advocacy

Growing Forward: The Case for a Thoughtful Alaska Department of Agriculture

By Rachel Lord, Advocacy and Policy Director, AFPC

The path to establishing a dedicated Department of Agriculture in Alaska has been long and winding, marked by years of discussion, shifting political will, and recently, a bold—if unsuccessful—executive order.

This legislative session, Governor Dunleavy issued Executive Order 136 to carve out a standalone Department of Agriculture from the Division currently housed under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The rationale? Agriculture deserves the visibility, authority, and cross-sectoral coordination that a standalone department could provide.

The Alaska Food Policy Council agrees—with thoughtful structure and purpose, a Department of Agriculture can and should be a strategic investment in Alaska’s food future.

But EO 136 failed to gain legislative approval. Concerns were voiced across the aisle: How would a department be funded? Would it add bureaucratic bloat without bringing value? Couldn’t we just make the existing Division stronger? How are rural Alaska’s priorities envisioned in a Department? 

Let’s unpack where things stand—and where we believe Alaska should go next.

The Ongoing Effort: This Session’s Attempt

The Governor’s Executive Order aimed to realign Alaska’s agricultural focus under a new Department, drawing attention to the importance of food production, economic development, and land management in tandem. But the rollout came with more questions than answers. Legislators pushed back on:

  • photo by Drew Dempsey, Unsplash

    Funding uncertainties: In a tough budget year, many legislators asked how the new department would be funded, and if it would be worth it given funding constraints.

  • Strategic clarity: What would a Department do that the Division couldn’t do to help the agricultural industry? Would this be a branding exercise or a meaningful shift?
  • Lack of stakeholder engagement: Several ag producers, Tribes, and advocates raised concerns about the lack of a public process leading up to the order.
  • Limited attention to rural Alaska: Lawmakers and community leaders questioned whether a Department of Agriculture would prioritize the entire state, or continue to focus primarily on the Mat-Su Valley and road system producers. Would rural and off-road-system needs be heard, staffed, and supported in such a structure? Right now, that’s unclear.

Ultimately, the legislature exercised its constitutional authority to block the order. But that doesn’t mean the conversation is over. It means the conversation needs to get better.

Division vs. Department: Why It Matters

At its core, the difference between a Division and a Department is about power, position, and policy influence.

Feature
Department
Division
Authority Direct cabinet-level leadership, reports to the governor Reports to a higher agency or department
Budget Control Owns and administers its own budget Budget is allocated by the parent department
Policy Influence Can shape statewide policy independently Limited influence; follows the priorities of the parent department
Cross-Agency Coordination Can coordinate with multiple state and federal agencies Limited ability to coordinate beyond its parent department
Industry Support & Engagement Provides a clear point of contact for industry leaders Competes for attention within a broader department
Federal Funding Access Direct recipient of federal grants and program funding Often secondary in grant applications to the parent department
Strategic Focus Dedicated focus on one industry or issue area Subordinate to the mission of the parent department

A Division can manage. A Department can lead.

And Alaska needs agricultural leadership across a wide range of intersecting issues.

Agriculture Touches Everything

A robust agriculture sector doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Here’s a glimpse at just how interconnected ag is across the State of Alaska’s departments:

  • Transportation: Roads that serve producers—known as “ag roads”—are essential for distribution and access. Airports and marine highways are critical for the movement of food across Alaska. 
  • Education & Early Development (DEED): Farm to School programs, nutrition education, and the state’s largest food procurement sector.
  • Corrections: Another large food procurement customer at the state, and also oversees the Point MacKenzie Correctional Farm. 
  • Health: Programs like SNAP, WIC, Produce Rx, and chronic disease prevention can hugely benefit from strong connections with in-state agriculture.
  • Natural Resources: Land leasing, conservation planning, and land use policy directly impact ag viability across Alaska.
  • University: Agricultural research, Extension, and 4-H programs are fundamental to long-term success, and benefit from leveraging strong coordination with state efforts.
  • Labor & Workforce Development: Workers’ compensation and unemployment requirements, and workforce training and development programs should all have integrated agricultural resources supported by ag leadership. 
  • Environmental Conservation: Food safety, water rights, and veterinary oversight are core ag infrastructure that could benefit greatly from strong communications with agricultural leadership. 
  • Family and Community Services: Potential food procurement partnerships with state-run facilities.
  • Fish & Game: There are growing conversations about how habitat, conservation, and subsistence intersect with agriculture. 
  • Commerce (DCCED): Business and corporation licensing, economic development, and oversight of entities like ASMI (Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute) are all examples of DCCED oversight that should overlap with agricultural industry development. DCCED has also overseen food security efforts, including granting programs for food bank direct food purchases. 

