So is the north of England really getting an enormous new forest?

A forest in Scunthorpe. Image: Getty.

The dendrophiles of northern England have something new to be excited about. The Northern Forest is a green megaproject which will see the planting of 50m trees over the next 25 years, creating a forest stretching from Liverpool to Hull along the M62 corridor.

Projects of this kind are long overdue. Forest cover in the UK is one of the worst in Europe at an estimated 12 per cent, compared to an average of 36 per cent across the rest of the EU. In the last few years, what’s more, levels of planting have been abysmal: the Woodland Trust claims that 2017 saw the lowest levels of new trees planted in England for years.

So the need is clear – and the benefits many. First up, deforestation is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. A new forest will thus help combat climate change.

The forest will also open up space for the reintroduction of wildlife long since absent from the north of England, like beavers and even lynxes, an indigenous British wildcat. (Perhaps we could have a lynx on the Royal Crest rather than the wildcat we pinched from the colonies?)

Trees also do wonders for soil protection and mitigating of flood risk: with all this green infrastructure, the Woodland Trust hope to reduce flood risk for 190,000 homes. That’s especially good news for the residents of beleaguered towns such as York, which have been hit repeatedly by flooding.

For those living in the great cities of the north, the trees would improve the quality of the air. At present, thousands in the region die every year from pollution (630 per year in Manchester; 1,000 across Yorkshire and Humberside).

In the US, where they have the money to test this sort of thing, it was found that trees deflected $6.8bn in healthcare costs. For the cities that will be enveloped by the Northern Forest, lives will literally be saved by these trees – and it will certainly alleviate pressure on the ever embattled NHS.  


On top of all that, the new forest would provide an estimated £2bn boost to the local economy through tourism, recreation and timber production. Oh, and it’d provide a lovely space for the 15m inhabitants of northern England, too.

Hold on though northerners, don’t start putting your walking boots on quite yet.  

Despite very keen to throw their names behind the project Theresa May and environment secretary Michael Gove have so far committed only £5.7m of government funds to the £500m project. This is going to pay for little more than a thin line of trees on either side of the M62 – more of a ‘Northern Hedgerow’ than the great forest imagined.

The rest of the money is to be raised through charitable contributions. That means raising a little under £20m a year, every year for the next quarter century: if it’s to succeed, the Northern Forest project will have to step up into the top 1.3 per cent of charities in terms of income, which sounds pretty challenging.

As Austin Brady, Director of Conservation at the Woodland Trust, wrote: “It’s not a government led initiative – it’s a bottom-up initiative.” The bottom will have to really step up to make this woody pipe dream a reality.
Planting 50m trees, though, is plausible. In 2016,the residents of Uttar Pradesh in India planted that same number in a day – we’ve got 25 years. 

 
 
 
 

“Stop worrying about hairdressers”: The UK government has misdiagnosed its productivity problem

We’re going as fast as we can, here. Image: Getty.

Gonna level with you here, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I’m a huge fan of schadenfreude, so learning that it the government has messed up in a previously unsuspected way gives me this sort of warm glow inside. On the other hand, the way it’s been screwing up is probably making the country poorer, and exacerbating the north south divide. So, mixed reviews really.

Here’s the story. This week the Centre for Cities (CfC) published a major report on Britain’s productivity problem. For the last 200 years, ever since the industrial revolution, this country has got steadily richer. Since the financial crash, though, that seems to have stopped.

The standard narrative on this has it that the problem lies in the ‘long tail’ of unproductive businesses – that is, those that produce less value per hour. Get those guys humming, the thinking goes, and the productivity problem is sorted.

But the CfC’s new report says that this is exactly wrong. The wrong tail: Why Britain’s ‘long tail’ is not the cause of its productivity problems (excellent pun, there) delves into the data on productivity in different types of businesses and different cities, to demonstrate two big points.

The first is that the long tail is the wrong place to look for productivity gains. Many low productivity businesses are low productivity for a reason:

The ability of manufacturing to automate certain processes, or the development of ever more sophisticated computer software in information and communications have greatly increased the output that a worker produces in these industries. But while a fitness instructor may use a smartphone today in place of a ghetto blaster in 1990, he or she can still only instruct one class at a time. And a waiter or waitress can only serve so many tables. Of course, improvements such as the introduction of handheld electronic devices allow orders to be sent to the kitchen more efficiently, will bring benefits, but this improvements won’t radically increase the output of the waiter.

I’d add to that: there is only so fast that people want to eat. There’s a physical limit on the number of diners any restaurant can actually feed.

At any rate, the result of this is that it’s stupid to expect local service businesses to make step changes in productivity. If we actually want to improve productivity we should focus on those which are exporting services to a bigger market.  There are fewer of these, but the potential gains are much bigger. Here’s a chart:

The y-axis reflects number of businesses at different productivities, shown on the x-axis. So bigger numbers on the left are bad; bigger numbers on the right are good. 

The question of which exporting businesses are struggling to expand productivity is what leads to the report’s second insight:

Specifically it is the underperformance of exporting businesses in cities outside of the Greater South East that causes not only divergences across the country in wages and standards of living, but also hampers national productivity. These cities in particular should be of greatest concern to policy makers attempting to improve UK productivity overall.

In other words, it turned out, again, to the north-south divide that did it. I’m shocked. Are you shocked? This is my shocked face.

The best way to demonstrate this shocking insight is with some more graphs. This first one shows the distribution of productivity in local services business in four different types of place: cities in the south east (GSE) in light green, cities in the rest of the country (RoGB) in dark green, non-urban areas in the south east in purple, non-urban areas everywhere else in turquoise.

The four lines are fairly consistent. The light green, representing south eastern cities has a lower peak on the left, meaning slightly fewer low productivity businesses, but is slightly higher on the right, meaning slightly more high productivity businesses. In other words, local services businesses in the south eastern cities are more productive than those elsewhere – but the gap is pretty narrow. 

Now check out the same graph for exporting businesses:

The differences are much more pronounced. Areas outside those south eastern cities have many more lower productivity businesses (the peaks on the left) and significantly fewer high productivity ones (the lower numbers on the right).

In fact, outside the south east, cities are actually less productive than non-urban areas. This is really not what you’d expect to see, and no a good sign for the health of the economy:

The report also uses a few specific examples to illustrate this point. Compare Reading, one of Britain’s richest medium sized cities, with Hull, one of its poorest:

Or, looking to bigger cities, here’s Bristol and Sheffield:

In both cases, the poorer northern cities are clearly lacking in high-value exporting businesses. This is a problem because these don’t just provide well-paying jobs now: they’re also the ones that have the potential to make productivity gains that can lead to even better jobs. The report concludes:

This is a major cause for concern for the national economy – the underperformance of these cities goes a long way to explain both why the rest of Britain lags behind the Greater South East and why it performs poorly on a

European level. To illustrate the impact, if all cities were as productive as those in the Greater South East, the British economy would be 15 per cent more productive and £225bn larger. This is equivalent to Britain being home to four extra city economies the size of Birmingham.

In other words, the lesson here is: stop worrying about the productivity of hairdressers. Start worrying about the productivity of Hull.


You can read the Centre for Cities’ full report here.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook