With help from Doug Palmer

— The Agriculture Department’s climate program pulled off the impossible: gaining big ag’s support. But now, the agency has to prove the program is actually going to result in climate benefits.

— Russia faced strong pressure at a regional food security meeting last week to allow Ukraine to begin shipping grain out of its Black Sea ports again. But not from its ally, China, a country Western nations are hoping will increase pressure on Russia to restart the pact.

— The U.S. and Mexico’s corn dispute hit another bump late last week, with Reuters reporting that the U.S. has declined to co-research human health effects of genetically modified corn.

HAPPY MONDAY, Aug. 7. Welcome to Morning Ag. I’m your host, Garrett Downs. Happy second week of recess! With Congress out, now is a great time to send tips to [email protected] and @_garrettdowns, and follow us at @Morning_Ag.

Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

USDA’S CLIMATE CRUSADE: USDA successfully brought big ag aboard in the fight against climate change. Now they have to prove it will work, your host reports.

The strategy of paying large incentives to farmers so they adopt climate-friendly farming methods won over large swaths of big ag, capturing a policy priority that has eluded past administrations. But they still need to prove it actually has an environmental impact and isn’t just a giveaway to Big Ag, as some climate activists fear.

Bonnie’s brain: Robert Bonnie, the undersecretary of farm production and conservation, is the brains behind the USDA’s new approach. He’s a veteran of the Obama administration and saw that administration’s cap-and-trade approach go up in smoke. He researched how to gain support in rural communities for environmental efforts.

“Our job here is to basically do this in a way that will attract support,” he said. “And then prove it can work and prove it’s durable.”

The approach, and its $3 billion of subsidies, struck a positive chord with agriculture. Andrew Walmsley, then-senior director of government relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s farm lobby of more than six million members, chalked the program’s popularity up to its “voluntary, incentive-based approach,” which he said allows for innovation. “A lot of credit is due to [Bonnie’s] work and his approach,” Walmsley added.

Proving it can work: Having gotten the industry’s buy-in, USDA now needs to convince environmental advocates. Some are concerned that data from the USDA’s projects won’t be public because it contains trade secrets belonging to participating companies.

“It’s not really clear how this is going to do a whole lot more, in some of the projects, than just create another source of income for somebody,” said Cathy Day, the climate policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “If most of the money ends up flowing to farmers and changing practices it becomes less of a concern. But we’d really like to know that there’s really good, firm data on that, to ensure that it’s not going to be benefitting the large transnational corporations.”

Researchers also have cast doubt on the climate impact of one of the types of projects drawing the most funding — carbon sequestration, which can involve planting cover crops during the offseason to absorb more of the warming gases in the air.

But a recent study from the Stanford University’s Center on Food Security and the Environment found that cover crops — especially when implemented poorly — can reduce overall crop productivity. That reduction in crop growth could cause “spillover” emissions in other areas of the world, where farmers would have to ramp up their own agricultural production to fill the void.

David Lobell, the director of the Stanford center, said findings from early studies on soil carbon, which suggested that massive amounts of carbon could be sequestered by climate-smart agriculture, were overly optimistic.

“They certainly are not going to deliver the climate targets that we need,” Lobell said. “Even within agriculture, they’re not going to be enough to offset carbon emissions by themselves. I think we’re going to need to do a lot more.”

CHINA BALKS AT RUSSIA CONFRONTATION: Russia faced strong pressure at a regional food security meeting last week to allow Ukraine to begin shipping grain out of its Black Sea ports again. But not from its ally, China, our Doug Palmer reports.

Russia’s decision to pull out of the deal was one of several issues that blocked the 21 Pacific Rim economies attending the high-level talks in Seattle from issuing a joint statement.

Chair Vilsack gavels in: Instead, the U.S. host, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, issued a “chair’s statement” summarizing the main points of agreement and disagreement at the meeting, which took place Thursday under an annual forum known as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

Western countries have been hoping that China would help persuade Russia to restart the pact — especially since China has been one of the leading countries benefiting from it. But that did not materialize at the Seattle meeting.

“Nearly all APEC ministers expressed deep regret for the decision of the Russian Federation to unilaterally withdraw from the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) and call on the Russian Federation to reverse its decision, return to negotiations, and extend and fully implement the initiative immediately, stressing the importance of allowing grains to continue to reach those most in need,” Vilsack said in the chair’s statement.

A USDA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that both Russia and China blocked a joint statement that included the critical language on the Black Sea Grain Initiative.

China’s response: A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington declined comment, saying: “We do not have anything to offer at this time.”

The U.S. chair’s statement contains another paragraph, first issued by APEC leaders at a summit meeting last fall, saying “most members strongly condemned” Russia’s war in Ukraine. That paragraph is clearly footnoted to show it was “agreed to by all member economies except the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.”

CORN SPAT POPS BACK UP: Mexican Deputy Agriculture Minister Victor Suarez last week told Reuters that the U.S. declined to jointly research the health impacts of GM corn — a sign that a dispute settlement panel could be imminent.

Remember: The refusal comes as the two countries are embroiled in a trade spat over GM corn. Mexico has made clear it intends to ban GM white corn for use in the tortilla and also wants to phase out yellow corn for animal feed. Mexico is a top export destination for U.S. corn.

The U.S. claims Mexico’s plan for U.S. corn is not based on science. In March, the U.S. requested technical consultations under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement with Mexico over the corn issue. Then in June, the U.S. again requested dispute settlement consultations, furthering the dispute.

What’s next: Under USMCA, if the two sides do not reach an agreement within 75 days of consultations, by Aug. 16, a formal dispute settlement panel can be requested, though there is no mandate on how long consultations can carry on. Should either side request a panel, it would allow a panel of experts to decide the issue. If the panel sides with the U.S., it would be allowed to impose retaliatory measures against Mexico.

— California has an agriculture problem, the pesky fruit fly, NBC News reports.

— Colorado wheat farmers are struggling to remain profitable this season, The Colorado Sun reports.

— USDA has upgraded its food court, according to Deputy Agriculture Secretary Xochitl Torres Small. And it’s open to the public.

THAT’S ALL FOR MA! Drop us a line: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected].