Let’s Move the Conversation Forward

  APIARIST’S OPINION: DARREN BAINBRIDGE 

Last month Darren Bainbridge surveyed the apicultural landscape from his position as a small-scale beekeeper and management software supplier to the industry, to detail what he saw as the failings in the status-quo of industry governance. Now, he expands on that thinking with a potential structure to consider moving forward under.

By Darren Bainbridge

Darren Bainbridge.

Some readers took my previous article as an attack on the older generation in our industry. That’s not what this is about. What I’m challenging is old, closed-minded thinking — not age or any one person for that matter. We need to learn from the past and tread a new pathway forward.

The “next generation” I referred to is, in many cases, older than me. They’re in their 40s and 50s, running successful, progressive operations. Many are second or third-generation beekeepers, but they’ve deliberately chosen to stay out of the current debates — not because they don’t care, but because they don’t see a forum where their voices will be heard. That’s the generation we need to engage.

Addressing the Elephant in the Room

Without even seeing the process, I could probably tell you who would end up on a national committee, as proposed in the article Industry Roundtable Two – Light on the Road?.

And that’s the problem. Why? Because it will almost certainly garner the same result. That being, those who are currently not members – yet are invested and interested in the industry’s future as evidenced through their commitment to their own beekeeping business – will remain on the outside when it comes to supporting the wider industry.

The whole conversation seems to be missing one critical ingredient: a serious discussion about the actual purpose and responsibilities of a new industry body. I say “seems” because I believe many of those involved do understand what needs doing — but those responsibilities aren’t front and centre in the public conversation. They’ve taken a backseat to positioning and politicking. It doesn’t take much to read between the lines.

To most of us watching, it’s pretty black and white: the real issue isn’t structure — it’s trust. We’ve got groups more focused on status and control than solving the actual problems. And if we don’t call that out, we can’t move forward.

To be fair, some good ideas have come out of recent discussions. Better representation for beekeepers. A clearer flow of information from the regions — the real workforce of this industry — to a national level. These things are vital.

But let’s be honest: hasn’t this been obvious for years? Why are we still debating it?

The fact that we’re even having this discussion shows how much transparency has been lacking. Too many voices have tried to shape the narrative while hiding their real motives. But here’s the truth: the wider industry sees straight through it. Beekeepers — especially the disengaged majority hoping for something better — know what’s really going on.

This ongoing power struggle is a distraction. And worse, it’s damaging the credibility of our industry at a time when we need to be at our strongest.

As John MacKay rightly put it: “This is a professional industry selling hundreds of millions of dollars of product overseas. It needs professional representation.” I’d add to that: we also need professional administration support at a national level — teams that are fair, accountable, and backed by democratically elected governance. Decisions that affect the industry should be made by those who are trusted to represent it — not by default, legacy, or convenience.

A Structure That Can Work

Now that we’ve addressed the elephant in the room, let’s get to the real work: proposing a structure that can actually serve the industry.

Last month, in the vacuum of new ideas being put forward, I introduced the idea of “one roof, two boards.” This month, I want to expand on how that might look in practice — not just as a concept, but as a solution we can build on.

Any new structure must directly address the failures of the past — particularly when it comes to representation, transparency, and accountability. We need a system that supports open, robust discussion and clearly defines responsibilities, while ensuring that those elected to govern remain answerable to the people they represent.

The goal is to remove distractions and direct energy toward the four critical issues in front of us: 1. Market access for New Zealand honeys 2. A biosecurity plan that actually exists 3. Industry-led research with practical outcomes 4. Beekeeper support and education that extends beyond AFB

We don’t have years to figure this out. We need action in the next few months if we’re going to stand strong as a united industry in what is clearly an uncertain economic environment.

Why the Current Structure Fails

Right now, we’ve got a disconnected set of boards — each with their own narrow focus, their own admin teams, and limited accountability back to the industry. In some cases, these boards have become positions of status rather than service. Independent silos, with little to no cross-pollination — and it shows in the outcomes.

The structure of apiculture industry representation as it currently stands – siloed and inefficient.

This is particularly true in the case of the AFB PMP. As an industry we have lost control of an organisation that was setup by beekeepers to server beekeepers. Legally the American foulbrood Pest Management Plan (AFB PMP) is the responsibility of ApiNZ, but they have distanced themselves from it in their moves to disestablish. However, they cannot, it’s the law!

No wonder we’re struggling.

If we want to move forward, we need to bring people together — not just symbolically, but structurally. That means getting the needs, perspectives, and expertise of all parts of the industry into one place. It means learning from each other, balancing supply and demand, and developing shared priorities — all under one roof, with that strong, democratically elected governance model holding everything together.

How apiculture industry representation could (and probably should) look, with honey producers and marketers operating separate (largely voluntary) governance teams and (probably paid) admin teams, but coming together for advocacy work.

The value of this structure isn’t just operational — it’s cultural. When people work under the same roof, they talk. Around the water cooler, over lunch, or (heaven forbid) even in joint meetings. That’s how we build trust, collaboration, and a united front.

Organisational Responsibilities

We can’t fix everything overnight — but we do need a clear, actionable plan. Progress won’t come from more talk about who should be sitting at the top table, but from taking the first steps with focus and urgency.

