Comment: Nobody could be accused of raising hopes for a successful WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong this week. It would be preferable if negotiations had advanced to the point that the Hong Kong meeting could take a major step towards the completion of the Doha Development road. But that is not the case and expectations for the meeting have been progressively scaled back in recent months.

It may seem odd for anyone to caution against excessive pessimism - especially when that voice of caution is from the non-governmental (NGO) sector, sections of which are the shrillest in demanding decisive action to help developing countries. But the general pessimism needs to be tempered. Nobody has walked away from the table and all the major parties remain committed to concluding the negotiations.

Quiet progress has been made in a number of the difficult areas, including agriculture. The negotiations are complex and cover a large number of sectors, countries and groupings of countries. Any final compromise will require trade-offs between the sectors and groupings. It is unrealistic to expect final negotiation cards to be put on the table until the end-game is reached.

The WTO ministers should set themselves three targets if they want the talks to conclude successfully:

Produce a decisive political statement affirming their commitment to concluding the negotiations in 2006;

Affirm progress made thus far. Some progress has been made, even if this is not the public perception; n Agree a substantial "aid for trade" package for the poorer developing countries.

This would be a political down payment to the trade principle and should produce real benefits for developing counties and an acknowledgement that the developing countries need significant assistance to develop their capacity to trade and benefit from opportunities that fairer trading arrangements can produce.

There will still be obstacles to bringing negotiations to a conclusion, but we would then be able to discern the shape of an outcome that meets the needs of developing countries and is politically feasible for developed countries.

It would help to put the trade talks in a wider perspective. This year's Global Call to Action against Poverty and Make Poverty History campaigns stressed the need for increased aid from developed countries, reducing excessive debts of developing countries and trade justice to be achieved through fairer trading arrangements.

The search for a successful conclusion to the WTO talks in 2006 should acknowledge the different needs of different categories of developing countries and be accompanied by a range of initiatives complementary to the detailed trade negotiation.

Middle-income developing countries, such as Brazil and South Africa, have a major interest in freer trade and greater access to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Poorer developing countries, especially in Africa, are marginalised from the world trading system - many of them are net importers of food, and recipients of food aid. Trade liberalisation will not produce any meaningful benefit to such countries, except possibly in the long term.

The principle that the poorest developing countries should receive special treatment in this trade round is established. They will not have to agree to the same level of tariff reduction as other countries. Hopefully, the Hong Kong meeting will agree on an "aid for trade" package which can increase their capacity to trade as a priority on their domestic market and then at regional level.

But if they are to be helped to develop, increasingly well-targeted aid is necessary to strengthen their domestic economies and to provide better health and education services.

Adjustment strategies are necessary to help countries and groups who may lose from trade reform. If an agreement is reached in 2006, it will enter into force in 2008 and will be implemented over a number of years.

Finding an agreement on agriculture will be central to a successful conclusion. The EU trade commissioner, Peter Mandleson, has been given a mandate that fits within the changes agreed in the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (Cap) reform. This is sensible and it is not realistic to go beyond that in Hong Kong.

Whether this will be sufficient or whether more Cap reform will be necessary as part of a final WTO agreement, remains to be seen. The Government should initiate proactive policies to prepare for the day when the agricultural and food sector will have to be more competitive.

Net food importing countries also risk losing out from agricultural trade reform in that world prices for agricultural products may be expected to rise over time. These countries need to help develop their agricultural sectors and reduce their dependence on imported food. They also have a right to expect that adequate safety nets will be agreed, either as part of or ancillary to a WTO agreement.

Food aid has traditionally acted as a safety net against emergencies, but its cost effectiveness, sourced in developed countries like the largest food aid donor, the US, is increasingly questioned.

Food aid has become a contentious issue between the EU and US in the negotiations, with the EU claiming it is an effective subsidy for US farmers. Any outcome should ensure there will be sufficient food aid to protect against major disasters and ensure it is not operated in a way that destroys local markets for African farmers.

Solemn commitments have been made over recent years that this trade round will produce real benefits for poor people in developing countries. Just changing trade rules will not achieve that. The trade agenda has to be aligned with a range of other measures if poverty is to eliminated. Hong Kong is the next step in testing how seriously the world community is taking its own rhetoric.

Tom Arnold is chief executive of Concern. He was previously assistant secretary general in the Department of Agriculture, chairman of the OECD Committee of Agriculture and a member of the UN millennium project hunger task force.