If It’s Only Slightly Broke, Then Let’s Fix It

  APIARIST’S OPINION: RICKI LEAHY 

By Ricki Leahy

Listening to everybody’s comments, ideas and opinions at the recent Apiculture New Zealand (ApiNZ) AGM and Industry Forum in Christchurch, my assessment was that industry unity in one way or another was hoped for by most and that we should get our act together pronto.

We can either continue down the hard way, which may have no guarantee of a unified outcome, or the easy way where, for the sake of our beekeeping and industry, we agree from the outset that we must find a way to unify and work together. From that agreed position we could then leave any “us and them” attitudes behind and adopt an ‘us’ attitude and start positively working together to make the subtle changes needed to achieve our common goal. If not, then it’s the hard way.

Retired Murchison beekeeper Ricki Leahy has a long and dedicated resume in industry governance, serving both NBA and ApiNZ, and believes the ApiNZ constitution is fundamentally sound to serve members, but some adaptations may be needed.

We need to remember this unity process has been going on for over 10 years now, since the process to unite Federated Farmers Bee Industry Group and the National Beekeepers Association (NBA) began. That eventuated in the rebranding of the NBA, thus forming ApiNZ in 2016. However, not everyone in the industry got on board, leading to the continued unsustainable situation we have today.

It is important to note that, over time, an enormous amount of cost involving legal advice, professional help and guidance, was invested into developing ApiNZ. Not to mention the voluntary effort and donated cost of travel and accommodation sponsored by those selected to work on the unification project.   

It’s also interesting to note, at the ApiNZ Industry Forum an ‘around the tables’ exercise was conducted to extract ideas into the purposes and values of an industry organisation. When all the ideas were collated onto a whiteboard, a voice at the back of the room declared that, if compared to the same type of exercise ten years ago, nothing would have changed. Suggesting we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

The ’Old’ Structure

The main difference between the NBA and the ApiNZ constitutions is in how members are elected to their respective Executive Council or Board. The NBA operated a system of eight Electoral Wards. Five in the North Island and three in the South. Each Ward may have included more than one Branch. For instance; the Upper South Island Ward included both the Nelson and Marlborough Branches. The purpose of Each Ward was to elect one of their members to become their representative on the Executive. However, often this system didn’t provide the most suitable candidate when compared to the potential of who may have been available throughout the country.

As an example, in any Electoral Ward, there could well have been several exceptionally talented individuals available to be on the Executive. But, with the constitution allowing only one executive member from each region, the Executive missed out on utilising these talented individuals. Often regions had their executive position continually occupied by someone entrenched in their position, while continually harbouring opinions that frustrated our industry from moving forward with the times. Anyway, this regional system outdated itself with the emergence of modern communication technology.

The ApiNZ Constitution

The ApiNZ constitution operates with representation by industry sector, the Beekeeping Sector and Market Sector with each sector broken down into categories, such as the Beekeeping Sector including Non-Commercial and Commercial Beekeeping categories. This type of representation was the key principle that united all industry stakeholders by giving all those associated with the apiculture industry the opportunity to become a member and be inclusively represented by their Sector on the Board. This fundamental change provided an opportunity for any member to attain nomination for election by their sector and, if successful, be voted onto the Board to represent both Industry and Sector.

I have re-read and thought my way through the ApiNZ Constitution and conclude that it is basically a very good constitution and fit for purpose. I believe it could, and should, be used as the basis for us to move forward. It needn’t be just tossed aside.

As a thought, constitutions are basically rules or guidelines of how an organisation is governed, just as budgets are a financial management tool. Both are similar in that they are not expected or intended to be set in concrete. In fact, they are each malleable and able to be adjusted as changing situations, or circumstances at times, may dictate.

More Beekeeping Representation Perhaps

For instance, comments have been made that there should be more beekeeping sector representation on the ApiNZ Board. I have heard Jane Lorimer speak of the growth potential of pollination to our industry and of her comments referring to the true value of our bee’s pollination to the wider primary industries. I agree with Jane’s comments whole heartedly, including those of the unrealised value of clover pollination to the grazing/meat producer sectors etc. From a wellbeing of our bee’s biosecurity and health perspective, one would assume that other primary industries that depend on our bee’s pollination services would be concerned if our industry organisation could not be critically relied upon.

