IN EARLY February, senior European Commission official Geoffrey Martin gave an exclusive interview to The Northern Echo during a visit to Newcastle. Speaking bluntly, he signalled reform of the controversial Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which has been blamed by naturalists for damaging wildlife habitats by encouraging intensive farming.

However, the acknowledgement by Mr Martin, Head of the Commission's UK Office, that powerful European farming and political lobbies wished to retain the lucrative system of subsidies, suggested that rapid reform was unlikely.

But unbeknown to him as he spoke, an awful solution was taking shape in the region - an awful, catastrophic solution but a solution all the same.

By the end of the month foot-and-mouth, having gained a foothold in the North-East, was spreading rapidly throughout the country, leading to a massive cull of livestock.

Although deeply moved by the horror of what they were witnessing, environmentalists quickly realised that the removal from the land of so many animals provided the Government and European Union with an ideal opportunity to reform agriculture, so that Britain did not return to old intensive methods once the outbreak had run its course.

Supporting the naturalists' views was evidence suggesting that the virtual shutdown of agriculture has helped wildlife immensely.

Without pesticide and relentless ploughing of fields, wildflowers have enjoyed their best year for decades and, in the uplands, where the slaughter policy has reduced overgrazing by sheep, ground-nesting birds like lapwing and golden plover have thrived.

John Gorst, Reserves Project Officer for Durham Wildlife Trust, says: "The countryside has witnessed an unprecedented disaster but we must look to the future and highlight ways in which, from a conservation perspective, the agricultural industry can be modified in the light of some of the lessons learnt and become wildlife-friendly and sustainable.

"Under the current system of subsidy, British farmers receive approximately £3bn of public money per annum. At present, about £100m of this is earmarked for agri-environment schemes and these schemes tend to target rather low-key changes to farming practice, such as increased field margins, rather than whole farm changes.

"If just ten per cent of UK farmers adopted a whole farm conservation plan there would be a dramatic increase in rural biodiversity and habitat creation.

"This will require a major shift in the way in which the rural landscape is valued. The emphasis must be changed from viewing land purely in terms of the financial revenue it can generate, towards valuing land in terms of its intrinsic socio-economic and nature conservation value."

He is supported by Elizabeth Mann, a Darlington-based member of the North-East Regional Group of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose emphasis is on helping farmers, rural communities, businesses and wildlife exist side-by-side, including promoting flora and fauna in tourism material.

Mrs Mann says: "Farming is about more than just producing food, more than a factory for producing raw materials, and farmers have a role other than as a small cog in a giant production machine. It is time to take stock and consider the lessons we need to learn about the future of farming and the role it plays in the countryside.

"It is an opportunity to secure lasting and sustainanable change which will not only ensure a viable future for farming, but will also protect and enhance the beauty and diversity of the rural landscape and bring wider economic and social benefits to rural communities and businesses. But, to make the most of this opportunity, we need to act now."

Perhaps 20 years ago, the agricultural industry might have resisted the argument but things have changed, according to Alec Turnbull, National Farmers' Union senior policy advisor for the region.

He is seconded to regional development agency One NorthEast to help write its forthcoming blueprint for the future of the countryside, whose suggestions will include a shift in subsidies away from purely intensive farming methods in the light of the industry's ordeal at the hands of recession, BSE and now foot-and-mouth.

Mr Turnbull says approximately 3,000 out of 3,600 livestock farms in the region who had not received compensation because they did not have animals culled under foot-and-mouth regulations, had suffered nonetheless because the livestock trade had been hit hard.

Cereal farmers had suffered because livestock feed makes up a large proportion of their market and the outbreak has dramatically reduced trade.

Livestock farmers who wanted to leave the industry have found themselves trapped because the depressed value of their animals at market had robbed them of the nest-eggs they needed to retire.

Mr Turnbull says: "Although foot-and-mouth has destroyed the infrastructure of the livestock sector in many parts of the country and continues to have a devastating effect on livestock production, it has to be recognised that it has provided the agricultural industry with an opportunity to move forward and restructure."

Government ministers agree. Earlier this year, just before foot-and-mouth broke out, they published a report based on widespread consultation backing a move away from intensive agriculture towards more environmentally-friendly practices.

The European Commission is also pressing ahead with a review of the CAP, driven in part by the need to divert funds towards prospective new European Union members.

Those nations include eastern European countries like Poland, which has a less developed and more wildlife-friendly farming industry supporting 80 per cent of the working population.

Andy Bunten, North-East Regional Manager for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, one of the organisations consulted by the British Government, says foot-and-mouth had injected fresh urgency to the reviews.

"The process has been accelerated by foot and mouth," he says. "It accelerated concerns and highlighted the issues.

"Foot-and-mouth is a tragedy and a personal one, but suddenly large numbers of livestock were removed from the land and, being cold-hearted and objective, it provided an opportunity. It made people ask 'what can we do and how can we do it rapidly?'."

Foot-and-mouth may yet be the biggest opportunity for reform which Britain has ever seen.

* Read the final part of our series on the future for the British countryside after foot-and-mouth next week