How could CERP move forward Questionnaires 52 nd

How could CERP move forward. Questionnaires 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Two questionnaires q 19 CERP member countries answers received. q More than 50% of the countries have answered the questionnaires. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Background • CERP Steering Group meeting held on 24 and 25 September in Bonn. • Proposals submitted by representatives of Bulgaria, Germany, Portugal, Spain, France and Sweden. • Draft Document “How could CERP move forward” CERP PL 2016 Doc. 10. • Two questionnaires. (Austria and Spain). 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 1: Functional and structural changes. (Current structure, working methods, physical or non-physical meetings, exchanges of information, creation of smaller groups with a very specific mandate…. ). Do you agree with the current situation? May it be improved? What could be proposed to improve the functionality or structural framework of CERP? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 1 q Examine the necessity of its own existence in the current regulatory and market environment. q The current structure of CERP is appropriate. q Transfer the CERP into a CERP-UPU. q The Policy sub group (…) seems to lack a clear focus (…) given to having one main topic of work, (…)plus any subsidiary objectives. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 1 q In this context, a wider use of electronic working tools q There is also a lot of space for non-EU member countries of CERP: among 47 CERP members only 28 q The relevance of CERP might be further strengthened, if a broader attendance of the CERP membership is achieved. q Functional and structural changes should aim to correspond with the new/recasted goals, objectives and tasks (and not vice versa). 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 2: Further improvements of cooperation with the EU Commission. How could the cooperation with the EU Commission be improved? What should be the role of CERP towards the EU postal? What should be proposed? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 2 q As mentioned before the position of CERP has been reduced due to ERGP. q Play a key role for coordination of European countries as regards EU postal regulation topics (for instance cross-border parcel delivery, ecommerce, Postal directive) 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 3: Improve the ways of cooperation between CERP and UPU. What could be proposed to enforce the ways of cooperation between CERP and UPU? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 3 q Since CERP is no decision making body we see no need to improve cooperation CERP - UPU. q CERP should be visible and audible at UPU. A more active role of CERP as a Restricted Union during CA meetings. q CERP Common positions are a good tool for cooperation, although the develp. Ing of common position is very time consuming. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 4: Cooperation with other restricted unions. Which actions could be carried out to strenghten the cooperation with other restricted unions? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 4: q CERP has no specific mandate in this regard. Cooperation could only mean an exchange of views. We cannot see any benefit in doing so. q It might be useful to establish contacts with Restricted Unions from other regions, to address issues of mutual interest or concern q Searching for avenues leading to joint common actions with other restricted unions is desirable 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 5: Improve the future cooperation with Post. Europ. Cooperation with Post. Europ should be a central action of CERP. What do you propose to improve this cooperation? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 5: q Post. Europ is an organsization driven by the interest of (privatized) postal operators. We do not agree with the idea to improve collaboration. q Establishment of a list of matters of common interest, relating to UPU, to be discussed on a regular basis and periodically review this list. q Reinforced ‘crossed’ participation in the relevant meetings of CERP and Post. Europ 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 6: CERP Plenary. How can the participation of the CERP Members in the plenaries be improved? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire. Question 6: q Give the members the opportunity to actively contribute to the elaboration of the agenda of the meeting, q Participation of stakeholders and external actors is of great benefit. other q Special emphasis should be put on non-EU countries 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 7: WG Policy. How can the participation of CERP Members in this group be improved? Is there any specific topic this group should deal with? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 7 q Two annual meeting just before the Postal Directive Committee Meetings dealing with the works carried on by the ERGP and the documents that are going to be discussed at the PDC. q "The hottest" topic is European Commission Proposal for a Regulation on cross-border parcel delivery. q Be focused on a review of the current Directive with a view to developing ideas and proposals for the new Directive announced for 2020. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 7 q Given the wider representation of CERP and the fact that both Ministries and Regulators are included, such input could be valuable to the Cion in preparing its initial proposals. q We do not see the added value of this CERP Working Group “Policy” as a lot of the technical work is done at ERGP level. q The common European postal policy database to deal with the postal policy issues outside the scope of EU 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 8: WG UPU. Is there any way to improve the cooperation on UPU matters? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire : Question 8: q continue the current practice, and making better use of the tools provided by the ECO office (website, electronic working tools, meeting facilities, etc). q Designing proposals to be submit to the CA and the mid-congress, 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire : Question 8: q All the CERP members (not members of the WG UPU) should be invited to participate as observers at the meetings that were held in Bern. q More interaction with wider stakeholders, as well as Post. Europ 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid industry

