Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/67/EC concerning the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services COM(2006) 594 final — 2006/0196 (COD)
Date: 2007-04-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, competition policy, liberalisation of the market, postal service, universal service

C 168/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/67/EC concerning the full accom-
plishment of the internal market of Community postal services

COM(2006) 594 final — 2006/0196 (COD)

(2007/C 168/16)

On 1 December 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 March 2007. The rapporteur
was Mr Hencks.

At its 435th plenary session, held on 25 and 26 April 2007 (meeting of 26 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 131 votes to 26 with 8 abstentions.

1. Recommendations

This is a precondition for abolishing the reserved sector, which
is necessary for financing the universal service.

1.1
In the draft directive under review, the Commission envi-
sages proceeding to the final stage of opening the postal market
on 1 January 2009, while maintaining the principal aspects of
universal service at current levels in all EU Member States, and
abolishing the exclusive rights (the reserved sector) used to
finance the universal service.

1.2
The main challenge presented by organising this final
stage is to identify the way forward to an effective and competi-
tive postal sector which will continue to provide high-quality,
affordable services to individuals and businesses in Europe, in
the interests of economic competitiveness, of serving citizens'
needs, irrespective of their geographical or financial situation or
other factors, and in the interests of employment and sustain-
able development.

1.3
The EESC feels that the Commission's ideas would not
ensure the necessary degree of security for long-term financing
of a universal service in all Member States, particularly where
there are difficulties caused by the physical or human geography,
and thus at present are not preferable to financing by means of
a reserved sector, which in many Member States has proved to
be an effective and fair system.

1.4
For the EESC, compensating for the residual costs of a
universal service by imposing a levy or higher tariffs on users or
by means of public subsidies would be unacceptable, whereas
involve any specific
the present universal service does not
charges for users/taxpayers.

1.5
At this stage, the EESC is not won over either to a ‘play
or pay’ system, with an obligation on each operator to provide
a universal service, from which it can be exempted by partici-
pating in the financing of the universal service, or to the use of
a compensation fund.

1.6
The Commission should explain in detail the framework
within which liberalisation of postal services will take place.

and risks

Given the uncertainties

1.7
associated with
complete liberalisation of the postal market, the deadline of
1.1.2009 seems unrealistic, especially in view of the fact that
postal operators in Member States which only joined the EU in
2004 would have insufficient time to adapt to the new circum-
stances.

1.8

The EESC urges that:

— the current Directive be extended;

— plans be made for possible full liberalisation of the postal
sector by 1.1.2012, provided that credible financing options
which represent an improvement on the reserved sector
in close consultation with all
have been found by then,
those concerned;

— specific deliveries sent or received by blind and partially
sighted persons and their organisations be incorporated into
the universal service.

2. Introduction

2.1
From a socio-economic perspective, postal services are
very important for economic, social and territorial cohesion and
for implementation of the Lisbon strategy. They directly contri-
bute to social relations and fundamental rights, while enhancing
solidarity and integrating people and regions; they also stimulate
European economic competitiveness and sustainable develop-
ment.

The Commission estimates

2.2
services
handle 135 billion items per annum, generating a turnover of
about EUR 88 billion or 1 % of EU GDP. About two-thirds of
this turnover is generated by mail services; the remainder comes
from parcels, express mail and related services.

the postal

that

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/75

2.3
A universal postal service ensuring the availability of
high-quality, reliable and affordable postal services irrespective
of geographical or financial situation or other factors is a key
the Lisbon
the European social model and of
element of
strategy. A high-quality universal service is a necessity both for
members of the public and economic players, who are the main
clients of postal services and who need parcels and letters to be
delivered to recipients irrespective of where they are situated or
who they are.

Reforms, technological developments and increased auto-
improve-
increased efficiency and a more customer-

2.4
mation in the postal sector have led to substantial
ments in quality,
oriented approach.

Contrary to more pessimistic forecasts of continuing
2.5
decline in the postal services market, these changes reflect the
growth potential perceived by operators in the development of
new services such as home shopping, electronic commerce and
hybrid mail.

2.6
In contrast to other network industries, postal work, and
delivery in particular, still involves a great deal of manual labour
and direct contact with customers. The sector is therefore very
important for employment; it is estimated that over 5 million
jobs in the EU are directly dependent on the postal sector or
closely linked to it. Labour costs, which are usually fixed costs,
represent the lion's share (+/- 80 %) of total costs; the workforce
is therefore particularly vulnerable to the effects of streamlining
measures in the course of liberalisation and improving competi-
tiveness.

— quality standards;

— harmonisation of technical standards;

— creation of independent national regulatory authorities.

