'[The agreement] is not for the 70 per cent of the world's poor who make their living off the land,' she said. 'The negotiations on agriculture - even many of the proposals by developing countries - are geared towards export agriculture which is controlled by transnational agri-business firms. Any proposal that keeps agriculture within the realm of the WTO, hurts farmers.'

'There is going to be a drastic change to farming,' said Mary Lou Malig, research associate of the Focus on the Global South group based in Thailand. Developing countries have to cut their high [import] tariffs which will destroy local industry's ability to compete with overseas conglomerates.

'Countries are being forced to further reduce protection for their farmers and liberalise their agricultural sector, making it significantly harder for farmers to receive a fair return on their labour, and exacerbating food insecurity,' said Ms George.

Ms Malig said that while developing countries were being forced to open up their agricultural markets, the US and the European Union had kept their own farming subsidies to protect their farmers.

'This is permanently an unfair system,' she said. The rich countries say they will only lower the subsidies to their farmers if the poor countries open their markets. Ms George said the subsidies should be scrapped completely. 'The foundation of the agricultural market must change, with every country having the right to set its own food policy, or food sovereignty,' she said.

'The agreement on agriculture was never intended to lead to fair trade in agriculture, but rather was meant to open up and regulate dumping by monopolistic US and EU agri-businesses in developing countries' agricultural markets.' The lower prices of imported goods threaten farmers who are unable to compete, and will eventually cause them to go out of business.

George Odour Ong'wen, a vocal activist in Kenya who is the regional co-ordinator of the Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute, gave an example. 'Under the WTO agreements, Kenya is forced to sell coffee beans at a very low price of 12 US cents per kilogram,' he said.

'However, one kilogram of coffee beans can make 200 cups of coffee, which can be sold in Western countries for US$600.'

In South Korea, the National Assembly last month passed a motion to double rice imports by 2014 based on a WTO agreement. The move prompted more than 100,000 farmers to take to the streets.

Kwak Gil-seong, a spokesman for the Korean Peasants League, said farmers had no choice but to protest in not only their home country, but also in Hong Kong. 'Farming is about life and sovereignty,' he said.

'We cannot compete with the US and EU and any other multinational companies because many of us are [small scale] farmers. In Korea, farming is a way of life.'

While free-trade supporters say short-term pain means long-term benefit for all, the NGOs say the hard facts have proved otherwise.

'They say development takes time and there would be short-term pain. But 10 years have already gone,' said Indra Lubis, spokesman for La Via Campesina, one of the largest umbrella groups for farmer's interests.

'After 20 years of structural adjustment and free-trade policies in developing countries, there are more poor people in the world today than in 1985,' said Ms George.

'According to the World Bank's own estimates of the likely benefits of the Doha round [of agreements], developing countries are expected to gain only US$16 billion. However, the conditions proposed in current negotiations that would lead to this minor gain would require countries to further cut tariffs.

'But that would end up costing those countries US$32 billion over the same period, because they rely on tariff receipts for 20 per cent of all government revenue.

'Reduced government revenue will lead to more cutbacks in education, public health and infrastructure in developing countries - a definite no-win situation for farmers and urban residents alike.'

Privatisation of public services is another area of concern. If all member countries signed the agreements, foreign companies - instead of the government - might be providing public services such as health care.

Ms Malig said the whole idea was a 'scary' thought. 'We have a great fear that if the market is opened up for privatisation, then the [poorer people] would not be able to afford it.' If water was privatised, then it was very likely that some people just would not be able to afford it, she said. The deal also gives no flexibility to countries in which services they will privatise.

For Health GAP (Global Access Project), an activist group seeking worldwide access to HIV treatment, the WTO talks on licensed production of generic drugs in developing countries is a life or death issue.

Brook Baker, a law professor at America's Northeastern University, who is a policy adviser to the group, said the US was trying to force through a proposal that would complicate the already complex and time-consuming system for issuing compulsory licences to allow the production and trade of generic medicines. Developing countries need expensive patented drugs developed in first world countries which they can themselves produce, if they are allowed.

'The WTO is stacked against developing countries particularly with respect to intellectual property rights,' Professor Baker said.

'Medicines are essential public goods and should not be subject to monopoly control by proprietary companies. A one-size-fits-all intellectual property scheme is morally bankrupt and ultimately will result in billions of dollars in excess payments flowing from poor countries to rich countries.'

Ms Malig said the biggest damage that free trade had brought to developing countries was massive unemployment.

'Many people have lost their jobs, factories are closed and there is loss of livelihood. At the moment, 90 per cent of [Hong Kong's] Indonesian migrant workers are from rural areas. They were forced to leave their countries to work overseas because they were unable to make a living in their own country.'

She also rebutted the argument that the hardship now faced by people in developing countries was the cost to pay for development. 'It really depends on what kind of development we want. This development would make us unable to have access to public services as they become privatised, which would make them way too expensive to afford,' she said.

Ms Malig said the NGOs and some of the governments were now trying to stop any unfair agreements being made in the meeting before it was too late. 'We can't reverse it if a deal is signed,' she said.

But she remains optimistic. 'I believe that the developing countries will stick together stronger than in Cancun two years ago, which we think is already a success,' she said. 'I think there is a huge possibility that, if we stick together, we can stop the deal and renegotiate.'

She also said WTO chief Pascal Lamy's draft proposal scheduled for today's meeting would bring the developing countries closer together.

'Right now we have a greater opportunity to stop the deal because the developing countries are outraged by the Lamy text - many things that were merely discussed have found their way into the text as if decisions were taken ... I think this will backfire on Lamy.'