Report on the United States Department of Agriculture Restructuring and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes the proposed restructuring of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the associated staffing reductions, with a specific focus on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The analysis evaluates the potential impacts of these changes on the United States’ progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

1.0 Executive Summary of USDA Actions and Institutional Context

On July 24, 2025, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture released memorandum SM-1078-015, detailing a significant departmental reorganization. This action was initiated without formal stakeholder engagement from agricultural producers or experts, raising concerns about institutional transparency and accountability, which are central to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The reorganization follows a substantial reduction in the USDA workforce, with over 18,000 employee departures since January 2025.

• Action: Proposed USDA restructuring and consolidation of offices.
• Process Deficiency: Lack of meaningful stakeholder consultation and deviation from the standard Federal Register notice for public comment.
• Immediate Impact: Significant reduction in workforce, threatening the institutional capacity required to support national sustainability objectives.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has called for public feedback, highlighting the procedural irregularities that undermine the principles of inclusive governance essential for achieving the SDGs.

2.0 Analysis of Staffing Reductions within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

The NRCS is the primary USDA agency responsible for delivering conservation assistance that directly supports the achievement of multiple SDGs. The current staffing crisis within the agency presents a direct threat to this mission.

2.1 The Role of NRCS in Advancing Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental SDGs

NRCS provides critical technical and financial assistance to agricultural producers, enabling the implementation of practices that advance several SDGs:

1. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): By promoting soil health and resilient farming systems through programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), NRCS helps ensure long-term food security.
2. SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): Conservation practices implemented with NRCS support protect water quality from agricultural runoff.
3. SDG 13 (Climate Action): The agency assists farmers in building resilience to climate impacts such as drought and flooding.
4. SDG 15 (Life on Land): NRCS programs directly contribute to enhancing wildlife habitats and improving soil biodiversity.

2.2 Quantitative Assessment of NRCS Staffing Decline

The operational capacity of NRCS has been severely compromised by a sustained and accelerating decline in personnel. This trend jeopardizes the human resources needed to achieve sustainability targets and impacts SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) through the loss of specialized federal employment.

• Historical Context: Staffing fell from nearly 13,000 in 2005 to a low of 8,914 in 2019.
• Recent Departures (2025):
  • Total departures in 2025 represent nearly 25% of the NRCS workforce.
  • 2,409 employees (21%) accepted a Deferred Resignation Program (DRP).
  • An additional 182 employees (2%) separated from the agency between January and March 2025.
• Future Projections: The FY2026 budget request proposes a further reduction to 8,000 employees, a level insufficient to manage the historic conservation funding allocated by recent legislation.

The loss of experienced, mid-career staff is particularly detrimental, creating a knowledge gap that weakens the agency’s ability to provide effective technical guidance for complex conservation systems aligned with the SDGs.

3.0 Consequences for On-the-Ground Conservation and SDG Attainment

The reduction in NRCS personnel, over 99% of whom work in field offices outside Washington, D.C., has direct and negative consequences for service delivery to farmers and the advancement of national environmental goals.

3.1 Disruption of Service Delivery and Farmer Support

Staffing shortages directly translate to diminished support for farmers, creating bottlenecks that impede the adoption of sustainable practices.

• Increased Wait Times: Farmers already face wait times of six months to a year for contract approval, a delay expected to worsen.
• Reduced Program Access: Demand for NRCS programs far exceeds capacity, with less than 25% of CSP applicants and 26% of EQIP applicants receiving contracts. Staffing cuts will further lower these acceptance rates.
• Impact on Sustainable Production (SDG 12): The inability to provide timely technical and financial assistance serves as a major barrier for farmers seeking to transition to more sustainable production models.

3.2 Geographic Scope of Impact

The staff reductions are not localized but represent a nationwide crisis. Data indicates that 36 states have lost over 25% of their NRCS staff in 2025 alone. This widespread loss of capacity cripples the nation’s ability to address regional environmental challenges and meet conservation targets related to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

4.0 Systemic Risks Posed by the Proposed Reorganization

The proposed USDA reorganization plan to consolidate regional offices into five hubs is likely to exacerbate the existing staffing crisis and further undermine the agency’s mission.

• Administrative Misalignment: The proposed hub locations do not align with NRCS’s existing regional structure, which is based on natural resource divisions. This will create operational inefficiencies.
• Anticipated Staff Attrition: Relocating regional duties will likely trigger additional departures of experienced staff unwilling to move, further degrading institutional knowledge.
• Threat to Mission Fulfillment: With two of four Regional Conservationist positions already vacant, the reorganization threatens to create further leadership vacuums and disrupt the agency’s ability to protect natural resources and support farmers in their efforts to achieve sustainability.

5.0 Conclusion: A Threat to National Sustainability Commitments

The severe staffing reductions at NRCS, compounded by a proposed reorganization that lacks stakeholder input and strategic alignment, pose a significant threat to the United States’ ability to achieve its agricultural and environmental objectives. These actions directly undermine progress on multiple Sustainable Development Goals by weakening the primary institution responsible for implementing on-the-ground conservation. Reversing this trend is critical for supporting resilient food systems, protecting vital natural resources, and taking meaningful climate action.

