Legislative Initiatives to Enhance Agricultural Cybersecurity and Advance Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Addressing Cyber Threats to Global Food Security

Recent legislative efforts in the United States aim to modernize and secure the nation’s agricultural sector against escalating cyber threats. With the U.S. agri-food sector experiencing 40 cyberattack incidents in the first quarter of 2024 alone, two key bills, H.R. 4155 (the American Agricultural Security Act) and the Cybersecurity in Agriculture Act, have been introduced. These initiatives address urgent national security concerns and are fundamentally aligned with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those focused on food security, resilient infrastructure, and economic stability.

Alignment with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed legislation directly contributes to the achievement of multiple SDGs by safeguarding the food supply chain, which is critical for both national stability and global sustainability.

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): By protecting the agricultural sector from cyberattacks that can disrupt production and distribution, these bills work to ensure a stable and secure food supply, a core target of SDG 2. Preventing disruptions in grain handling, meat processing, and other vital operations is essential to maintaining food security.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): The acts focus on building resilient infrastructure by establishing Centers of Excellence and Regional Agriculture Cybersecurity Centers. They promote innovation and technological advancement by funding university-led research and developing sector-specific cybersecurity tools, directly supporting SDG 9’s call for resilient infrastructure and enhanced scientific research.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The agricultural sector is a cornerstone of the American economy. Protecting this vital industry from cyber threats safeguards economic productivity, protects jobs, and ensures the continued growth and stability of rural economies, aligning with the objectives of SDG 8.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): The legislation aims to build effective and capable institutions (university centers, grant programs) to combat cybercrime. Securing critical national infrastructure like the food supply is a key component of maintaining national security and promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, as envisioned in SDG 16.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Both bills emphasize a multi-stakeholder approach, fostering partnerships between government agencies (USDA), academic institutions (land-grant universities), and private industry. This collaborative model is central to the spirit of SDG 17, which calls for robust partnerships to achieve sustainable development.

Analysis of H.R. 4155: The American Agricultural Security Act

Introduced by Representative Don Bacon, this bill seeks to proactively defend the U.S. food supply chain against emerging threats. As stated by Rep. Bacon, “Our national security and our agricultural industry are inextricably linked.” The act proposes a framework that enhances research and defensive capabilities, contributing to SDG 2 and SDG 9.

1. Establishment of Centers of Excellence: The Secretary of Agriculture would be enabled to create Centers of Excellence at higher education institutions. These centers will focus on research and extension related to cybersecurity, biosecurity, and agricultural production, fostering innovation and building resilient infrastructure (SDG 9).
2. Competitive Grant Program: A grant program within the USDA will be established to support research, extension, and educational activities. This initiative is designed to improve the nation’s capacity to protect the food and agricultural system from attack, directly supporting the goal of food security (SDG 2).

Analysis of the Cybersecurity in Agriculture Act

Introduced by Representatives Zach Nunn and Don Davis, this bill addresses the vulnerability of farms and cooperatives, citing previous ransomware attacks on NEW Grain Cooperative, Crystal Valley Cooperative, and JBS. The act leverages the expertise of land-grant universities to bolster cyber defenses through a regional, collaborative approach, reflecting the principles of SDG 17.