3.3 Universal service

3.3.1
According to the Directive, Member States will be
required to ensure that a universal service at affordable prices is
available, every working day and not less than five days a week,
to all users at all locations, with at least

— collection, sorting, transport and delivery of mail weighing
up to two kilograms and of parcels weighing up to ten kilo-
grams;

— services involving registered and insured items;

— suitable access points to the postal network throughout the

country.

3.3.2
Community legislation therefore ensures that everyone
living in the EU has access to genuine communication services,
regardless of the geographical or human make-up of their place
of residence.

3.3.3
Universal service as defined above, which includes both
national and cross-border services, has to comply with quality
standards on delivery times and the regularity and reliability of
services in particular; these standards are set by Member States
in the case of national services, and by the Parliament and
Council in the case of Community cross-border services.

2.7
Finally, the EESC would also like to point out that regular
Eurobarometer surveys indicate that a large majority of users are
generally satisfied with the quality of postal services.

3.4 Reserved sector

3. Background

On 11 June 1992 the Commission presented a Green
3.1
Paper on the Development of
for Postal
Services, followed on 2 June 1993 by a communication on
guidelines for the development of Community postal services;
almost ten years ago, gradual, controlled liberalisation of the
sector postal was launched by Directive 97/67/EC, commonly
known as the ‘Postal Directive’.

the Single Market

3.2
The Postal Directive, which expires on 31 December
2008, laid down common rules on the following aspects of a
single market for postal services:

— universal services;

— a reserved sector (monopolies);

3.4.1
If Member States believe that the universal service obli-
gations represent an unfair financial burden on providers of
such services, they may be awarded a monopoly on collection,
sorting, transport and delivery of domestic mail and, subject to
the need to maintain universal service, cross-border mail and
direct mail:

— weighing up to 50 grams (or with postage costs of no more
than two-and-a-half times the public tariff for an item of
correspondence in the first weight step of the fastest cate-
gory).

4. The Commission's draft directive

4.1
The prospective study which the Commission contracted
out to an international consultant (1) concludes that accom-
plishing the postal internal market in all Member States in 2009
is compatible with maintaining high-quality universal services.
However, this study points out that, in view of the risks which
this poses for maintenance of the universal service,
‘flanking
measures’ will be needed in most Member States.

— tariff principles and principles governing transparency of

accounts for universal service providers;

(1) The Impact on Universal Service of the Full Market Accomplishment of

the Postal Internal Market in 2009/Price Waterhouse & Coopers.

C 168/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

4.2
The draft directive under review envisages complete liber-
alisation of the postal market by 1 January 2009, while safe-
guarding the principal common standards of universal service at
current levels for all users in all EU Member States.

4.3 With effect from 1 January 2009 Member States will no
longer be allowed to grant exclusive or special rights (reserved
the establishment and the provision of postal
sector)
services.

for

4.4 Member States will no longer necessarily have to desig-
nate the provider(s) of a universal service, but may leave provi-
sion of such service — subject to a time limit — to market
forces; they may also identify the specific services or regions
where the universal service cannot be ensured by market forces
and procure those services in a cost effective manner through
public tendering.

4.5
In cases where there is a need for external financing of
the universal service, Member States can choose from the
following options:

— public procurement;

— public compensation by means of direct State subsidies;

— a compensation fund supported by levies on service provi-

ders and/or users;

— a ‘play or pay’ type system tying the granting of authorisa-
tions either to universal service obligations or to financing
of a compensation fund.

4.6
The directive under review also introduces a new provi-
sion obliging Member States to evaluate the need to ensure
transparent and non-discriminatory access for all operators to
the following services and postal infrastructure elements: post-
code system, address database, post office boxes, collection and
delivery boxes, information on change of address, re-direction
service, return to sender service. These provisions are not
intended to ensure downstream access to ‘sorting’ and ‘delivery’
segments.

5. General comments

5.1
The EESC has always realised that, unlike other sectors,
postal services have not been liberalised precipitously, but — so
far — in a gradual, controlled manner. It is pleased that the
draft directive confirms
the
universal service are guaranteed for all users. However, the EESC
requests that free services relating to specific deliveries sent or
received by blind and partially sighted persons be incorporated
into the universal service.

the principal aspects of

that

5.3
The EESC feels that the Commission's ideas would not
ensure the necessary degree of security for long-term financing
of a universal service in all Member States, particularly where
there are difficulties caused by the physical or human geography,
and thus at present are not preferable to financing by means of
a reserved sector, which in many Member States has proved to
be an effective and fair system.

5.4
For the EESC, compensating for the net residual costs of
a universal service by imposing a levy or higher tariffs on users,
or financing by means of public subsidies, would be unaccep-
table, whereas the present universal service does not involve any
specific charges for users.

