UPU
UNION
POSTALE
UNIVERSELLE
CA 2012.1–Doc 6f.Annexe 1
1.
Introduction
1.1
Mandats attribués par le Congrès
1.2
Création du Groupe de projet «Réforme de l'Union»
1.3
Réunions
2.
Principaux domaines d’étude pour la réforme de l’UPU
2.1
Etude sur l’impact des nouveaux acteurs du marché postal sur l’UPU, sa mission et ses activités
2.2
Etude sur les tensions structurelles au sein de l'UPU
2.2.1
Structure et processus de gestion des Conseils
2.2.2
Gestion efficace des budgets de l’UPU
2.2.3
Implication du secteur élargi dans les activités de l’UPU
2.2.3.1
Rôle et structure du Comité consultatif
2.2.3.2
Concept des «trois C» pour les acteurs externes
2.2.4
Gestion documentaire
2.3
Etude sur les possibilités d’ajustement de la mission de l’UPU
2.4
Etude sur les aspects juridiques et organisationnels des activités extrabudgétaires de l'UPU
2.5
Observateurs aux réunions de l’UPU
2.6
Procédure d’arbitrage pour les opérateurs désignés
2.7
Forum de l'UPU sur la régulation postale
2.8
L’UPU et la Cour internationale de justice
2.9
Renforcement du rôle des Unions restreintes – Optimisation des synergies existantes
2.10
Organisation du Congrès
2.11
Etude sur l’introduction d’une procédure d’accréditation pour le Conseil d'administration et le Conseil
d'exploitation postale et règles concernant les observateurs aux réunions des organes de l’Union
2.12
Travaux futurs sur la réforme de l’Union
2.13
Divers
Annexe – Liste des propositions découlant des travaux relatifs à la réforme de l'Union
2
1
Introduction
Since the 1989 Washington Congress, the Universal Postal Union has been making enormous efforts to
keep its mission, structure, constituency, project financing and working methods constantly under review to
adapt to the rapidly changing postal environment and to reflect the interests of its member countries and all
players in the postal sector. Congresses have affirmed the imperative necessity to continue the Union reform
process, and the need to constantly adapt to shifting requirements affecting the UPU and its member countries.
1.1
Congress mandates
In this context, the 24th Congress issued three decisions for further reform of the Union: resolution C 16/2008
(Management of the work of the Union – Further reform of the UPU), resolution C 57/2008 (Consultative
Committee – improving the integration of CC members and further strengthening their role in all UPU activities), and decision C 66/2008 (Study on the legal and organizational aspects relating to the Union's extrabudgetary activities). Through these decisions, Congress assigned the Council of Administration the following
mandates:
–
–
–
to establish a working group composed of 10 members of the Council of Administration, 10 members
of the Postal Operations Council and the Chairman of the Consultative Committee, with fair regard to
geographical representation and level of economic development, which would be responsible for:

conducting a study on the impact of new market players in the postal sector on the UPU and its
mission and activities;

studying possible adjustments to the mission of the UPU contained in the preamble to the
Constitution, including the practical impact, if any, on the UPU's status as a UN specialized
agency;

studying ways to better structure and improve the functioning of UPU bodies, with a view to
facilitating implementation of the strategy, improve the efficiency of the decision-making processes and working methods of UPU bodies, and study how to make optimum use of resources;

studying various issues relating to the organization and financing of UPU extrabudgetary activities;

studying the role of the restricted unions in order to maximize existing synergies, thus improving
global performance;

reporting on the progress of work and presenting recommendations to the Council of
Administration based on the results of the studies;
to study ways of strengthening the role and contribution of the Consultative Committee (CC) in UPU
activities to formulate proposals based on the results of the study for submission to the next Congress
and to put in place, where necessary and possible, certain measures prior to the next Congress, particularly concerning the following questions:

to further enlarge the membership of the CC, in order to allow for broader representation
throughout the entire postal sector and better worldwide geographic representation;

to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the three members representing each Council
(CA, POC), in relation to the CC and to the Council they represent;

to encourage additional voluntary contributions from CC members, in kind or financial, for
conducting a specific project or study;

to further increase CC members' level of financial contributions to the UPU budget;

