 Hello everybody, my name is David Dash and I am the moderator of this press conference I'm the spokesperson for the Third Extraordinary Congress and this Congress has one subject, one subject only, which is remuneration rates We have two speakers with us. I have to my immediate left the director general of the Universal Postal Union Mr. Bishar A. Hussain and on my far left I have Mr. Kenan Bosgayik. Mr. Kenan Bosgayik is the chair of our Council of Administrations He is the chairman of this extraordinary Congress and he's also the director general of Turkish Post Now what I would like to do is we will have a brief statement from the director general of the Universal Postal Union And then we will go into a statement from Mr. Bosgayik A brief statement and then into Q&A from yourselves Please could I ask you when you put your hand up for a question to give your name but also your media organization as well So let's start as quickly as possible. Mr. Hussain, the floor is yours Well, thank you very much Mr. David Daj, the Excellency Mr. Bosgayik who is our Congress chair here and members of the media, good afternoon to you My name is Ambassador Hussain. I'm the director general of the Universal Postal Union and I'm sure now by now you are quite familiar with what UP is all about. We have become very famous Of course we have always been famous but I think the industry affirms that this union is really relevant and important to him Today we have gathered here, we have invited 192 countries, probably we may have well over 100 and 30 countries, 140 countries may be present already The only objective for our meeting here today and tomorrow is just like David has just said is only to deal with one important topic and that is the compensation systems we have in UPU for remuneration on exchange of our postal items This has been a subject of so many congresses since 1969 and every congress we revisit it, we review it and of course a new set of tariffs are set up and then of course from 1969 you can imagine how the world has evolved So what's happening is just like what I said in the morning is that the change, the pace of change in our business, in our structures, in our environment and the industry and technology are so fast that probably our cycle of decision making which is every four years was probably not good enough to catch up with the needs of the market So in light of this background I would like to say that we already had some work going on, even from the last congress which was terminated as tariffs but even at that congress we had set up our task force to look into this further and we came to Addis Sababa last year in September and this was again looked at but by that time I think a big country in the United States of America had already sent their official communication to me as director general informing us that if the system is not reformed and they are going to quit the UPU So that's really set the dynamics in a very fast pace We set up in October last year the council, the governing body rather let me say, met and gave us the secretariat instruction to be able to facilitate several meetings a lot of consultation from other countries to fast track the work so that at least by April this year during the council session we were going to come with some compromise solution and also with intention to keep United States within the family of UPU Colleagues I must say that you will appreciate that the dynamics have changed so fast, so many different interests and so we are not able to reach really a consensus so that's why we have got different scenarios The countries that support an option, which they call option A, which is more or less the current system with a little bit of increased tariff rates of a transition period of five years and then there are those who have taken that extreme position called option B, which is United States of America supported by Canada, Brazil and a few other countries who really want immediate self declared rates and of course when we realise the two extremes, a number of other countries, Japan, France and Germany and a few other European countries supported by other countries from other regions came up with what is called an option C, which is more or less a midway between the two extremes So this proposal gained a lot of momentum, got a lot of support from other countries and in no time I think we had a proposal which we thought even the International Secretary to be fairly balanced but here we are again, the options were not satisfactory to other countries in April The decision was made again now to call for an extra ordinary congress We sent out a communication to all the member countries to decide whether they want to come for an extra ordinary congress or they could even vote from the business, but again member countries opted to have a physical meeting here in Geneva today and tomorrow So what we are going to hear today and tomorrow is really a discussion by the plenary potentials and members of the heads of delegations of these countries to decide which of the options would be preferable to come from an equitable system for the union going forward So that's where we stand, option A, as I told you supported by the United States and others Option A is by China and France and many other countries Britain, I think I'll say a number of countries have expressed their support for this On the other side we have got option B which is United States, Brazil, Canada and some other countries I don't know who else is with them or not And then option C is somewhere in between, many many countries are really in view of this support So this is where we stand and we do hope that these sovereign governments who are gathered here today will be able to make a decision that will hold the union together and also to allow United States consent to be addressed Of course the US has asked for a number of things which you will hear, but I can answer that if there is a Q&A I give the floor to the chairman to review this conversation Go ahead Mr. Volkayevich Thank you very much David Thank you David First of all First of all we are gathered here for a historical day in Switzerland And I congratulate Switzerland again for hosting this historical day historical day and sharing the historical responsibility. Switzerland, which has hosted many important events for the 145 years of the Union, again is hosting another important event which is the Third Externational Congress. The exchange general director made a very good summary on the contents of the Third Externational Congress. Yes, indeed the world is changing. Of course it is natural that as the world is changing, we might also feel the need to change certain things in our sector and in our industry. And this is why we gathered here actually. But we are trying to find a compromise way in order to shed a light to the future of our Union while also carrying out this and by realizing this change at the same time. Countries might have different preferences in terms of their own national interests. But, however, the postal territory which comes from all the world has to come up with a good solution. I wish that we will be able to come up with a solution which is going to be the fairest and which is going to be within the framework and within the spirit of compromise for the good future, for the better future of our Union. In order to achieve the success of the general director Pascale Kliwaz, who is the general director of Pascale Kliwaz, especially our general director Bishar Hussein and deputy general director Pascale Kliwaz and all the staff of the IB are making tremendous efforts to come up with a successful conclusion of this very congress. And we are also very honored to be appointed as the chair of the congress. Therefore, we would like to thank the general director of UPU and also to Switzerland. And we would like to also thank you as well for inviting us to this press conference. It's a real pleasure. Look, we can move into the Q&A session now, but I'd just like to