Ukraine may reorganize its only specialized research institution dedicated to beekeeping. The Presidium of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences has decided to transform the P. I. Prokopovich National Scientific Center “Institute of Beekeeping” into a structural unit of the NAAS Institute of Food Resources. Serhiy Grynyov, president of the Ukrainian Beekeepers’ Union, announced this in an exclusive statement.
In the document, the NAAS cites the results of the state certification conducted by the Ministry of Education and Science, according to which the Institute was classified as Group G. The resolution states that institutions in this group are considered to have failed the state certification and are subject to reorganization, liquidation, or a change in status.
The first clause of the resolution calls for an appeal to the Ministry of Education and Science, requesting that the ministry submit to the Cabinet of Ministers a draft act on the reorganization of the Institute by merging it into the Institute of Food Resources as a structural unit without legal personality.
The second clause specifies that, subject to the Cabinet of Ministers’ approval, the Institute of Apiculture is to be dissolved as a legal entity, and the Institute of Food Resources is to be designated as the successor to its land, property, property and non-property rights, and obligations.
Representatives of the institute, the Ukrainian Beekeepers’ Union, and the Beekeepers’ Guild are asking that the institution be preserved as a separate legal entity. In an appeal to People’s Deputy Ihor Marchuk, they warned of the risk that the center could lose its autonomy, property, land plots, and scientific achievements.
“This is the only scientific institution that provides scientific support in the field of beekeeping. We have no other such institutions,” said Serhiy Gryniov, president of the Ukrainian Beekeepers’ Union.
Why Beekeepers Opposed the NAAS Decision
According to Grynyov, the association appealed to the NAAS leadership with a request to keep the institute independent. At first, he claims, beekeepers were assured that the institution would be preserved. Later, they learned of a resolution by the Presidium that provides for the dissolution of the legal entity.
“First they tell us that everything will be fine, and then they pass a resolution to dissolve the institution,” Grinyov stated.
In the appeal, the signatories also assert that the decision to reorganize was made without consultation with representatives of beekeepers or the institute’s leadership. They believe that the future successor—the Institute of Food Resources—does not cover all areas of the institute’s work.
Scientific support for beekeeping, the authors of the petition emphasize, includes not only research on honey as a food product but also veterinary medicine, bee health, pest control, genetics, and biodiversity conservation.
What research does the institute conduct?
The institute is working on issues related to bee breeding and genetics, bee health, diseases, and pests, as well as researching the composition of honey and other beekeeping products.
Among future areas of focus, Grynyov mentioned the creation of an atlas of pollen grains in Ukraine and the continuation of research on bee pollination. Bees are important not only for honey production: they pollinate agricultural and wild plants and support biodiversity.
“We need to continue research on bee health, pest control, and the composition of honey and other beekeeping products. We must work both on the atlas of pollen grains in Ukraine and on the use of bee pollination,” explained the association’s president.
Volodymyr Yalpachyk highlights the practical significance of this specialized field of science for beekeepers. Doctor of Technical Sciences, professor in the Department of Processing and Food Production Equipment at the Dmytro Motorny Tavria State Agrotechnological University, and co-founder of the “Medove Misto” Trading House.
“It is important for producers and beekeepers that the industry retain a specialized research center they can turn to for expert research and practical recommendations. If, following the reorganization, such services become less accessible, this could affect the entire supply chain—from the apiary to the finished product. Therefore, it is important for the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences (NAAS) to clearly explain which functions the Institute will retain and who will ensure their continuity,” Yalpachyk stated.
According to him, the Institute possessed unique expertise, including the ability to provide conclusions regarding the origin of bees. At the same time, he does not know whether this function has been preserved and emphasizes that he is not an expert on this issue. Overall, he described the institution’s work as a “sham” and suggested that most beekeepers would not even notice its closure.
If, however, the goal of the reorganization is to improve the institution’s work, it is important to preserve what remains of its scientific capabilities and to take into account the needs of beekeeping associations. Yalpachik mentioned the issues of beeswax and pesticides, as well as the need to protect Ukraine’s interests regarding honey quotas and to restore trust in the relevant institution.
At the same time, he called it a “shame and disgrace” that Ukraine—a country linked to the history of global beekeeping and the name of Petro Prokopovych—might shut down the institute without having a noticeable impact on the industry. In his view, the problem lies not only in the possible closure but also in the fact that the institution has not been properly developed or reorganized.
Beekeepers Challenge the Results of the Accreditation
The authors of the appeal have specific complaints regarding the state evaluation of the institute. They believe the procedure was conducted with violations, and that the Ministry of Education and Science’s conclusion to classify the institution as Group G is unfounded. Beekeepers are asking for the evaluation to be reviewed and its results reconsidered.
Industry representatives also cite Presidential Decree No. 1006/2005 of June 30, 2005, which granted the institute the status of a National Scientific Center.
The authors of the appeal believe that the decision to reorganize the institute requires a separate legal assessment and cannot be based solely on a decision by the Presidium of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences.
What Plan Is the Beekeepers’ Union Proposing?
According to Grynyov, due to limited funding, the institute has already halted some important research projects. At the same time, the Ukrainian Beekeepers’ Association is preparing a strategy for bee conservation and industry development for 2027–2031. The strategy assigns the institute a leading scientific role.
The Association is also exploring the possibility of securing funding for the institute from sources outside the state budget. The appeal proposes developing a national beekeeping development program and establishing a special fund for it.
The appeal was signed by the institute’s acting director, Volodymyr Postoyenko; the president of the Ukrainian Beekeepers’ Union, Serhiy Gryniov; and the chairman of the Ukrainian Honey Producers’ Guild, Vasyl Barabash. It was addressed to People’s Deputy Ihor Marchuk, with copies sent to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Presidium of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences (NAAS).
The authors ask the MP to appeal to the government, the Ministry of Education and Science, and the NAAS regarding the reorganization decision, to support preserving the institute as a separate legal entity, and to review the results of its accreditation. They also call for promoting the consideration of a national strategy for the development of beekeeping, the payment of salaries to the staff, and a meeting with industry representatives.
