Industry Roundtable 3 – ApiNZ Leader Backs Beekeeper-Only Approach

‘Beekeepers need a standalone industry-good group’. That was the conclusion of the latest of three ‘roundtable’ meetings hosted by New Zealand Beekeeping Inc (NZBI), on May 26 via Zoom. Even a previously key proponent and driver of the combined packer-beekeeper model of governance backed beekeeper-only representation as the best solution, at least for now. How would a beekeeping group be formed? Who would lead it? And – surprisingly important the meeting deemed – what might it be called?

Tony Wright. The UMF Honey Association CEO and ApiNZ board member now sees separate beekeeper and honey packer governance as essential.

“The feedback I have heard from people in the industry, including our own members, is that it is just not the right time for us to try and all be in one organisation,” was the stark conclusion reached by Tony Wright towards the end of a nearly two-hour online meeting attended by 15 beekeepers and chaired by NZBI advisor Ian Fletcher.

“I think we have to go back to having a more specialist, producer focused, organisation, because the needs are quite different.”

It’s a change of tact from Wright, who had been at the forefront of a merger move by industry groups Apiculture New Zealand (ApiNZ) – of which he has been a board member since 2017 – and the Unique Mānuka Factor Honey Association (UMFHA), where he is CEO. That merger bid failed when UMFHA members voted against it in March. Even before then though, ApiNZ has staunchly operated on the principal of dual beekeeper-packer representation since its formation in 2016.

“There may be a time in the future when it makes sense, but right now the most logical thing everyone seems to point to is you need an organisation that is focused on beekeepers, to look at the production side, and an organisation that is focused on the markets and exporting to look after the packers and exporters,” Wright continued.

The ApiNZ board has proposed disestablishment of the industry-good group, in the face of falling membership fees and an inability to shape the organisation to suit an apiculture industry far removed from the heyday of soaring honey prices in which it was established in 2016.

“The key thing is making sure those organisations understand each other’s roles, and what the cross over is,” Wright added.

NZBI president Jane Lorimer, who has long been a proponent of beekeeper-only governance of the beekeeping industry, immediately reinforced Wright’s new way of thinking.

“Two separate entities, but work together where there are common interests,” the Waikato beekeeper said.

The meeting followed an initial roundtable of 12 industry leaders on April 10, and a follow-up on May 1 which was attended, albeit briefly, by Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials as well as a much larger cohort of beekeepers. ‘Roundtable Three’ put a major focus on biosecurity – detailed in ‘To GIA or not to GIA?’ – but also moved along talks to establish a national-level committee to represent various beekeeping groups from around New Zealand.

Lorimer led that discussion by pointing towards a potential governance structure outlined in Apiarist’s Advocate’s May content by Darren Bainbridge, as coalescing with her way of thinking.

Ian Fletcher, NZ Beekeeping Inc advisor and facilitator of the ‘roundtable’ process. “If the only real challenge we face is the name of the organisation, then this is a success.”

“At the moment I think the need is to get the regional groups working together to form a bigger group to represent the commercial beekeepers. Once we begin working together there, it may move to having components as to what Darren has suggested,” Lorimer said.

Money Talks

What level of funding would be required to support such a group, and the related level of voluntary commitment needed in the absence of funding, was a hot topic on the Zoom call.

To stimulate discussion, Fletcher had provided a document which raised key concepts of any potential industry co-ordination. In it he suggests ‘a global budget approaching $100,000 is likely to be needed’ for any group.

Wright, having seen much more than that fail to sustain ApiNZ, warned against underestimating the costs involved with “policy matters, consultation, the sort of things that you would do collectively when a government is consulting and you would make a submission.

“I think the plan is great, I think the scope is great, but I think you might be underdoing it from a funding point of view. I think you would probably be looking for a bit more than $100,000. You are probably going to end up with at least one person, fulltime, dedicated to coordinating what is in the scope of this document… I am not sure it is fair to try and get a group of volunteers to deliver a plan to the scope of what is envisaged here,” Wright said.

Lorimer, also well versed in the costs made in both time and money on running an industry-good group, picked up that line of thinking.

“I think we need a funding mechanism somewhere between what NZ Beekeeping Incorporated currently funds and something lesser than what ApiNZ currently funds,” she said, and pointed to the potential of volunteers.

“A lot of beekeepers do have other skills. There may be beekeepers out there who we can tap into who may not necessarily cost us the full cost of a full professional person undertaking work solely on our behalf.”

Moving the conversation further forward Wright asked, “is it fair and realistic to lean on them voluntarily? Is it sustainable?”.

“In the short term, absolutely. There are very capable people who I suspect will give their time freely, for a period of time, but if you are able to offer some form of compensation for their time, you will make that sustainable,” The UMFHA CEO stated.

Concluding the discussion which will be crucial to resourcing industry-good work going forward, Fletcher provided perspective.

“We have to start from where we are and build confidence among commercial beekeepers, at the same time demonstrating that we can get things done. Only then can you have a legitimate claim on resources. This is not an industry where the ‘give me the money and trust me’ approach is going to work,” the meeting facilitator said.

What’s In a Name?

Getting a collective of smaller industry groups into a larger collective will require some administration, and Lorimer proposed NZBI to facilitate that. “A mutual framework for the sharing of information,” Fletcher suggested.

There was push back to that from John Mackay, owner and technical director of dnature Diagnostics and Research and a hobbyist beekeeper.

“I don’t think the term ‘mutual framework’ is accurate. It is effectively NZ Beekeeping supplanting the role of a coordinating committee. That is not a criticism of NZ Beekeeping, just stating the intent in that case,” Mackay said.

Long-held disagreements between NZBI and ApiNZ are likely to impede progress under those banners, not to mention the significant reluctance from beekeepers to join either group which has led to the current state of disjuncture in industry representation. “Perception is reality,” Mackay pointed out, regarding the name any group operates under.

Russell Berry, founder and executive member of New Zealand Beekeeping Inc believes ditching that moniker in any group going forward would be disappointing, considering the reputation they have achieved with government.

“If people are sick of both names, do you just rename it, if you have a group of volunteers who are willing to be part of it?” Mackay further asked.

NZBI founder and executive member Russell Berry is reluctant for the group’s name not to be used.

“New Zealand Beekeeping has a good reputation with government and a lot of it is because of the right people we employ … I think it would be disappointing to have to change the name, quite frankly. We would lose the reputation,” Berry said.

“Some people might think we are old fashioned, but we are not. We are a group of successful, commercial beekeepers, the executive members. We know how to run a beekeeping business.”

Bay of Plenty beekeeper Jody Mitchell, who said she was a member of all industry groups, but is in leadership in none, summed up the opinions of many beekeepers.

“I know it is political over ‘this is my group, this is your group’ … but I really don’t care. I just want a functioning industry that is going to go forward and be attracting young people,” she said.

As the two-hour meeting drew to a close Fletcher suggested he would create a draft agenda for a coordinating meeting to take place “in a few weeks’ time”, which should move beekeepers further along the road to more-meaningful representation.

That road still has many potential bumps though, not the least of which is breaking the old ties of ApiNZ and NZBI. However, if more in leadership positions are willing to follow Wright’s example of adaptive thinking to suit the realities of beekeeper needs, while constructively and transparently contributing their expertise, then it can only get smoother.

Putting the progress made by the three roundtable meetings into context was the facilitator. “If the only real challenge we face is the name of the organisation, then this is a success.”