to set up a system of coordination between the CC and both the Council of Administration and
the Postal Operations Council, with the support of the International Bureau, which would promote and strengthen CC members' participation in all UPU activities, particularly at the beginning of a new cycle;
to study proposal 15.131.91.Rev 4, together with the consequential proposals relating to the Union's
extrabudgetary activities as part of UPU reform activities.
3
1.2
Creation of the Reform of the Union Project Group
At its November 2008 session, the CA accordingly established a group responsible for UPU reform, composed of 10 members of the CA, 10 members of the POC and the Chairman of the Consultative Committee.
This group was named the "Reform of the Union Project Group" (RUPG) and came under CA Committee 1
(Governance Issues).
Under the chairmanship of Belgium, the RUPG was composed of Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil,
Cameroon, Canada, China (People's Rep.), Denmark, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, Poland,
Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, South Africa, Tanzania (United Rep.), United States of America and the
Chairman of the Consultative Committee.
Apart from those elected member countries, a number of member countries showed strong interest in the
work of UPU reform. The following member countries and entities participated in the RUPG work as observers: Costa Rica, Cuba, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Kenya, Norway, Saudi Arabia,
Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the Global Express Association.
1.3
Meetings
Under the chairmanship of Mr Jean-Luc Dutordoit and Mr Etienne Defrance of the Belgian Institute of Posts
and Telecommunication, the RUPG organized seven meetings (total of 9.5 days) as follows:
–
First meeting: 19 March 2009
–
Second meeting: 4 November 2009
–
Third meeting: 13 and 15 April 2010
–
Fourth meeting: 2 and 3 November 2010
–
Fifth meeting: 27 and 28 April 2011
–
Sixth meeting: 1 and 2 November 2011
–
Seventh meeting: 27 February 2012
2
Major study areas for UPU reform
2.1
Study on the impact of new market players in the postal sector on the Union and on its mission and
activities
Pursuant to resolution C 16/2008, the RUPG considered at its first meeting, as a matter of priority, the outline
of the study on the impact of new market players in the postal sector on the Union and on its mission and
activities, presented by the International Bureau. With a view to facilitating the study, the RUPG decided to
create an ad hoc group based on fair geographical representation and supported by the International Bureau.
The group was composed of Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China (People's Rep.), Denmark, Egypt, France,
Japan, Norway (Chair country) and the United States of America, with the participation of the Consultative
Committee. The initial mandate of the ad hoc group was to facilitate and supervise the study to be conducted
by a consultant. However, the ad hoc group was entrusted with various additional tasks, including:
–
re-examining the High-Level Group study on the five structural models and developing a more "up-todate" sixth model for the Union;
–
continuing the further analysis started by the IB on the clearer distinction between governmental and
operational functions of the UPU;
–
reviewing the questionnaire prepared by the IB to study possible adjustments to the UPU mission in the
light of the preliminary results of the study on new market players, and revising the questionnaire or
launching the survey, if necessary; and
–
studying structural tensions of the Union.
4
Prior to the 2010 POC, the ad hoc group finalized the terms of reference of the new market players study and
selected PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as consultant for the study. Following that, the ad hoc group organized four electronic or physical meetings. As decided by the ad hoc group, the Chairman of the ad hoc group
(Norway), the Chairman of the Reform of the Union Project Group (Belgium), the International Bureau and
the PwC consultant met twice in Brussels.
The major work at these meetings concerned the new market players study. The group reviewed and provided a number of comments on PwC's two inception reports, which contained a broad outline of the study.
The group actively participated in finalizing PwC's questionnaire. Moreover, in Brussels and Nairobi, the ad
hoc group considered the preliminary results of the survey, as analyzed by PwC, and provided some input.
2.2
Study on structural tensions at the UPU
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)
2.3
Study on possible adjustments to the UPU mission
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)
2.4
Study on the legal and organizational aspects of the Union's extrabudgetary activities
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)
2.5
Observers at UPU meetings
During its March 2009 meeting, the Reform of the Union Project Group considered the document presented
by the International Bureau (CA C 1 RUPG 2009.1–Doc 5b). The document raised a number of issues
regarding the current UPU rules defining observers and governing their attendance at various meetings of the
UPU bodies. This document highlighted the complexity and confusing nature of the current rules. It was indicated that there was a need to clearly define the concept of observers to UPU meetings, to harmonize the
terminology, and to eliminate inconsistencies and redundancies in the various provisions in order to establish
clearer and more streamlined procedures on the acceptance of observers to UPU meetings, in line with the
practices of most intergovernmental organizations.
The rules of procedure of the UPU bodies identify three types of observers: de jure observers, observers and
invitees. However, the basic rules of the Union provide fundamentally for two different categories of observer.