So, as an example of adjusting the constitution, we could perhaps consider adding an extra member to the Board who would represent a new Pollination Category within the Beekeeper Sector.  

What I am describing is a tweak to the ApiNZ constitution that gives the Beekeeping Sector an extra voice around the table. This may then give beekeepers that added confidence to assure themselves that ApiNZ is indeed a beekeeping organisation. I do note that this will shift the balance resulting with a strengthening of the Beekeeper Sector, but the Market Sector would still remain just as well represented around the table.

Maybe a few fine constitutional tune-ups, such as this example, would be all it takes for the ApiNZ Constitution to suit the whole industry more adequately.

One Table Together

From my experience on the ApiNZ Board, I can assure you that there is a good working relationship on behalf of our industry between both the Market and Beekeeper sectors. The Market understands the support needed by beekeepers who produce the products and, vice versa, the Beekeeper sector understands the issues facing the markets and so all work closely together.

No matter what form of constitution is decided upon, I think it is important that both sectors should continue to sit around the same Board table. They should continue to work through all the issues together, maintaining that strong bond by understanding that both sectors are equally dependent on each other.

Dollars and Sense

We all know that ApiNZ is in a bit of a pickle at the moment and the reason for that is inadequate funding. There is absolutely no issue of poor financial management, in fact it’s quite the opposite. Our administration is suffering just like any business that finds itself locked into a poverty spiral.

Members who are struggling with the current downturn have put a check on their outgoings and many have had no choice other than to forego their memberships. Sadly, many have been forced out of business, all of which has affected ApiNZ ‘s income and operating budget. The ApiNZ Management Team and Board at present would be struggling to do much of any substance for us other than to continue advocating and representing us as best they can and working hard to keep our ‘boat’ afloat. We should all be very thankful for their resilience in that regard.

However, that’s the outcome of a voluntary organisation and exactly why we need to think of how our industry administration needs to be funded in the future.

A Levy will Eventually be Needed

It doesn’t matter what constitution we may decide to adopt or how we decide to unite going forward, there is one thing for sure – we need a commodity levy and one of sufficient value to more than adequately fund our administration and industry good activities.

And look at us – collectively we voted down a levy in the past. In my opinion that was dumb.

Let’s get our heads out of the sand on this. Industry good activities don’t just happen.  Also, to produce honey that is suitable for export we need to adhere to all the regulatory requirements of traceability and food safety compliance. To maintain a sustainable market, we need funding for market research and a strong united and well-funded industry organisation advocating on our behalf supporting all sectors of industry. We need to be kept informed and up to date with current information regarding all aspects of our apiculture industry. Our industry Management Team is needed to manage and undertake the administration of all those industry good activities on our behalf.

A commodity levy is needed so we have a strong, well-funded industry governance body that can then support all of industry, providing opportunity for us all to operate in a profitable and sustainable manner.

How to Collect It

Levying export honey is the most sensible and viable way to fund a levy. To be successful we have to ‘chase the money’ and as our market reports suggest, the money is in the export market.

A commodity levy doesn’t need to cost the beekeeper or the producer anything in the long run. We simply pass the cost of any levy from seller to buyer and eventually the end consumer pays for it.

So instead of struggling to figure out how only a few hundred beekeepers could pay an unaffordable amount each, we should consider how easy it would be for the millions of overseas consumers who, when purchasing their jar of honey, would not notice the inconsequential amount included within the retail value.

Of course, there is plenty of detail to sort, and now is not yet the time to do that.

When the chips are down within our individual businesses, we need a strong administration to support us through it. I remember hearing comments at some of those ‘shall we have a commodity levy’ meetings of a few years ago that the levy money would all get wasted on administration. Well, I say, actually it’s industry administration that needs to be supported in the first instance. ApiNZ are serving us really well in these trying times.

Advocacy is so important, it is the key hidden value that is the foundation of everything.

Ricki Leahy is a retired commercial beekeeper of about 40 years’ experience in the Tasman and Buller districts where he operated  a 2000 beehive business based in Murchison. He is a life member of ApiNZ and was president of the NBA for the three years leading up to its rebranding and constitutional changes to ApiNZ in 2016. He then served six years on the ApiNZ Board.