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

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• The article focuses on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency that provides critical support to farmers and ranchers. The challenges faced by these agricultural producers, such as “degraded soil and water health, and intensifying economic pressures,” directly impact food production and security. The weakening of NRCS’s ability to deliver conservation assistance threatens the resilience and sustainability of farming operations, which are fundamental to achieving zero hunger.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• The article explicitly states that NRCS programs help farmers implement conservation practices that “protect water quality.” The reduction in staff and services directly jeopardizes these efforts, potentially leading to increased agricultural runoff and degradation of water resources, which is contrary to the goals of SDG 6.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• The article details a significant institutional crisis involving massive job losses. It notes that “USDA has already shed more than 18,000 employees” and that “nearly one in four NRCS employees have departed this year alone.” This directly relates to employment, job security, and the stability of the workforce within a key government agency.

SDG 13: Climate Action

• The work of the NRCS is directly linked to climate action. The article mentions that its programs help “build resilience” and assist farmers who are “facing unprecedented challenges” like “more frequent flooding and drought.” These conservation efforts are crucial for climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector. The staff losses undermine the capacity to implement these adaptive measures.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• This is a central theme of the article. The NRCS’s mission is to help producers implement practices that “improve soil health, protect water quality, [and] enhance wildlife habitat.” The staffing crisis threatens the delivery of these services, which are essential for combating land degradation, halting biodiversity loss, and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article critiques the process of the USDA’s reorganization, stating it was “developed without meaningful engagement from farmers or other stakeholders” and that the USDA “has not followed the usual process of publishing a Federal Register notice for public comment.” This highlights a failure in creating effective, accountable, and transparent institutions and ensuring inclusive and participatory decision-making. The staff losses themselves represent a weakening of a vital public institution.

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

Target 2.4: Sustainable food production and resilient agricultural practices

• The entire focus of the NRCS’s work described in the article aligns with this target. Programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are designed to help farmers implement “resilient agricultural practices that… progressively improve land and soil quality” and “strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding.”

Target 15.3: Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil

• The article emphasizes that NRCS assistance helps farmers “improve soil health” and tackle “degraded soil.” This directly supports the goal of restoring degraded land and achieving land degradation neutrality. The loss of technical experts jeopardizes the ability to provide this crucial support.

Target 15.5: Protect natural habitats and halt biodiversity loss

• The article mentions that one of the goals of NRCS conservation practices is to “enhance wildlife habitat.” This action is a direct contribution to Target 15.5, which aims to reduce the degradation of natural habitats.

Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

• The article’s central theme is the weakening of the NRCS, a key government institution. The massive staff departures, loss of experienced mid-career employees, and proposed budget cuts threaten the agency’s effectiveness. The article warns that these losses “threaten NRCS’s ability to deliver timely, effective conservation assistance to farmers.”

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making

• The article directly critiques the USDA’s decision-making process for the reorganization. It highlights that the plan was “developed without meaningful engagement from farmers or other stakeholders” and that the USDA failed to follow the “standard practice” of publishing a Federal Register notice for public comment, indicating a lack of inclusive and participatory governance.

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

Indicators of Institutional Capacity and Effectiveness (Target 16.6)

• Staffing Levels: The article provides precise figures on the number of NRCS employees over time, from “nearly 13,000 staff” in 2005 to a low of “8,914” in 2019, and a proposed reduction to “just 8,000 NRCS employees.” These numbers are a direct indicator of institutional capacity.
• Staff Turnover/Separation Rate: The article quantifies the recent staff exodus, stating “nearly one in four NRCS employees have departed this year alone,” with 2,409 employees (21%) taking a buyout and 182 (2%) separating otherwise. A survey is also cited where “90% of practitioners agreed that ‘high employee turnover… negatively impacts conservation momentum’.”
• Service Wait Times: The article implies that staff shortages lead to service delays, noting that the “wait time… is usually six months and sometimes up to a year.” This is a key performance indicator for institutional effectiveness.

Indicators of Support for Sustainable Agriculture (Targets 2.4 & 15.3)

• Financial Investment in Conservation: The article states that “Between 2005 and 2023, NRCS has provided $87.3 billion in conservation support to farmers and ranchers.” This financial data serves as an indicator of the scale of investment in sustainable agricultural practices.
• Program Application and Acceptance Rates: The article provides a clear indicator of the gap between demand and service delivery: “less than 25% of the applications to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) are granted contracts and only about 26% of the applications to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are granted contracts.”

Indicators of Participatory Decision-Making (Target 16.7)

• Public Consultation Mechanisms: While not a quantitative metric, the article points to a qualitative indicator by noting the absence of a “Federal Register notice for public comment,” which is described as “standard practice for proposals of this magnitude.” The presence or absence of such formal mechanisms is an indicator of participatory governance.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: sustainableagriculture.net