WASHINGTON — U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman concedes it's unlikely that next week's WTO summit in Hong Kong will result in any breakthroughs on the thorny issue of agricultural trade — and that's just fine with many U.S. farm groups.

The National Farmers Organization says proposals being discussed at the World Trade Organization to slash agricultural subsidies and tariffs could drive many U.S. farms and ranches out of business.

The group certainly won't be disappointed if the summit collapses, like previous WTO meetings in Cancun, Mexico, and in Seattle, said Eugene Paul, a policy analyst with the association.

"Our trade negotiators just keep giving away our farm programs," Paul said.

On Oct. 10, Portman proposed cutting U.S. farm subsidies and tariffs as part of trade liberalization efforts in the WTO's "Doha round," which opened in 2001 in Qatar to address the concerns of developing nations.

Poor countries complain that tariffs and farm subsidies in the U.S., European Union and other wealthy nations block their exports of agricultural products such as cotton, corn and sugar, which are vital to their economies.

But Portman insists that U.S. farmers will benefit from freer global trade. In return for giving up subsidies and other protections, they would gain access to crucial foreign markets like the EU that have been largely closed, he says.

"... If this all comes together, it will be quite beneficial to American farmers and ranchers because we have some of the most productive land in the world," he said. "We've shown we can compete if there is a more level playing field."

U.S. consumers would also gain, as lower tariffs mean lower prices on food imports such as butter, milk, cuts of meat and many other products that are now priced higher because of prohibitive tariffs.

If free trade existed in farm products, Americans would pay about 90 cents for a pound of butter, according to analysts. At a Pathmark grocery store in Edgewater, N.J., a pound of store-brand butter was selling for $4.59 this week.

All that adds up. Figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that each U.S. household of four spends more than $600 a year because of tariffs that cause higher prices on farm goods and taxes that go to subsidies.

At issue in the trade talks are subsidies considered the most "trade-distorting" because they allow farmers to sell their grain more cheaply on the world market than farmers whose countries don't subsidize them.

The U.S, spent $21.5 billion on such "trade-distorting" subsidies in 2001, the last year for which the Department of Agriculture provided figures to the WTO.

In the proposal Portman unveiled last month, the U.S. has offered to eliminate government export subsidies for U.S. farm products by 2010. It's also proposing to reduce by 60 percent the amount of trade-distorting domestic support that the government provides U.S. farmers over the next five years.

Corn and soybean farmers, who like many growers are dependent on government subsidies, would be hit especially hard under such cuts, Paul said. A large portion of their crops are exported, especially soybeans, according to the Department of Agriculture's monthly crop report.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., reflected the mood of some in Congress when he said recently that U.S. negotiators are "prepared to negotiate away the protections that we have in this country for domestic producers against unfair foreign trade."

Liberalizing farm trade is an emotional issue worldwide — so much so that the WTO's Doha round has come to a virtual halt because the EU, United States and developing nations cannot reach a consensus on how much to open up their respective agricultural markets.

Many negotiators have blamed the EU for the impasse, saying it needs to offer bigger subsidy and tariff cuts. But Japan and South Korea, which have come under less fire, also heavily protect their rice markets.

As a result, some fear that the Hong Kong meeting, once billed as a key deadline for drafting a framework that would allow ministers to complete a global trade treaty by next year, could collapse — and even scuttle the whole Doha round.

While Portman doesn't expect major breakthroughs at the summit, which runs from Tuesday to Dec. 18, he believes that negotiators will make "incremental" progress" leading to "a binding trade agreement" next year.

"I think it happens because the alternative is so bad — the alternative is turning our backs on the WTO and the multilateral trading system," Portman said.