1. Regional Cybersecurity Centers: The bill would establish five Regional Agriculture Cybersecurity Centers to enhance readiness, response, and recovery from cyberattacks, creating a network of resilient infrastructure (SDG 9).
2. University-Led Research: Funding will be directed to universities for research on advanced cybersecurity systems tailored for the agriculture sector, driving innovation (SDG 9).
3. Security Operations Centers: The development of dedicated centers to monitor and respond to cyber threats will strengthen institutional capacity to maintain peace and security (SDG 16).
4. Technology Development: The act supports the design of sector-specific tools, including threat detection systems and live testbeds for new technologies, advancing the goals of SDG 9.
5. Stakeholder Training: Conducting training and simulation exercises with agricultural industry stakeholders builds capacity and strengthens partnerships for sustainable development (SDG 17).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article’s central theme is the protection of the nation’s food supply chain and agricultural sector. The proposed legislation, the American Agricultural Security Act, aims to secure this vital industry, which is fundamental to ending hunger and ensuring food security for the population. Rep. Bacon’s quote, “There are only nine meals between civilization and total anarchy,” directly emphasizes the critical link between agricultural security and societal stability, which is a core concern of SDG 2.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The article discusses the need to “modernize” the agricultural sector and build “resilient infrastructure” by bolstering “cyber defenses.” The proposed acts focus on enhancing the technological capabilities of the agricultural industry to protect it from cyber threats. This involves significant innovation through “university-led research on advanced cybersecurity systems” and the development of “sector-specific cybersecurity tools,” which directly aligns with the goal of fostering innovation and resilient infrastructure.
3. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The legislation described in the article heavily relies on educational institutions. It proposes establishing “Centers of Excellence at institutions of higher education” and harnessing the “expertise of land-grant universities.” These centers will conduct research, extension, and education activities, as well as “training and simulation exercises,” thereby enhancing knowledge and skills related to agricultural cybersecurity, which contributes to quality education and specialized training.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The article frames cyberattacks on the agricultural sector as an “urgent national security concern.” The introduction of legislation like H.R. 4155 is an action to create strong and effective institutions (through USDA programs and university centers) to combat these threats. The goal is to protect a vital national industry from criminal or hostile actions, thereby promoting a peaceful and secure society.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The proposed solutions involve multi-stakeholder partnerships. The bills facilitate collaboration between the government (USDA), public institutions (“institutions of higher education,” “land-grant universities”), and the private sector (“agriculture industry stakeholders”). This collaborative approach to solving a complex national problem is the essence of SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article supports this target by focusing on protecting the food supply chain from disruptions caused by cyberattacks, such as the ones on JBS, NEW Grain Cooperative, and Crystal Valley Cooperative, which threatened supply chains and could have impacted food access.
   • Target 2.4: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices…” The legislation aims to make the agricultural sector more resilient to modern threats like cyberattacks, which is crucial for ensuring the sustainability and continued operation of food production systems.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: “Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure…” The article explicitly mentions the need to “bolster cyber defenses” and strengthen “agricultural cybersecurity infrastructure” to make it resilient against attacks.
   • Target 9.5: “Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors… and encourage innovation…” The proposed acts directly support this by establishing a “competitive grant program within USDA to support research,” funding “university-led research on advanced cybersecurity systems,” and developing “live testbeds for agricultural cybersecurity technologies.”
3. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.4: “By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills…” The plan to conduct “training and simulation exercises with agriculture industry stakeholders” and establish “Centers of Excellence” for education aims to build a workforce with the necessary skills to manage and defend against agricultural cyber threats.
   • Target 4.b: “By 2030, substantially expand… scholarships… for enrolment in higher education, including… scientific, engineering and information and communications technology…” The establishment of a “competitive grant program” and “Centers of Excellence at higher education institutions” promotes advanced education and research in the critical field of cybersecurity.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.a: “Strengthen relevant national institutions… to build capacity at all levels… to combat… crime.” The legislation (H.R. 4155 and the Cybersecurity in Agriculture Act) is a direct effort to strengthen national capacity through the USDA and partner universities to combat the crime of cyberattacks against a critical sector.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…” The article highlights partnerships between government (Reps. Bacon, Nunn, Davis introducing bills; USDA grants), public institutions (land-grant universities like Iowa State), and the private sector (farmers, cooperatives, meatpacking giant JBS, and other “agriculture industry stakeholders”).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Number of cyberattack incidents
   • The article states, “the U.S. agri-food sector reporting forty cyberattack incidents in the first quarter of 2024 alone.” A reduction in this number over time would be a direct indicator of the success of the proposed cybersecurity measures, measuring progress towards Target 2.4 and 9.1 (resilient systems and infrastructure).
2. Establishment of research and education centers
   • The legislation calls for the establishment of “Centers of Excellence at institutions of higher education” and “five Regional Agriculture Cybersecurity Centers.” The number of centers created and funded would be a clear indicator of progress towards Target 4.b, 9.5, and 16.a.
3. Development and implementation of cybersecurity tools
   • The bills aim to support the design of “sector-specific cybersecurity tools, including threat detection and intrusion prevention systems.” The number and effectiveness of tools developed and deployed in the agricultural sector would serve as an indicator for Target 9.5.
4. Execution of training and educational activities
   • The plan to conduct “training and simulation exercises with agriculture industry stakeholders” provides a measurable indicator. The number of training sessions held and the number of stakeholders participating would measure progress towards Target 4.4.
5. Funding and support through grant programs
   • The establishment of a “competitive grant program within USDA” is a key component. The amount of funding disbursed and the number of research, extension, and education projects supported through this program would be a quantifiable indicator of progress towards Target 9.5 and 17.17.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: oklahomafarmreport.com