Here’s a proposal for how the distribution of responsibilities could look, building on the ideas from the NZ Honey Producers Alternative Levy Structure article I published to the MyApiary website in June 2024:

Marketing

(Marketers’ Board + Admin Team):

Admin responsibilities include: Market access; Consumer education; NZ brand and quality protection; Support for packers/exporters; Quality assurance and standards

Joint Responsibilities

(Shared Policy Team): Industry research; Policy development; Government engagement and lobbying.

Production

(Producers’ Board + Admin Team)

Admin Responsibilities: Biosecurity; AFB Pest Management Plan; Beekeeper support and education; Regional hub coordination and support.

Board Responsibilities (Applies to both Producer and Marketer Boards)- Engage with all relevant parties and stakeholders- Set strategic direction for their sector- Appoint and oversee their respective admin teams- Approve annual administration budgets- Allocate research funding to industry-supported projects- Remain accountable to the wider industry through democratic elections

This dual-board model allows each group to focus on their area of expertise while aligning through a central policy team that engages with government — presenting one strong voice for the industry.

Importantly, most of these responsibilities already exist. The admin teams and funding mechanisms are largely in place — through the UMF Association, ApiNZ, AFB PMP, and various independent regional beekeeping groups. What’s been missing is unified governance to align and oversee them effectively.

These organisations evolved in silos over time, responding to different needs. But now, we need to unify under a single, cohesive model — not by dismantling what’s working, but by bringing them together with clarity of purpose and structure.

Where the UMF-ApiNZ Proposal Fell Short

From an operational and cost-efficiency standpoint, the proposed ApiNZ-UMF Honey Association merger made a lot of sense. A unified roof would streamline overheads and reduce duplication — something our small industry badly needs.

But the proposal lacked the consultation and representation structures required to gain trust. There was no clear plan for how existing bodies like the AFB PMP would be included. That omission has created friction — especially since the AFB PMP is the largest cost levied on beekeepers, and any change in structure naturally raises questions about its future.

In my view, bringing the AFB PMP team under the same roof is essential. At least initially, they would continue to focus solely on AFB control (as they are required to, and not deviate) as the Producer Admin Team, leveraging their existing relationships with beekeepers. The key is to begin a unifying structure without disrupting the core work already being done.

Longer-term, we’ll need to look at broadening the scope of this team beyond just AFB — to include wider beekeeper support, biosecurity, and education. This is not the most immediate, pressing issue, but it should be bore in mind as a potential (and perhaps ideal) outcome as we shape the structure of industry representation going forward. That will likely require new funding mechanisms or amendments to existing legislation — potentially even an Apiculture Act that brings the current hive levy and any honey levy together under one umbrella.

A ‘mind map’ of how various sectors of beekeeping industry representation might work together, gain funding and where some key areas of concern would fit in. Credit: Darren Bainbridge. 

We also need to shift how this team is viewed. Too many still see them as the “AFB police.” A broader role in biosecurity, education, and beekeeper welfare — especially when delivered through trusted regional hubs — can help reshape that perception and unify the producer side of the industry.

Pathway to a Unified Industry Body

If any future structure is going to work, it must be built on one foundational principle: any person or business commercially involved in beekeeping, extraction, packing, retailing, or exporting New Zealand honey needs to have an equal say on who represents them at the top table — regardless of existing group affiliations.

This means open consultation with all those registered under the AFB PMP, holding a beekeeping registration, or named as a honey marketer.

When it comes to governance:

Each board should have five voting seats and one independent, non-voting chair.

• Beekeepers and extractors should have equal opportunity to nominate and vote for candidates to the Producers’ Board.

• Packers, retailers, and exporters should have equal opportunity to nominate and vote for candidates to the Marketers’ Board.

To avoid dominance by any one region or group, I’d propose the country be divided into seven regions for the purposes of the Producers’ Board. Each region would nominate a set of candidates (say a maximum of two nominations per region, so there would be a maximum of 14 put forward by the regions at startup of the group), who would then be voted on by the entire national producer base. This ensures fair and balanced representation, while giving local voices a clear path into national leadership.

Leadership: Who Guides the Transition?

The biggest unknown right now is who can lead this transition.

It will take someone – or a group – with the ability to listen widely, work collaboratively, and still have the leadership strength to bring us together. This isn’t about power, prestige, or legacy. It’s about pulling the industry out of neutral and steering us toward a united, functional future.

Might I suggest ApiNZ learn one thing from New Zealand Beekeeping Inc (NZBI) and offer full transparency of their current planning? Might I also suggest that NZBI assist that process by presenting what they have gained in recent roundtable meetings, to work with the group which is currently named in law as responsible for the AFB PMP? Lest those two groups continue the folly of their current individual planning.

We don’t need another top-down solution. We need a structure we can build together — one that acknowledges where we’ve come from, but isn’t trapped by it.

I have gone into some detail here, mainly for the purpose of clearly elaborating my thinking. Obviously though, details like the number of regions feeding up to a national board are just examples for now. Right now, the critical thought is required to determine the structure which sits above it all, and who can make it happen.

If you’re reading this and thinking, “It’s not my place,” I’d challenge that. The future of the industry is everyone’s business — and if you’ve got ideas, skills, or experience to offer, now’s the time to step forward.

Darren Bainbridge is the founder and director of MyApiary, management software for beekeeping and honey businesses that spans New Zealand, Australia and North America. He has been at the helm of the business since 2016 and has kept a small amount of beehives since 2012.