The first category comprises observers sanctioned by Congress, and the other, observers designated by the
competent body and invited to specific meetings of Congress and of the Councils.
Observers sanctioned by Congress are specifically nominated and clearly identified in the provisions of the
Constitution or General Regulations, or in Congress resolutions. They are allowed to attend plenary and
committee meetings of the UPU bodies. In this category, the following entities have been granted observer
status at the UPU:
–
Restricted unions, by virtue of article 8 of the Constitution;
–
Members of the Consultative Committee, by virtue of article 106.11 of the General Regulations;
–
The League of Arab States, by virtue of Congress resolution C 7/1979;
–
The African Union, by virtue of Congress decision C 92/1974;
–
Palestine, by virtue of Congress resolution C 115/1999;
–
Representatives of the United Nations, by virtue of article II.1 of the UN–UPU Agreement.
These observers are defined as "de jure observers" under article 5 of the Rules of Procedure of Congresses,
and variably as "observers" or "de jure observers" under the Rules of Procedure of the CA and the POC.
5
The second category, namely, observers invited to specific meetings of the UPU on an ad hoc basis, is not
explicitly identified but rather mentioned in more general terms in the rules. In addition to article 10 of the
Constitution, article 102.6.19 of the General Regulations provides the legal basis for this category of observers. It stipulates that, for Congress, the CA shall designate, in consultation with the POC and the Secretary
General, the international organizations, associations, enterprises and qualified persons to be invited to specific meetings of Congress and its committees when this is in the interest of the Union. However, with regard
to the Councils, this power is delegated to the respective chairmen. In other words, this category is managed
on an ad hoc basis, either by the CA (for Congress) or by the chairmen of the Councils. This category of
observers comprises:
–
representatives of United Nations specialized agencies;
–
intergovernmental organizations;
–
representatives of any international body, any association or enterprise, or any qualified
person.
In addition, some of the UPU memoranda of understanding concluded with various organizations endow
those organizations with observer status.
The RUPG decided that it was necessary to simplify and streamline the rules concerning observers. Draft
proposals to amend the General Regulations and the Rules of Procedure of Congresses were presented by
the International Bureau.
The General Regulations contained no articles specifying the observers to be invited to UPU meetings. Article 102.6.19 concerned only contacts to be made with international organizations and invitations to invitees
for specific Congress meetings. Observers were referred to in various articles of the Constitution, the General
Regulations and the Rules of Procedure, and in resolutions.
Therefore, it was proposed that a new article 107bis be added to the General Regulations, to bring greater
precision and clarity to the rules concerning UPU observers. The new article proposed was designed to provide a single, full list of the various observers referred to in the Acts of the Union. As such, it would be the
legal basis for all observers at the UPU and not only for observers at Congress.
The CA approved the proposal to add a new article 107bis to the General Regulations and also approved the
consequential proposals (15.102.XX, 15.104.X and 15.106.X) concerning the revision of articles 102, 104 and
106 of the General Regulations, as well as articles 5 and 6 of the Rules of Procedure of Congresses.
2.6
Arbitration procedure for designated operators
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)
2.7
UPU forum on postal regulation
Recognizing the need for a more formal platform on the basis of the successful regulatory forums mandated
by Congress resolution C 41/2008, and the value and need for the Union to institutionalize these forums on
regulation to better meet the needs of member countries, the RUPG endorsed a draft resolution presented by
Belgium to create a conference on regulation under the auspices of the Council of Administration. The
essential framework was presented as follows:
–
The conference on regulation would meet at least once a year, either during the Council of
Administration session or at another time;
–
The conference on regulation could provide an advisory opinion to the Council of Administration or the
Postal Operations Council on matters concerning postal regulation, for example on the funding, quality
or pricing of the universal postal service;
–
The conference on regulation would report on its results to the Council of Administration;
–
Representation at the forum should be left to member countries.
6
The CA approved the draft resolution prepared by Belgium, with the contributions made by the members of
the RUPG, and decided to submit a proposal of a general nature to Congress (see Congress proposal XX).
2.8
The UPU and the International Court of Justice
At the April 2011 meeting, Belgium presented a proposal for the UPU to seek authorization from the General
Assembly of the United Nations to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Belgium clarified the fact that such decisions of the ICJ were non-binding but carried great legal weight and
moral authority and were often used as instruments of preventive diplomacy. Although without binding effect,
advisory opinions, in their way, contribute to the advancement of the rule of law. The UPU would remain free
to decide, by any means open to it, what effect to give to these opinions.
Article 65.1 of the ICJ Statute reads: "The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the
request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to
make such a request". Pursuant to article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, United Nations specialized
