A seemingly sidelined player in the shakeup of industry representation in recent months, the Mānuka Charitable Trust (MCT) held a publicly advertised Zoom meeting recently to advise on their latest work to protect mānuka honey for New Zealanders – only to exclude two Apiarist’s Advocate correspondents. Since then, details of a new plan to trademark mānuka have emerged.
The February 21 online meeting hosted by MCT was promoted to followers of the Trust’s Facebook page to “join us for an insightful hui”. The post came less than a week after the page also promoted “inclusivity” as one of the core principles which “guide everything we do”. However, the antithesis was the order of the day when the hui was pronounced to Apiarist’s Advocate as an “exclusive session” and entry was denied.
In a phone call days after the hui, Kristen Kohere-Soutar, executive chair of MCT’s operating arm Te Pitau Ltd, stressed there was nothing to hide in the meeting and put the decision to exclude down to “miscommunications” which were “all on our side”. The hui was intended to provide an update to Māori beekeepers on the Trust’s work, past, present, and future, so they could be more informed entering key votes on industry representation with the Unique Mānuka Factor Honey Association (UMFHA) and Apiculture New Zealand (ApiNZ), she says.
“We wanted to hear from people and have a free and frank discussion regarding the Trust’s programme of work. We wanted to hear from, particularly, Māori beekeepers in order that anything that gets reported has the effect they give it,” Kohere-Soutar says.
Māori businesses can have different ownership structures to many others and operating practices unique to the culture, so communications are often tailored to that, the Te Pitau chair says.
“Just like when you have a subset of scientists doing work for the industry, not everyone will turn up for the meetings. It is not ethnically driven or a segregation-based reason. It was to get separate issues across to Māori beekeepers.”
While the Trust was hesitant to share specifics, Apiarist’s Advocate has seen a copy of a document from MCT which details a certification trademark (CTM) owned by the Trust which proposes fees ranging from 6c/kg to 15c/kg for use of the brand (pictured in Figure 1) on honey depending on UMF or MGO (methylglyoxal) rating. Each 10ml of mānuka oil would also be subject to a 6c fee if using the mark.
Kohere-Soutar says the meeting on February 21 detailed both their advocacy for a geographic indicator (GI) designation for mānuka honey – think ‘Champagne’ wine and France, ‘Scotch’ whisky and Scotland – and the new CTM approach.
Thus far CTMs for the mark have been obtained in the major mānuka honey markets of the European Union, UK, USA, Singapore and Australia, while in China a less restrictive trademark has been registered.
While the concept of CTMs are not new to the Trust – who upon creation in 2020 took up the mantle of seeking to gain them in key markets for the term ‘Manuka Honey’ – successfully obtaining them is. Applications failed in all overseas jurisdictions and then, most recently, at home in the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand in 2023.
“What we have learned from litigation was New Zealand exporters need to make it clear, beyond doubt, to the consumer that mānuka only comes from Aotearoa New Zealand. We believe our certified trademark is a way of bringing that distinctiveness to the market,” Kohere-Soutar says of the revamped approach.
There is potential for the new trademark to be offered by a licencing body, much like the UMF brand is by UMFHA. However, the next step is to seek government funding to advance more research into what that business model might look like.
“Our legal advisory committee has recommended to industry leadership and our largest exporters that we rally behind the Trust’s newly registered certified trademarks which should be developed in sympathy and partnership with other value accretion marks such as UMF. That is entirely an industry discussion. We are not saying one or the other. We want to go into partnership.”
The Trust has formed an “industry advisory committee” with representatives from UMF, Comvita, Mānuka Health and Mānuka Doctor advising on the project.
While that work takes place, Kohere-Soutar says obtaining a geographic indicator to provide protection for New Zealand’s mānuka honey industry is still priority number one.
“The rationale for the GI is that it provides exclusive use of the term ‘manuka honey’ that will be recognised by most markets in the world. We have put a paper out to Minister Potaka, with the support of our industry partners, advocating for this and we strongly recommend the government amends the legislation for the wine GI to include food categories in order that mānuka can be added.
“We also said that we have no explanation for why a GI is not on the policy agenda for the commerce minister. We have strongly advocated that this is the most comprehensive and easy to do with the exemption of the infrastructure needed in government and industry to do it. It is the best way to preserve the value, the mana and the mauri (essence) of manuka.”
According to the Te Pitau chair, the February 21 meeting reinforced to those in attendance that they should consider how the industry could achieve a GI for mānuka honey when casting their votes on the future of UMFHA and ApiNZ.
“If you are looking for answers to this industry, which is facing challenges, the GI pathways document we have developed shows how that can be done,” she says.
The MCT has not made this document available for viewing.
More detail on these projects will be provided at another hui via Zoom, March 17 at 7pm.
Those wanting to attend that meeting can email info@manukacharitabletrust.org and are encouraged to follow MCT’s Facebook page for further updates.
Kommentare