ApiNZ Commodity Levy Proposal

[Trevor Gillbanks 6343]

1 hour ago, Dennis Crowley said:

No trevor. it means that there is no weighted voting, those that are eligible to vote only get 1 vote, nothing to do with the amount of honey you produce

Thanks @Dennis Crowley I appreciate your willingness to answer questions.

[Philbee 4609]

24 minutes ago, Ali said:

What would the number of beeks be for say the 150 to 1000 hives? These I feel are what I see as the smaller operators.

Rough numbers would be 7500 beeks have 68000 hives (approx)
Thats an  average of 9 hives each

[Ali 537]

@Philbee am not sure that this covers the range 150 hives to 1000 hives. What I view as small commercial. The average would be above 150 hives each if it did.

Perhaps it is not so easy to arrive at these figures. When I have a chance I will delve into it if no one beats me to it meanwhile.

[Otto 635]

3 hours ago, Ali said:

@JohnF, I think quite a few have been incensed by some of the responses or lack of to a few questions asked here.

Regarding the use of proposed funding for research, I would imagine there is an inner circle already established that would likely benefit to quite a large degree (yes the beekeeping industry may benefit as a result) but it would not be beyond the realms of reality to see funding going into hands the people funding the levy would be unhappy about.

It would be quite disturbing to find we are supporting the research arms (directly or indirectly) of the large beekeeping or marketing entities.

Tracking the money/benefit trail would prove very interesting.

 

Projects that could get funded from such a fund should not be (and don't think will be) predetermined before the fund is in place.

 

Some of the reasons for establishing an industry research fund (through this proposed levy) would be:

1) To ensure there is some money available for research deemed critical to the industry.

 

2) So that there is somewhere researchers can apply to for a grant to do research they think would benefit the industry. It would be up to a granting panel to identify those projects that are worth funding. Such a panel would usually be made up of a mix of industry and science representatives so that the expertise to identify a worthy project that is technically sound in how it is set out are there on that panel. 

 

3) To provide leverage to get government funding for MBIE grants, Sustainable Farming Fund grants etc for large (costly) research projects. Large scale research projects often require matched and/or in kind funding or partly matched funding from stakeholders (like in this case the beekeeping industry) to stand any chance of getting funded. At present this is a huge obstacle for researchers as there is basically no funding available from industry.

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by Otto

[Philbee 4609]

27 minutes ago, Ali said:

@Philbee am not sure that this covers the range 150 hives to 1000 hives. What I view as small commercial. The average would be above 150 hives each if it did.

Perhaps it is not so easy to arrive at these figures. When I have a chance I will delve into it if no one beats me to it meanwhile.

maybe not but here are the numbers-

The book of words shows 585 beeks have between 50 & 250 hives

That total is 68000 hives

198 beeks have beteen 250 & 500 hives, total hives 70000

147 beeks have between 500 & 1000 hives, total hives 70000 

My head hurts, you figure it out

[Philbee 4609]

14 minutes ago, Philbee said:

maybe not but here are the numbers-

The book of words shows 585 beeks have between 50 & 250 hives

That total is 68000 hives

198 beeks have beteen 250 & 500 hives, total hives 70000

147 beeks have between 500 & 1000 hives, total hives 70000 

My head hurts, you figure it out

Ok

585 beeks average 116 hives

198 beeks average 350 Hives

147 beeks average 476 Hives

 

Then 180 beeks average 3000 hives

The stand out in this lot is Palmerston North with 173667 Hives for 37 beeks = average 4700 each

Blenheim and Southland are similar at an average of 1800 per beek in this +1000 group

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by Philbee

[Gerrit 186]

1 hour ago, Otto said:

 

Projects that could get funded from such a fund should not be (and don't think will be) predetermined before the fund is in place.

 

Some of the reasons for establishing an industry research fund (through this proposed levy) would be:

1) To ensure there is some money available for research deemed critical to the industry.

 

2) So that there is somewhere researchers can apply to for a grant to do research they think would benefit the industry. It would be up to a granting panel to identify those projects that are worth funding. Such a panel would usually be made up of a mix of industry and science representatives so that the expertise to identify a worthy project that is technically sound in how it is set out are there on that panel. 

 

3) To provide leverage to get government funding for MBIE grants, Sustainable Farming Fund grants etc for large (costly) research projects. Large scale research projects often require matched and/or in kind funding or partly matched funding from stakeholders (like in this case the beekeeping industry) to stand any chance of getting funded. At present this is a huge obstacle for researchers as there is basically no funding available from industry.

 

 

If research is what we are mainly concerned with, why can't we just have a levy for research only. I think that will have a much better chance of succeeding. That way we can maybe leave all the politics out. ApiNZ can continue what they doing and the levy payers can elect a few representatives to oversee what's required for research.