Agriculture is not just an economic sector—it’s a connector. It’s part of Alaska’s health, education, infrastructure, and cultural fabric.

And that means it needs a seat at the big table.

The Current Mission of DNR

Let’s look at the mission statement of the Department of Natural Resources:

“To develop, conserve, and maximize the use of Alaska’s natural resources consistent with the public interest.”

The description of what the Department does reads:

“The Department of Natural Resources manages all state-owned land, water, and natural resources, except for fish and game, on behalf of the people of Alaska. When all land conveyances from the federal government are completed, the people of the state will own land and resources on 104 million acres: Approximately 100 million acres have been conveyed so far. The state owns approximately 60 million acres of tidelands, shorelands, and submerged lands and manages 40,000 miles of coastline. The state also owns the freshwater resources of the state, a resource that equals about 40% of the entire nation’s freshwater flow.”

While the ADNR mission is broad enough to include agriculture, it’s not focused on the complex web of food systems development, rural and Tribal partnerships, health intersections, or workforce needs. The DNR’s mission and description can support agriculture through an expansive interpretation by encompassing the resources it depends on, but the lack of explicit mention suggests it’s not a priority. Agriculture fits awkwardly under this framework—it’s neither fully excluded nor clearly embraced. Our history supports this ambiguity – agriculture is clearly a minor subset of broader resource management, and not a priority. 

 

The explicit exclusion of fish and game (managed by a separate entity, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game) shows a deliberate division of responsibilities. Agriculture, like fish and game, is a specific industry with unique needs—soil management, crop subsidies, pest control, marketing, and procurement—that go beyond general resource management. The description’s silence on farming or ranching implies it’s not a core function.

It is clear that if agriculture is to be a priority of the state, then agriculture must have a dedicated platform. It’s not just about resource maximization—it’s about building long-term systems resilience.

AFPC Recommendations

The Alaska Food Policy Council believes that the time is ripe for a thoughtful, strategic, and inclusive development of a Department of Agriculture. If Alaska is to take this step, we recommend several changes beyond the existing structure of the Division.

  • Include Tribal Relations Liaisons at the Department to ensure Indigenous voices are part of leadership and implementation of agricultural policies and investments that support all Alaskans.

  • Hire a State Procurement Specialist within the Department to streamline farm-to-institution procurement across DEED, Corrections, and beyond.

  • Direct the new Department to create a meaningful, publicly accountable strategic plan that aligns agriculture policy with health, education, and economic goals and addresses coordinated interagency efforts so ag isn’t siloed.

  • Create the framework for the Alaska Grown Marketing Institute to invest in branding and promotion to grow demand for Alaskan crops and specialty products.

Moving Forward: Set Aside the Politics

We understand the frustrations. Government restructuring is hard. But functional inefficiency is harder, especially for the producers, organizations, and families building Alaska’s food future.

We urge the legislature to collaborate at the table. Let’s ask not just if we need a Department of Agriculture, but what kind we need—and how to build it with purpose.

Establishing a Department of Agriculture is not just about farming—it’s about building a resilient Alaska. The DNR’s broad mission, while effective for managing raw resources, dilutes focus on the specialized needs of agriculture. A standalone department, equipped with Tribal liaisons, procurement expertise, a marketing institute, and interagency collaboration, would signal that Alaska is serious about feeding its people, supporting its producers, and adapting to a changing world. We call on the legislature to act decisively, investing in a future where Alaskan agriculture thrives for the benefit of all.

Alaska deserves strong food systems. Let’s build the structure to match the vision.