GENEVA,(AFP) – Ministers from the 148-nation WTO, their dream of a global trade deal imperilled by sharp regional differences, are about to mount a fresh bid in Hong Kong for the consensus needed to see the agreement implemented next year.

Their long-awaited December 13 to18 conference was originally billed as a key stage in the four-year-old Doha Round of negotiations to reduce barriers to world trade and spur growth in developing countries.

Hong Kong was to see approval of a framework multilateral accord that would need just a little more fine-tuning before taking effect near the end of 2006.

But in recent weeks members of the World Trade Organisation have resigned themselves to watered down goals in the face of persistent disagreement on two critical issues – the extent of cuts in import tariffs and government support for agriculture and the opening of industrial markets.

The plan now is to draft a “road map,” highlighting what has to be done next year, and to hold another meeting in March to keep the Doha Round, launched in the Qatari capital in late 2001, on track.

“We will have blueprint coming out of Hong Kong,” US Trade Representative Rob Portman said recently on CNBC Television.

“We’re not as far along as I’d hoped we’d be … Hong Kong was supposed to be more of a milestone that it is ended up being.”

For WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, there is now a danger that important tariff and subsidy proposals already put forward could be scrapped if Hong Kong founders.

“What is already on the table can translate into a good result for development,” he said late last month.

“It would certainly be disastrous if what we have disappears because we fail to move the negotiations forward.”

Ministers coming to Hong Kong are anxious to avoid a repeat of the high-profile WTO conferences that collapsed in bitter discord in Seattle in 1999 and the Mexican resort of Cancun in 2003.

In the hot seat are the European Union, accused of failing to offer deep enough reductions in farm import duties, and the United States, accused of having been slow to propose reductions in agricultural export subsidies.

And both of the world’s largest trading powers are in turn criticised for skewing trade against poor nations, their import barriers and government subsidies seen as making it impossible for poor farmers to compete effectively on the world stage.

At the same time, current proposals put forward by the EU and the United States have triggered problems at home, with France in particular slamming plans by EU negotiators to cut Europe’s farm support.

Their US counterparts must contend with a powerful domestic farm lobby reluctant to see the end of decades of generous government assistance.

Japan, Switzerland and a handful of other rich nations that want to protect key parts of their farm sectors have also warned they cannot afford deep cuts in import barriers.

Meanwhile, powerful emerging market countries such as Brazil and India have resisted EU calls for stepped-up talks on easing restrictions on trade in industrial goods and services, such as banking, until the agriculture question is settled.

Other poor nations in the 79-member African, Caribbean and Pacific group are wary of losing preferential trade accords with the European Union under far-reaching trade liberalisation.

Further clouding prospects for success in Hong Kong are demands from cotton-producing countries in Africa for sharp reductions in subsidies offered by Washington to US cotton growers.

Under such circumstances, activists say developing countries are right to be wary.

Celine Charveriat of the advocacy group Oxfam insisted that pressure for a comprehensive trade deal “must not be used as a smokescreen for forcing poor countries to agree to dramatic and premature market opening.”

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson insists that governments must also discuss an “itemised development package.”

Officials have said it could be based on an EU initiative that gives goods from the poorest countries tariff-and quota-free access to Europe.

But India’s Commerce Minister Kamal Nath maintains that the Doha Round is meant to help all, and not only some, developing countries. He has warned that initiatives for just the poorest are an attempt to “bisect and dissect” the developing world.

If the Hong Kong conference fails to mark out the way ahead, and the Doha Round remains paralysed, the multilateral trade negotiating system could be undermined even if it will not kill off the WTO, analysts warn.

The following issues are central to the deadlock in the Doha Round negotiations among the 148 World Trade Organisation governments.

FARM TRADE:

This accounts for just 10 per cent of global commerce but is of enormous importance to the economies of developing countries. They are resisting concessions in other areas until rules are made fairer in the agricultural sector.

The “three pillars” of the farm talks are:

– Export Subsidies.

These are judged to be the most damaging to fair trade because they weigh on global prices and penalise producers in poor nations. The European Union, which relies heavily on subsidies, has been ready to discuss their elimination but dates vary for particular products.

Other countries want them halted by 2010. In exchange, Brussels wants an end to export credits and food aid by Washington that are also seen as undermining poor farmers as well as tougher rules for state export companies in Canada and Australia.

– Domestic Support.

The United States has offered a 60-per cent cut in support for US farmers in what is known in WTO jargon as the “Orange Box” – the most trade-distorting government subsidies that are directly linked to price or production levels.

In return, Washington wants Japan and the EU to make a cut of around 80 per cent on the grounds that they are allowed to spend more under current WTO rules.

The United States has also proposed limiting to 2.5 per cent so-called “Blue Box” support, which is not linked to production and is seen as less harmful to trade. These proposals have been criticised as insufficient by developing countries.

– Market Access.

The European Union is under fire from exporters such as Brazil, Australia and the United States. They say the EU offer to cut duties by between 35 and 60 per cent does not go far enough.

Brussels also wants to keep higher tariffs on around 160 farm products that are under WTO rules it has classed as “sensitive.” Net food importing countries such as Japan and Switzerland, which also want to protect vulnerable or culturally important parts of their farming, oppose the idea of a ceiling on duties.

INDUSTRIAL GOODS:

Rich countries are seeking a generalised cut in import tariffs according to the “Swiss formula,” first set out by Switzerland’s negotiators. It would oblige all WTO members to reduce their tariffs to below a fixed level – the EU says it should be 10 per cent.

Developing countries would benefit from “special and differential treatment” but are pressing for smaller tariff reductions to protect their industries.

SERVICES:

Covering 163 sectors including banking and insurance, the talks are based on a “request-offer” process where countries ask their trading partners for liberalisation in specific areas and the latter come up with their own proposals in return. But fewer than 100 members have made an offer. The EU wants developing countries to liberalise 139 sectors but the latter only want reforms in 93.