WASHINGTON, D.C. – Members of a USDA advisory committee recently discussed recommendations the group hopes to provide to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack regarding ways to support urban agriculture and innovative production.

The role of the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee (UAIPAC) is to advise Vilsack on the development of policies and outreach on such matters as urban, indoor and other emerging agricultural production practices. The 12-member panel hopes to send recommendations to Vilsack later this year.

The 2018 farm bill called for the creation of the committee. The group is a part of USDA’s efforts to support urban agriculture, creating a network for feedback, according to the agency.

In remarks at the beginning of the Feb. 23 meeting, Louis Aspey, associate chief for the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, said he recognized and acknowledged the bureaucratic challenges the committee is facing.

“But I commend you for challenging us to put the people first and to ensure that our polices serve all producers.”

Bobby Wilson, a committee member, said urban agriculture should be subsidized in ways similar to that of big agriculture. “One of the challenges is, yeah, we can grow the food but at the time that our food comes out of the ground, we usually don’t have a market for it. If we’re going to change the dynamic of the marginalized and underserved community, we need to make sure that poor people are getting access to good, locally grown food that’s free of chemicals. If big ag can get subsidized, I think urban ag needs to be subsidized in some kind of way.”

One proposed recommendation considered during the meeting was for USDA to create a public database for grant/funding programs. Such a database would include information on incentives and support available to urban farmers and innovative producers.

The database would provide “one place to go if you’re an urban farmer or innovative producer, to be able to see all of the things that you could potentially be eligible for with all the eligibility guidelines right there,” explained Tara Chadwick, UAIPAC co-chair. “There are existing websites but there’s not any one website that really shows you all the programs that you could be eligible for as a farmer that takes into consideration all the different types of things that you could be eligible for through USDA.”

The committee would also like USDA to share information on the demographics of who’s using agency services or resources.

Another proposed recommendation calls for a review of the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) Microloan Program to determine program effectiveness as determined by overall utilization, time frames for credit decisioning and funding, and feed back from borrowers by reviewing inquiry data, application data and addressing challenges to current program requirements.

“The recommendations we’re looking at are really around reviewing the data that’s available that USDA has or that FSA has related to the time frames, and who’s applying for the loans, what is being approved,” noted Allison Paap, a committee member. “What are the challenges or the obstacles that are either creating a situation where loans aren’t being approved or where they’re not collecting complete applications. What are some of those areas where there’s consistently missing information or maybe where the application is not as intuitive or is causing a holdup.”

Paap said the committee should look at the current loan cap of $50,000 to be sure it’s a sufficient amount to help small-scale farmers.

The panel also called for USDA provide guidance to local governments and private citizens on best practices and resources to assist in accessing, maintaining and keeping land in urban and innovative agricultural and conservation use. For example, the agency should draft guidelines for state, local and municipal governments to update outdated zoning regulations.