First questionnaire Question 9: National Postal Authorities. How could CERP be more useful for the National Postal Authorities? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 9: q CERP contact ERGP about mutual cooperation in field of postal service regulations in EU q The NRAs are already organized in ERGP and in the past duplication of the discussion of issues had to be avoided. q CERP is also a forum where participate representatives both from ministries and regulators and this is good base for cooperation in the field of policy making. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire Question 10: Any other comments? How could CERP be more useful for the National Postal Authorities? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First questionnaire - Question 10 q Evaluate contributions and needs of the CERP members that are from non-EU countries q On average, not even half of the member countries participate at the CERP WG meetings. In order to strengthen the role of the CERP, pro-actively encouraging wider participation of members should be one of the key priorities of the new CERP presidency. q Before any enhanced structures or work are agreed, there should be a check on whethere is sufficient resource and willingness 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire PROPOSALS TO DEBATE 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

First Proposal Creation of a Task Force with the aim of: 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 1: • Review the Mission Statement of CERP, and its Working Groups, to clearly identify what are the áreas of competence and main objectives, and propose possible modifications to the 2018 plenary meeting 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 1: • Update the “Rules of Procedure” and “Working methods” with the aim of adapting the structure, decision-making process and types of decisions to the mission and objectives of CERP, and propose possible modifications to the 2018 plenary meeting. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Mission statement Role of CERP: To examine postal regulatory affairs in a European context taking into account the changes in the borderlines between regulatory aspects and operational aspects in this domain. To assess the influence of international regulatory policies in all CEPT countries and to establish the necessary contacts with the European Union. To establish and maintain relations with representatives of relevant bodies and associations concerned with postal regulation issues. To develop proposals, where appropriate, based on the results achieved by the Working Groups. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second Proposal WG - Policy Group should consider incorporating to its works the following recommendations: 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

• Establish a Project Team on the regulatory proposal “Cross border parcel delivery”. • Establish a Project Team to analyze the most relevant aspects for a future revision of the Postal Directive. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

