A new dawn in New Zealand beekeeper and honey exporter collaboration looks likely in 2025, with industry groups Apiculture New Zealand (ApiNZ) and the Unique Mānuka Factor Honey Association (UMFHA) officially proposing to join forces in what they are calling “a stronger collective voice”. Members of both groups have been told a successful merger would be just step one in a longer-term plan to introduce a mandatory funding model for the honey industry.
The proposed new industry body comes with a working title of New Zealand Honey Association Incorporated, and its concept was presented to UMFHA and ApiNZ members via separate online meetings on November 27. Members were then sent a draft constitution for the proposed industry body, and asked for their feedback prior to December 16.
All going to plan, ApiNZ and UMFHA hope to form the new association in April 2025. It will provide continuance of ApiNZ’s industry advocacy and UMFHA’s stewardship of their UMF™ brand, all with the benefit of UMFHA’s much healthier financial position, compared to ApiNZ.
Prior to April, ApiNZ would need to be formally dissolved, while UMFHA’s proposal is to adopt a new constitution with broader purpose.
“It’s been a tough time for beekeepers in the last couple of years and, as a voluntary industry organisation, we have felt that. Things have had to change. Our membership has reduced significantly,” ApiNZ independent chair Nathan Guy says, while chief executive Karin Kos calls the move a “no-brainer”.
The new association would be voluntary in the sense that neither beekeepers or honey exporters would be mandated to join, much in the same way there is no mandate to be a member of ApiNZ or UMFHA for owners of beehives or exporters of honey. However, a “flat” membership fee (as opposed to ApiNZ’s current model which is based on level of hive ownership) would be required from those who elect to join. Furthermore, monofloral mānuka honey exporters would pay additional levies – initially UMF licensees would continue under their current fee structure and other (non-UMF) monofloral mānuka honey exporters would be subject to a similar levy on their exports.
The funding structure and collective action is anticipated to provide a stronger base from which to push for funding through a mandatory industry-wide honey levy in the coming years.
The draft constitution outlines a model where five directors, two with commercial beekeeping experience and two with exporting experience, are elected by a vote of all members at the AGM. This cohort of four member-elected directors would then co-op one independent director and a separate independent chair to form a board of six directors. Directors would each have one vote where required, except the independent chair who would not have a vote.
A full membership, and thus voting rights, would be available to ‘any person or entity involved in beekeeping, extraction, packing, retailing and/or exporting of honey from New Zealand for commercial purposes’. An ‘associate’ level of membership would be available to anybody else who has an interest in supporting the organisation and its goals, but associate members would not have voting rights.
The ‘commercial’ focus is for good reason, with ApiNZ stressing the need to prove to government that the industry has a group in position to administer a mandated honey levy if required.
“Stage 2” would therefore see the new association work towards gaining honey, likely mānuka honey specifically, a place in the Horticulture Export Authority (HEA) family, currently limited to fruit and vegetables. That would provide for a licencing scheme and thus collection of levies at the border, plus a set of ‘export marketing specifications’ which would give the honey industry greater control over what is exported.
Getting to that point is likely to take 12 to 18 months though according to ApiNZ. They are not making clear whether they anticipate an industry wide vote as being required to convince the government of industry support for HEA inclusion and thus amendment of the relative Act of Parliament. While this would usually be the case, with exporters likely to foot the bill, the question of whether beekeepers’ support would be required remains unanswered.
“In an industry good organisation, if there are any major decisions that need to be made, we would want to get a broad base support of our members, whether they are commercial beekeepers or not,” Kos says.
How broad the new industry body’s representation of all of apiculture might be remains to be seen though, with ApiNZ’s own falling membership amidst declining numbers of registered beekeepers – particularly commercial beekeepers – in recent years prompting the proposed merger. A “flat” membership fee has the potential to reduce the financial barrier to entry though.
Further into the future, ApiNZ and UMFHA hope the merged industry body would facilitate an “Apiculture Act” to bring into one piece of legislation a range of industry specific issues, including a more comprehensive honey levy than the HEA offers.
With UMFHA members to bring the lion’s share of funding to the new association, as proposed, the question of how they feel about taking on that mantle is now with them. Chief executive Tony Wright believes the move to merge is compelling though.
“UMFHA, as it currently stands, has a very narrow mandate around the promotion of trademarks and standard for UMF™, but there is really very little in our purpose which we can apply to the broader industry good. So, when ApiNZ dissolves, which they will because they are running out of funding, who is going to take on all the work? It is a professional job which needs to be done by a professional team. Without that support, what UMF members currently enjoy in terms of a partnership infrastructure, which sits alongside the standard we have got, just won’t be there,” Wright says.
Guy, a former Minister for Primary Industries during his political career, is not shy about their desire to pursue an Apiculture Act under the Commodities Levy Act. He calls their desire to follow the wine and organics industries on that path as “shooting for the stars”.
“I think we are big enough to get our own Act, and then we could fold a lot of quality standards and biosecurity and all sorts of things into it,” Guy says, adding, “but, we need to prove we can hold hands, speak with one voice and play nicely, to make it a hell of a lot easier to then convince ministers and government that we are on track and worthy of our own Act.”
Comments