[Philbee 4609]

34 minutes ago, Gerrit said:

 

If research is what we are mainly concerned with, why can't we just have a levy for research only. I think that will have a much better chance of succeeding. That way we can maybe leave all the politics out. ApiNZ can continue what they doing and the levy payers can elect a few representatives to oversee what's required for research.

Who would own the intellectual property

[Gerrit 186]

37 minutes ago, Philbee said:

Who would own the intellectual property

That is pretty obvious, the beekeepers or the Beekeeper's Research Fund or what ever name; that way it will be truly for the benefit of Beekeeping. Thinking about that, do you want ApiNZ to own it; others then beekeepers are involved with ApiNZ. Why not, they (ApiNZ) want to target Beekeepers only anyway.

[JohnF 666]

Sorry, my earlier message lost the quoted context:

 

17 hours ago, Frederick said:

 

Thanks for your comments Dennis I've replied in blue below:

 

 

. JM of APINZ R & D has enough time to enter obnoxious posts in these forums, encourage him to speak directly to those he wants to pay his wages): Sell yourselves!!

 

And repeating my reply:

7 hours ago, JohnF said:

 

Obnoxious?

please feel free to point out the obnoxious posts to me or even better, feel free to call or email me - my details are easy to find.

i don't like people questioning the ethics or morals of the science and research group - who do this voluntarily. Whether or not a levy goes though - this will still be voluntary from people who feel they have skills to contribute. 

Thanks @Frederick - I speak to plenty of commercial and semi-commercial beekeepers - ApiNZ members, NZ beekeeping members, SNI members and none of the above. And I'm grateful to those that help us with our research. But no, neither they nor ApiNZ pay our wages or fund our research into varroa resistance, AFB and a few other things we're slowly chipping away at.

 

[JohnF 666]

7 hours ago, Ali said:

@JohnF, I think quite a few have been incensed by some of the responses or lack of to a few questions asked here.

Regarding the use of proposed funding for research, I would imagine there is an inner circle already established that would likely benefit to quite a large degree (yes the beekeeping industry may benefit as a result) but it would not be beyond the realms of reality to see funding going into hands the people funding the levy would be unhappy about.

It would be quite disturbing to find we are supporting the research arms (directly or indirectly) of the large beekeeping or marketing entities.

Tracking the money/benefit trail would prove very interesting.

 

I'm a member of the ApiNZ Science & Research - but I don't have inside knowledge to all that makes up ApiNZ for answers there, sorry.

 

If you looked at the conference program this year (http://apicultureconference2018.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Apiculture-2018-Conference_Science-Abstracts_v3.pdf) then its a fairly large circle of research and institutes. That said, I'm sure once there might be research funds available then the circle would get larger as well.

Large operations are already funding their own research - that way they own the results and any IP

Edited August 12, 2018 by JohnF

[JohnF 666]

4 hours ago, Otto said:

 

Projects that could get funded from such a fund should not be (and don't think will be) predetermined before the fund is in place.

 

 

Agreed Otto - the researchers might determine the particular project . . . the survey is more to find out what is of highest interest to beekeepers eg varroa? AFB?

Often it has been the researchers determining what should be of interest rather than being truly industry-led

[Frederick 200]

8 hours ago, JohnF said:

 

Obnoxious?

please feel free to point out the obnoxious posts to me or even better, feel free to call or email me - my details are easy to find.

i don't like people questioning the ethics or morals of the science and research group - who do this voluntarily. Whether or not a levy goes though - this will still be voluntary from people who feel they have skills to contribute. 

Thanks @Frederick - I speak to plenty of commercial and semi-commercial beekeepers - ApiNZ members, NZ beekeeping members, SNI members and none of the above. And I'm grateful to those that help us with our research. But no, neither they nor ApiNZ pay our wages or fund our research into varroa resistance, AFB and a few other things we're slowly chipping away at.

Posted Thursday at 10:05 AM

ApiNZ Science & Research   

[…..Oh, and should it pass and everyone is now a member of ApiNZ and you want to scream long and loud? You can simply opt out of being a member. I would guess you would also lose any say though . . .  [JM]….]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Apologies John but I took the above posting as prissy and yes 'obnoxious' maybe I'm just a little over the situation but I didn't intend any affront in general: To clarify, the comment states [... encourage him to speak directly to those he wants to pay his wages): Sell yourselves!! ...]. As the Levy will be going towards paying for R & D I suggest it will undoubtedly pay APINZ Science and Research wages; end of story.

 But lets not get court up in my poorly worded script, let's consider the message: APINZ must sell itself and it's message: The engine room of the industry doesn't back the APINZ's drive to collect a CLA and utilise it on behalf of the industry.

OK we all talk to people; OK we all get so much anecdotal feedback; OK I've been involved in the industry for over 40 years and are seeking input from the commercial sector to help me rationalise APINZ's CLA aspirations: But hey I can't find  backing from those in the 250 - 3500 hive size business's (the Industry's Engine House).