• Hold, at least, two annual meetings (physically or remotely) to prepare the topics that are going to be discussed at the Postal Directive Committee meeting. The European Commission should be confered with in advance of such meetings, to share the topics that are going to be discussed in the Postal Directive Committee meeting • Incorporate the topic “Current works of ERGP” to each meeting of the WG Policy. The plenary meeting agrees to recommend dealing 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 2 - Comments q We are against the idea of having CERP meetings in order to prepare the Postal Directive Committee meeting, which is an institutional EU meeting related to the Postal Services Directive in order to have a contact between the EU members and the European Commission. We think we cannot present common CERP positions except for UPU issues at PDC meetings as the audience is different for both organisations, namely PDC has 28 EU members and candidate countries and CERP consists of 48 members. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 2 - Comments q Furthermore we should avoid any overlap with ERGP work in this area, especially regarding regulatory issues. We think the work can be executed at the current level of the WG "Policy". q We also think that contact between the ERGP and CERP should mainly take place at the CERP plenary level and not at the CERP working group level. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 2 - Comments q We consider the establishment of a Project Team on the regulatory proposal "Cross border parcel delivery" as superfluous at this stage. The proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border parcel delivery services has been de facto agreed on at the Council level. The accomplishment of the proposal contents lies mainly within the authority of NRAs; therefore it will be in particular ERGP that should be engaged in the Regulation. At the moment, we do not support the holding of two annual meetings to prepare the PDC meeting either. We agree with the other activities mentioned. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 2 - Comments q 1. - We have some doubts regarding the establishment of a PT on the ‘cross border parcel delivery’ proposal, as we believe it will create duplication of work. The fact is that the proposal is being discussed both at the proper instances at EU level, as well as within ERGP, where specific regulatory issues are already being treated, by the countries that will be affected by it. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 2 - Comments q 2 We also have doubts regarding the interest and appropriateness of the tasks that are proposed for WG policy to conduct in relation to the EU Postal Directive Committee. The national position at the Committee is defined at national level involving the ministry, the regulator and other relevant entities –. We thus see very little margin for (and benefit from) any form of coordination at CERP level. We do see, once more, risks of duplication of efforts, which administrations can hardly afford. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 2 - Comments q 3 We believe that, pending the results of the task force proposed in question 1, any activities of the WG Policy related to EU and ERGP work can only be in the context of promoting information sharing about such work, in particular for the benefit of CERP countries that are not able to participate directly in those instances. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Third Proposal WG - UPU Group should consider incorporating to its works the following recommendations 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 3: • Identify the issues which will be discussed in Ethiopia during the extraordinary Congress of UPU and consider the creation of specific Project Teams for each one of them with the aim of presenting a proposal of European Common Position at the plenary in 2018. • Foster a deeper coordination with Posteurop identifying a list of of subjects of common interest. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 3 - Comments q Point 1: We think we can coordinate the extraordinary congress at the CERP WG "UPU" level and we can establish within this WG a PT that could draft a proposal of European Common Position if realistic as we should agree with 48 members. q Point 2: Of course we could further cooperate with Post. Europ but the cooperation should be focused on UPU issues with common interest. Furthermore CERP should also keep its independence from Post. Europ, which is not always easy as Post. Europ is a much bigger and structured organisation with its own secretarygeneral, secretariat, 52 nd CERPetc. Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 3 - Comments q We agree that CERP makes preparations for the extraordinary UPU Congress. However we consider as sufficient if WG-UPU addresses the issues. We are afraid that CERP has no sufficient personnel capacity for creation of specific Project Teams for each of the issues. We agree with the other activities mentioned. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Fourth Proposal The Steering Committee will assume the functions and objectives of the Task Force of Communication, especially the following: 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 4: • Update the information on the CERP website • Update and publish the list of members and observers. • Promote the use of teleconferences and forums in which members of the different working groups could exchange working documents and points of view. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Fifth Proposal CERP plenary: How could the CERP members participation be increased? 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 4: • In the UPU Congress years, the plenary will be held one or two months before the Congress to facilitate the adoption of “European common positions”. • Give the opportunity to all the members to contribute in advance to the elaboration of the agenda. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 4: • Ensure the contact list members and observers is updated and includes all CERP members by right. • Provide information to all CERP Administrations on an annual basis about the role, mission and activities of CERP. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 5 - Comments q We think that CERP should concentrate primarily on UPU issues such as COM-ITU. q On the basis of previous experience we worry about the adoption of "European common positions" - we think it is a difficult process. We would prefer rather exchange of opinions on individual proposals. We agree with the other activities mentioned. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Sixth Proposal Presidency: Instruct the Chairmanship of the CERP to 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 6: • Take action to increase the number of countries that participate in CERP meetings. • Reestablish the Contact Committee meetings (physically or remotely) with European Comisión and other stakeholders. • At the request of the Chair of the UPU group, to hold informal meetings with all CERP members during the UPU CA sessions or Congress if there are relevant topics. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Second questionnaire - Question 6: • Establish formal contacts with other Restricted Union. • Establish formal contact with ERGP with the aim of, through correspondent working groups, exchange information, discuss the regulatory EU proposals and provide opinions of non EU CERP members. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid

Question 6 - Comments q We agree except that the coordination between CERP and the ERGP should in principle take place at the plenary level and not at the working group level. q Establishing contacts with other Restricted Unions except for Post. Europ seems to be a lower-priority activity given a limited personnel capacity of CERP. We agree with the other activities mentioned. 52 nd CERP Plenary Meeting-Madrid