agencies, "which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory
opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities".
Among the 16 specialized agencies linked to the UN through special agreements, only the Universal Postal
Union did not yet participate in the advisory procedure. It was felt that it would be useful for the UPU to seek
this authorization, which would enable it to request advisory opinions on legal issues arising within the scope
of its activities.
The Reform of the Union Project Group examined the question and recommended to the CA that the proposal be presented to Congress, in order that the UPU might be able to avail itself of the procedure when
deemed advisable by Congress or the Council of Administration. The proposal was then approved by the CA
and Committee 1 for submission to Congress (Congress proposal XX).
2.9
Further strengthening the role of the restricted unions – maximizing existing synergies
Pursuant to Congress resolution C 16/2008, the RUPG studied various ways to strengthen the role of the
restricted unions in order to maximize existing synergies, and thus improve global performance.
With a view to obtaining as much insight and guidance as possible on this issue, the RUPG organized a
brainstorming session at its November 2009 meeting and invited all restricted unions to make presentations
on the issue. Presentations were heard from the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations (CEPT); the Caribbean Postal Union (CPU); PostEurop; the Postal Union of the Americas,
Spain and Portugal (PUASP); the Pan African Postal Union (PAPU); and the Southern Africa Postal
Operators Association (SAPOA). The restricted unions highlighted their role, especially in terms of regional
postal reform, training, technical cooperation, contribution to the formulation of the Union strategy, and
implementation of quality of service standards.
The RUPG also considered some historical information regarding the development of cooperation between
the UPU and the restricted unions, to help it in the study of ways and means of further strengthening the
existing cooperation. The document traced the evolution and development of the cooperation between the
UPU and the restricted unions and pointed out that the Union had, since the 1974 Lausanne Congress,
sought to establish a policy on cooperation with these organizations. Over the years, this had led to various
special agreements signed with restricted unions, as well as a series of resolutions on technical cooperation
with the restricted unions to achieve regional priorities. It was also suggested that, in line with 24th Congress
resolution C 16/2008, calling for the development of proposals and recommendations on UPU reform, the
project group could study ways in which the role of restricted unions could be maximized to improve global
performance of the postal sector.
With the active participation and contribution of the restricted unions, particularly SAPOA, CEPT, PUASP and
PAPU, a draft resolution was presented to the RUPG at its October 2011 meeting. The essence of the draft
resolution was that, on the condition that there would be no financial impact on the UPU budget, restricted
unions needed to strengthen the interaction among themselves to promote the sharing of best practices (particularly in the areas of the sustainable provision of a quality universal postal service, appropriate and sound
systems for organizing markets, quality of service, and postal regulations for each region), and to share
information with all UPU member countries, under the guidance or control of the CA and the POC. They also
7
needed to establish regional goals and perspectives for the further development and promotion of the postal
sector, and participate in round tables organized for the purpose of developing the UPU strategy. The
importance of ensuring the implementation of regional development plans as a key element of postal sector
improvement at a regional level was highlighted. Further, the International Bureau would coordinate with the
restricted unions to organize regular restricted union meetings during the sessions of the two Councils, and to
submit reports of those meetings to the CA as necessary.
The CA and Committee 1 endorsed this proposal for submission to Congress (Congress proposal XX).
2.10 Organization of Congress
The RUPG also considered ways to improve the work of Congress, as proposed by the International Bureau.
The improvements focused on two issues: the Congress timetable and the Congress Doyen.
With a view to ensuring the most effective and efficient use of time at Congress, the RUPG proposed that
Congress first hold Committee meetings to consider all proposals. The Plenary would then meet to deal with
the UPU strategy, elections, appeals and approval of the final Acts. This would also facilitate the attendance
of high-ranking representatives at plenary meetings (see Congress–Doc 2).
In addition, the RUPG studied various questions concerning the designation of a Congress Doyen, including
role, procedure, personal qualifications, practices of other international organizations and financial costs. The
IB also reported to the RUPG the current difficulties experienced in finding countries to volunteer in this
regard, and in finding the right person.
The RUPG therefore submitted a proposal to modify the Rules of Procedure of Congresses to dispense with
the role of Congress Doyen from the 26th Congress. The CA and Committee 1 approved the proposal for
submission to Congress (Congress proposals 19.7.1 and 19.8.1).
2.11 Study on the introduction of an accreditation procedure for the CA and POC and rules concerning
observers in meetings of the Union's bodies
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)
2.12 Future work on UPU reform
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)
2.13 Miscellaneous
(To be completed after the 2012 CA session.)