My suggestion to APINZ is again: Put the CLA  on the backburner and sell yourselves and the idea!

 

[JohnF 666]

2 hours ago, Frederick said:

As the Levy will be going towards paying for R & D I suggest it will undoubtedly pay APINZ Science and Research wages; end of story.

 

Not quite the end of the story and also not undoubtably as - to repeat - there are no ApiNZ Science & Research wages

Nil

Zero

unpaid

voluntary

[Frederick 200]

18 minutes ago, JohnF said:

 

Not quite the end of the story and also not undoubtably as - to repeat - there are no ApiNZ Science & Research wages

Nil

Zero

unpaid

voluntary

I stand corrected if the CLA isn't going to fund R & S inclusive wages then end of story I'm wrong

[Ali 537]

I think what John is saying is that the current set up includes no payment. What may come in the future we are not to know.

[Ali 537]

6 hours ago, Gerrit said:

That is pretty obvious, the beekeepers or the Beekeeper's Research Fund or what ever name; that way it will be truly for the benefit of Beekeeping. Thinking about that, do you want ApiNZ to own it; others then beekeepers are involved with ApiNZ. Why not, they (ApiNZ) want to target Beekeepers only anyway.

I don't think this is a given at all. The results of research would be unlikely to belong to the levy payers unless this was a part of the funding arrangements or the researchers were directly employed by the levy fund. A partnership with a University or other body conducting the research could lead to tangible monetary benefit to the funding provider if there was a commercially viable result.

Generally speaking, proportionately the bigger the beekeeping enterprise the bigger will be the benefits of any useful research.

[JohnF 666]

9 hours ago, Ali said:

I think what John is saying is that the current set up includes no payment. What may come in the future we are not to know.

 

Oh, I don't know Ali . . . I'd be pretty confident in seeing no dollar signs in my future

but put another way, the proposed admin split is 10%. This would not stretch to paying focus groups I'd suggest

[Frederick 200]

9 hours ago, Ali said:

I think what John is saying is that the current set up includes no payment. What may come in the future we are not to know.

That's how I read it to Ali.

I'm interested and talking about what happens to the Levy once collected!

 

However forget the smoke screen (I caused) my concern simply put is: APINZ don't quote a mandate and don't pursue the CLA until you can get the commercial sector's backing then have a crack (and I'll back you!)

Edited August 12, 2018 by Frederick
Spelling

[Ali 537]

It comes down to representation at the Board level for me at present and the amount of dollars also in all the levy costs we will be faced with. AFB, CLA, GIA and whatever next.

Until the great unwashed masses (the small beekeeping enterprises if you wish) that include myself are solidly represented we will remain mostly disenfranchised.

 

The large enterprise and beekeeper/packer group have control currently in my view. I feel this is not in the interests of the small and middle group of beekeeping enterprises at all.

[Adam Boot 322]

I see a lot of debate and concern on this topic and much of it appears warranted. However, I would like to know if these concerns are actually being presented to the Minister involved? 

Is he aware of the concerns? Does he understand the board make up? Ministers do tend to listen if enough individuals contact them directly. 

[Philbee 4609]

On 12/08/2018 at 4:25 PM, Gerrit said:

That is pretty obvious, the beekeepers or the Beekeeper's Research Fund or what ever name; that way it will be truly for the benefit of Beekeeping. Thinking about that, do you want ApiNZ to own it; others then beekeepers are involved with ApiNZ. Why not, they (ApiNZ) want to target Beekeepers only anyway.

I suspect that shared Intellectual Property ownership is a minefield and disaster in the making.
This issue is one that needs very special consideration going forward because it is an obvious goal of any Research Body to accumulate Intellectual Property.
One issue is that Industry Organisations tend to be in flux and IP cannot be allowed to drift with them, out the door

[yesbut 5678]

1 minute ago, Philbee said:

This issue is one that needs very special consideration going forward because it is an obvious goal of any Research Body to accumulate Intellectual Property.

Those of us on the left tend to attribute slightly more altruistic character to our scientific friends. I think you're barking at shadows.

[Philbee 4609]

9 minutes ago, yesbut said:

scientific friends

Its not the Scientific individuals that own or control the IP
Its the organisation that they work within.
Its also not a matter of trustworthiness but rather, Structure, Process and Professionalism 

 

[Gerrit 186]

16 minutes ago, Philbee said:

I suspect that shared Intellectual Property ownership is a minefield and disaster in the making.
This issue is one that needs very special consideration going forward because it is an obvious goal of any Research Body to accumulate Intellectual Property.
One issue is that Industry Organisations tend to be in flux and IP cannot be allowed to drift with them, out the door

I only put it there because we seem so worried about what happens to the 60% of the money possibly raised by the CL and not the 40% on research.