea and Panama negotiated by the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007 were effectively completed this way with side-agreements negotiated by the Obama administration before the agreements were sent to Congress for ratification in 2011.

Regulations
Another area of discussion during the campaign has been the regulatory arena, although the discussion has varied greatly, as do the candidates on these issues. Biotech labeling and disclosure was resolved over the summer, although the issue will remain paramount as USDA moves into rulemaking and potential lawsuits await. Environmental regulations such as Waters of the United States, bioenergy policy and the Renewable Fuel Standard, tax policy, and other issues could very much depend on the outcome of the election as the next president and Congress move forward with regulations, oversight or new proposals.

Outlook
The current agricultural policy outlook is mixed. Efforts to address the current farm income situation are likely limited, short of starting debate on the new farm bill. That debate should begin in earnest in early 2017, but should also take some time to move to completion. In the meantime, developments in trade policy and regulatory policy will certainly not only affect agriculture, but also be affected by the election. It is definitely a time to stay abreast of the policy situation and understand the impacts of choices to be made at the ballot box in November.

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