AS 2001 draws to a close, many in the farming industry will be glad to turn their backs on their own annus horribilis.

But, as the year turns, one man is determinedly looking forward to what he sees as a positive future for agriculture.

Mr Phil Barber, Barnard Castle NFU branch secretary, has been in the thick of things since the beginning of March, when the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease hit Teesdale.

"It was fairly inevitable the dale would be hit," said Mr Barber, who feels the government did not take foot-and-mouth seriously enough at the start.

"If they had put the measures in place at the beginning like they did towards the end, it would not have been able to get the hold that it did," he said.

He was, however, quick to praise farmers in the area for their very conscientious attitude towards slaughter, saying their approach had allowed the ministry and army to act quickly and decisively in Baldersdale to bring the disease under control there and stop it getting a foothold in the rest of the dale.

"Although the situation was heartrending, Teesdale farmers were philosophical about losing their stock," said Mr Barber. "They did not want to keep their animals, only to find later that they had the disease, which would then condemn their neighbours."

Despite all the problems the disease brought, Mr Barber is convinced there is a positive future for farming. "The industry was in a serious condition before foot-and-mouth, with farmers knowing things had to alter," he said. "Changes to the structure of agriculture were already occurring naturally, with foot-and-mouth merely accelerating the process."

The loss of bloodlines was of concern and would cause problems for years to come. "Some of the best sheep in the country, constituting a lifetime's work, have gone," he said.

The myth that farmers were all hay-chewing yokels really annoyed him, because modern farming was an extremely hi-tech industry involving carefully monitored breeding programmes and carcass weight management. Although blood lines could not be replaced at the drop of a hat, technology meant that the highly skilled process of selective breeding would quicken the process.

In his experience, farming had always been one of the first industries to embrace change. "Once they see something working, they will have a go," said Mr Barber.

That was where the government's attitude during the epidemic had gone badly wrong. All farmers had needed was information; instead they had been strangled rather than assisted by bureaucracy.

"There was a big fear of the unknown, and what would happen next," said Mr Barber. "In the early days of the epidemic they were isolated from the outside world and desperate for facts.

"For some it was almost a relief when they got the disease, because then they were dealing with practical issues rather than what might happen in theory. But, whether you got it or you didn't, there were no winners."

The government had seemed to think it needed to take control of everything; in reality it should have been the other way round. Farmers had wanted to do everything right and abide by sensible rules and regulations. All they had wanted from the government was guidance.

Mr Barber also described the county council's role as unenthusiastic. "They did not take the lead, did not want disinfectant mats down, wanted to open footpaths when everyone wanted them closed," he said. "At one point the only rural task force in the county was in Teesdale."

His own worst point came in the early days of the autumn movement. The system had completely collapsed and, although farmers were desperate not to break the rules, sheep had needed to be tupped and stock brought down from the hills.

"We were lucky to have a good autumn but, if it had been an early winter, it would have been far more problematic," said Mr Barber.

He would like to see a speedy public inquiry, but knows it won't happen. Of the various reports commissioned, he thinks Sir Don Currie's, due in January, will be the most interesting. He also feels Lord Haskins picked up on problems very quickly, but the government had not done much in the way of response.

Although he knows a number of farms will continue to decline, many will survive by adopting new ways of marketing what they have to offer. It was fundamental they take up with Lord Haskins the issue of where Teesdale was, because it had a definite image problem.

The idea of farmers' markets had gone some way to addressing that, conjuring up images of healthy food produced in humane conditions. But there were also a lot of urbanites who wanted supermarket meat at the cheapest prices they could get and the reality was that farmers had to produce what the market wanted commercially.

He liked the French idea of farmers' co-operatives, where stock was pooled and sold to suppliers for a reasonable amount, with no peaks and troughs in prices.

Foot-and-mouth had meant lessons had been learnt in the short term, such as targeting the long distance movement of stock, said Mr Barber. Should another outbreak occur in the next few years, people would remember what to do, but he was unsure in the long term.

Although reluctant to increase bureaucracy, he would like to see everyone who kept agricultural livestock, even if it was only one or two goats, registered and licensed, with an annual ministry inspection.

"Teesdale farmers are well educated in agricultural practices, willing to learn and hard working," said Mr Barber.

"We have got to be efficient in all aspects and there will have to be more professionalism, better marketing and more realistic farm sizes. But farmers are the guardians of the countryside - 24-7-365 in the modern parlance - and they most definitely have a future and a role to play in the rural economy."