Through a mirror, greyly: A new report on Kootenay/Boundary punctures a few myths
By Adrian Barnes
A recent report by George Penfold, Selkirk College's Regional Innovation Chair, titled "Economic Overview: West Kootenay Boundary" will be a real eye-opener for anyone interested in our region and its future. Here in Kootenay/Boundary country we have an image of ourselves as an outdoorsy place, our economy reliant on tourism and resource-based industry. The truth, however, is far from that. “Although we generally consider ourselves be a resource based economy," says the report, "our most significant economic dependencies are related to employment with public agencies, and provincial transfers and non-employment income, for the most part associated with retirees.” In other words, this region survives, mostly, off government handouts. Oh, and pot production.
The report contains a lot of bad news for anyone interested in a strong, viable future for the region. First off, we are aging. “The ageing of our population and the consequences for housing, and community services such as education are difficult to grasp. In 2006, only 25% of all households had both a head of household under the age of 55 and children. There are more couple households without children, and more single person households than there are households with children. In 2006 almost half of all households have primary household maintainer aged 55 or older and 28% were over 65.18 Over the next 10 years the 55 to 64 age group will move into the 65+ category. That group represents 20% of all primary household maintainers. In ten years, approximately 45% of all primary household maintainers will be 65 years old or older. That will have a significant impact on local and regional political decisions regarding taxes, services and amenities.”
Next off, we are relatively poor. “Family income in 2005 in the WKB varied from $53,845 in the Kootenay Lake LHA to $73,685 in the Castlegar LHA. Both are well below the provincial average family income of $80,511 (32.1% and 8.5% lower respectively). Income distribution in the region is different than that of the province. Castlegar, Revelstoke and Trail LHA areas have median tax filer income levels that are higher than the provincial median income level. The remaining areas are all significantly below the provincial median.”
Third, our population is shrinking: "Between 1996 and 2006, census data shows that while the provincial population grew by 9.5%, the West Kootenay Boundary (WKB) lost 7.4% of its population." And while this haemorraging of population has reversed slightly in the last four years, growth is expected to be minimal.
All of which adds up to a crisis in the making. Things, Penfold believes, will have to change. For example, like the idea of this region as an 'adventure lifestyle' paradise? In terms of economics, you might need to think again: "An ageing population may also affect our tourism sector. The current emphasis on the “great outdoors” and backcountry may have to shift to “softer” outdoor experiences (e.g., bird/wildlife viewing), arts, culture and history. That shift could also be of benefit in helping to attract both senior and labour markets aged populations as permanent residents and could be a growth area in our economy, as is indicated in BC Stats employment projections.”
Penfold adds to the mix the imminent arrival of Peak Oil and how it, coupled with trends in global warming, will play out in a remote region like ours. “An ageing population, climate change and peak oil are all happening at once, and all could have a significant and interconnected affect on our economic future as a region, as a province and as a country. In broader terms, the challenge is how do we adapt to all three?"
First, the report claims, we need more bodies. "If we are to be successful, we will have to attract immigrants. Although we have attracted immigrants in the past, current rates of immigration mobility to the WKB are far below retiree replacement levels, and all other regions of Canada will be facing the same challenge. We will have to address the reality that the appeal of our rural, small urban centre “outdoor” lifestyle has not been a significant attractor for immigrants, especially those from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.”
One of the few bright spots in all this, is the--ahem--'greenness' of our underground economy which is apparently 'growing' nicely: “Finally, we do have a significant illegal economy in our region based on marijuana production and trade. Income from that activity is not reported and in not reflected in either family or household income data, or in regional economic dependency analysis. It could be considered basic income as it brings revenue to the West Kootenay Boundary from other regions. The challenge in understanding the impact of this economic sector is generating a reliable estimate of its economic scale. Various reports place the marijuana trade as B.C.'s unofficial third‐largest industry by GDP. Forestry added $10 billion to B.C.'s GDP in 2005, the construction industry another $7.9 billion and according to police sources, the marijuana trade claims third spot, with annual sales of $7.5 billion. In 2004 the Fraser Institute put the BC estimate of production at 17,500 grow operations, with 519 (3%) of those in the West Kootenay Boundary region. They estimated total “street” value in 2000 at over $7 Billion with export revenues of $2 billion. Other studies estimate the Kootenay region produces 7% to 20% of that total. If an estimate of 10% of production in the region is assumed, that production represents $700 to $800 million in “street” sales. If one third of that value is returned to the regional economy, it represents the equivalent of 10% of regional employment income. There is no method of income comparison, but a reference point is that in 2005, 8.6% of the employed labour force was engaged in construction, and construction represented 5 to 10% of basic employment income. Dependency on the marijuana trade could be in the order of 50% higher than that level, or approximately 8% to 15% of basic income, making it roughly equivalent to non‐employment income in terms of regional economic dependency.”
Of course, if illegal pot production is one of the main underpinnings of our regional economy, we should all immediately drop our calls for legalization as such a move on the part of the federal government might be the final nail in the Kootenay/Boundary coffin! A paradox for the times, indeed...
You can view the entire report on the Selkirk College website.