5.5
At this stage, the EESC is not won over to a ‘play or pay’
system, with an obligation on each operator to provide a
universal service, from which it can be exempted by partici-
pating in the financing of the universal service. This system has
only been tested in practice in Finland, where it was not particu-
larly successful. It appears that a compensation fund is not a
solution either. In fact, a system of this type has only been
tested in Italy, and turned out to be a failure there.

5.6
The same applies to the financing of a universal service
by means of public subsidies, which would mean putting a
strain on already tight public finances, at the expense of —
once again — users and taxpayers.

5.7
Finally, the EESC would point out that the Commission's
proposals for financing options have not been analysed in terms
of feasibility or effectiveness. Implementing these options under
such conditions would expose Member States to the risk of
reaching a point of no return, with fully liberalised markets but
no guarantee of a universal service.

5.8
Thus, before embarking on any new stage of liberalisa-
tion, a clear and stable framework will have to be put in place,
and rules will have to be laid down. If necessary, the reserved
sector should only be abolished once this framework is in place,
including in particular genuinely effective and sustainable provi-
sions for the financing of the universal service; these should be
clearly identified and analysed for each Member State. This
should be a precondition for the abolition of the only means of
financing which has proved its efficacy to date, i.e. an appro-
priate reserved sector.

5.9
Over the last ten years or so, tens of thousands of jobs
(0.7 % according to the Commission's figures) have already been
lost, and many other jobs have been replaced by precarious or
low-quality jobs, in sorting centres, delivery services and post
offices.

For the Commission, the main challenge presented by
5.2
organising the final stage of
liberalisation of EU postal
markets is to identify the way forward to an effective and
competitive postal sector which will continue to prove high-
quality, affordable services to individuals and businesses in
Europe.

full

Although this trend can be partly explained by various
5.10
factors such as new technologies and competition from other
forms of communication such as email, market liberalisation is
still the main cause.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/77

Hence,

5.11
thanks to
the Commission's statement
greater competition, accomplishing the postal services internal
market will unlock job creation potential in the sector to offset
job cuts by the traditional operators has yet to be substantiated.

that,

As far as the sector's growth potential is concerned, the
5.12
only option suggested by the proposal
is to manage what is
apparently seen as irreversible decline in conventional postal
services, without placing them in the context of communication
needs arising from the Lisbon strategy and the knowledge-based
society, and without analysing the impact in terms of energy
efficiency.

The Commission's proposals envisage regulation essen-
5.13
tially as a Member State responsibility, which would ultimately
mean 27 national organisations and markets existing alongside
one another in the postal services internal market, without

Brussels, 26 April 2007.

Community cohesion. The EESC reiterates its support for a
Community postal service with community-wide rules on both
competition and universal service provision.

5.14
Given the uncertainties and risks associated with
complete liberalisation of the postal market, the EESC cannot
agree that there is an urgent need to fix right now a deadline of
1.1.2009, especially in view of the fact that postal operators in
Member States which only joined the EU in 2004 would have
insufficient time to adapt to the new circumstances.

5.15
The EESC urges that the current Directive be extended,
with plans for possible full liberalisation of the postal sector by
1.1.2012, provided that credible options which represent and
improvement on the reserved sector have been found by then,
in close consultation with all those concerned.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Transport in urban and metropolitan
areas

(2007/C 168/17)

On 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting in accordance with Rule 29(2)
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 7 November 2006, shortly before completion of work on the Committee's own-initiative opinion, the
German presidency requested it to draw up an exploratory opinion on Transport in urban and metropolitan
areas.

The EESC Bureau decided that five of the total of twelve issues which had been raised should be dealt with
by the TEN section, which for its part felt that it would be useful to incorporate these into ongoing work on
The situation of public passenger transport and local rail passenger transport in Europe, especially the new
Member States, and to expand the subject accordingly.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 March 2007. The rapporteur
was Mr Ribbe.

At its 435th plenary session, held on 25 and 26 April 2007 (meeting of 25 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 106 votes to 2, with 30 abstentions:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

unresolved problems; concerted action by the Commission, the
Member States and local authorities is therefore needed to
reverse this trend.

1.1
The EESC is very concerned to note the sharp decline in
the share of local public transport (LPT) in total urban transport
volume, which is growing fast; this decline is not confined to
EU-15 but is also proceeding at an especially rapid pace in the
new Member States.

Traffic flows,

1.2
from cars in particular, are placing an
increasing burden on cities, causing a large number of mostly

1.3
40 % of all traffic-related emissions of greenhouse gases
come from Europe. Thus, the repercussions of urban transport
policies are felt far beyond city limits.