THE report commissioned by the Countryside Agency on the impact of foot-and-mouth disease sets out starkly the full financial effects of the last seven months of despair - about £8.8bn. While the direct costs of the disease - the slaughter, the testing, bio-security measures and the compensation - may be less than once feared, the wider economic knock-on effects on the countryside have been underestimated, in the short term and, more importantly, the long term.

In North Yorkshire, the upper Wensleydale business association's regular figures have given us a very localised view of the impact on business in a FMD hotspot. What the Countryside Agency report confirms is the impact on the countryside as a whole, not just the areas directly affected by the disease.

It's not just tourism and those businesses directly serving the agricultural community. The ripple effect has spread to every enterprise in rural areas. The sole beneficiaries, perhaps, have been hoteliers putting up the small army of Defra vets and officials dealing with the crisis.

The agency's chairman, Mr Ewen Cameron, when unveiling the report on Wednesday, had his remarks about vaccination seized upon. Interesting though they were, they tended to overshadow some of the points he made about the aftermath of the crisis.

Chief among these was his belief that market towns had to be engine of regeneration of rural areas.

As farm and farm-related businesses struggle their way out of the crisis, there is a much greater chance of those employed in those businesses finding alternative ways of making or supplementing their living if their nearest town is economically healthy. Essential, too, will be the service network. We report this week on the introduction of new bus services in North Yorkshire which are designed to help people in the county reach jobs which are not on their doorstep. This is a welcome government-funded initiative but it is not enough.

In our Market Town Revival campaign, launched long before the nightmare of foot-and-mouth, we have argued the case for ensuring market towns retain and develop their economic vitality as the way to safeguard the future of the rural areas they serve.

There is now a case for the regeneration initiatives launched in the last year to be stepped up further. Thirsk and Guisborough have already been beneficiaries of these initiatives. As they feel their way through the process of identifying how best to spend the money given to them, the government should be prepared to roll out a much more extensive programme of market town regeneration initiatives.

There is now an established methodology for rural towns to help themselves and thanks to organisations like Action for Market Towns, there is plenty of research and advice available to help further fine tune the process.

The government should have faith in the market town regeneration programme it has already funded. But a great deal more cash is needed if the benefits are not to be dissipated. Two towns in the circulation area of this newspaper have benefited so far. Arguably the other 12 should also receive help - and soon.