ask, is there any interference in terms of the interpretation with regard to the life, to the filming? No, is everything okay? Good. Good. If I could just try and invite the interpreter perhaps, just to try and whisper just a little bit to Mr Posgain. Anyway, let's move into the Q&A session. Gentleman with the black suit jacket over there to the right. Can you see me? Yeah, this is not possible for the Swiss news agency. First, the US said this morning that only solutions B and C might be acceptable for them. So if there is no compromise on one of these two solutions and they decide to withdraw, what would that mean for UPU? Would that mean in the end of the negotiating function for UPU or even worse? And then we have any broad idea of the total value of the supply chain of international mail and international letters and small packages? Well, I think you've given me, I wish I knew the answer because that's why I call all 192 countries to find a solution to that problem. Certainly UPU has always been a forum for intergovernmental organization and a treaty-making organization. So we are used to countries having different positions and different, I mean, really expectations. However, we have always been able to overcome all those differences. We have a robust system in which we develop consensus. And I can tell you most of the things. We hardly go to vote. It's done by consensus. But on an extreme case like this, we have a voting system to go with. So option A and B is the preferred option for the United States. They say that very well, which means then they get what they want. But in a multilateral system like this, they do recognize that there is also the other parties who are also a member of the network. So we have to find something that's also comfortable for them. So in my view, option C was developed really to bridge the different extremes. And if you ask me really, this is probably where the solution of this union may lie. But again, it depends on how the countries feel. These are sovereign governments. They will take their responsibilities. But I believe that it will be useful to have a system that is going to be not make everybody happy, but not everybody sad as well. So everybody has to gain something, has to do something. So I am trying to appeal to member countries to have a position that is going to be really negotiated and acceptable to a certain extent to everyone. Yes, please. Sorry, just to go back. And the value of the markets measured in billions, would you say? Well, I really don't have that statistics. It's really a more technical area for me. But I can tell you, we probably, I don't know, Mr. Daj may be able to answer that. But we can provide that information a little later. I'll come back to you. In the front row, gentlemen with the white shirt behind the camera. Hi, I'm Jamie from Associated Press. I just wanted to know if you could tell us what will happen to the international coastal system if the United States does pull out. What will the impact be? And just a second question, if I could, about the impact on consumers generally if terminal rates do go up for these types of packages. What exactly is going to happen? Absolutely. The two questions are very valid. I can tell you, the departure of any country, first of all, is not desirable for us because no country has ever left the Union since 1874, 75, 22, created. This is the first time we have this situation. However, if you ask the question, what does it mean if the U.S. departs from the Union? The U.S. is a very major player of the Union. The economy is very big and many countries have a huge traffic parcel and packets of traffic with the United States. So a departure of the United States from the Union would mean then it's a total destruction of the service of the country. Because the moment a country leaves the treaty, what happens is that that country does not exist for us in our global postal territory. So what that means is that nothing really, we cannot exchange any mail or packets or parcels with U.S.P.S., which is United States Postal Services, officially in the form and the shape we know it today. So that means their stamps will not be valid for us. They will not be able to exchange anything. They are not going to use our IMPC codes and all other many, many other services which they can get directly. One thing I want you to recognize is that this is a treaty-based organization. And the advantage is that with one signature when you access the Union, you are a member, you have access to 192 countries automatically. And what this means is that the U.S. have to leave the Union. It means it has to go and negotiate 192 different bilateral agreements with 192 countries and you have to have 192 custom authorities. You have to do many other issues that really have to be done by lettering. This international security customs, AIRTAS and ACAOS, we have treaties with all these organizations which really affect the impact on the logistics global supply chain system. So departing from these means all the systems and procedures and the standards we have developed will not be accessible to United States of America. It's really a nightmare scenario for that. On the other side, the flip side is that all the other countries will not be able to exchange mail with United States. And therefore they will have challenges on how to send the mail to the country. It cannot be called mail anymore. If any bilateral arrangement arises then we consider that only as a commercial couple and that of course there are other ways private companies will do that. So probably that's the route they will go. And as for the impact on consumers? The impact on the consumers again in both ways, it means money. For example, the big net exporters like China and many other countries, the moment you hike the prices because you see, let me come back to this. In 2016 we developed a treaty based rates in Istanbul which was supposed to run up to 2020. So what those countries told us is that they go back to their customers and negotiate discounts and prices and everything with that in mind, with that rates in mind. Now if you come in the middle of the second and say you have hiked it on the other side, so they have big challenge and they have a problem with their customers. And that would mean then that they're saying that they may not be able to use the postal system again. So my worry is that they may use other channels to deliver the mail to what we call United States or those countries that are asking for high hikes. So if you ask me directly to the consumer it means big money for them. For example, if someone in United States was ordering something from China for example and he was getting it at $2 and the next day the whole thing is now going to $7 to $10 to deliver it. Of course the consumers and the customers will be able to deal with that like every other person. So impact-wise it has a global impact. Now the Philippe side and the agreement on the other side is they say look, these are commercial goods, these are not social mail anymore, these are not letters that are coming. It is therefore their right to be able to demand for compensation for them to be able to pay to cover their costs. And they cannot subsidise foreign mail which is coming to this country. So the whole idea about this meeting here today is how do we strike a balance that we don't throw the baby with a basket from the exporting countries. And at the same time we don't run laws organisations, I mean subsidise other countries, mail in those countries that are net importers. So that is really where the crux of the matter is and this is what we are trying to solve here. Thank you very much sir. Could you just briefly explain what you meant by IMPC, just to ensure that everybody knows. International mail, it's called IMPC, is a code system. It's just like a country code. When you want to dial telecoms let's say plus one, it takes you to United States, plus two, five, four is Kenya, I mean plus four one is Switzerland. So the code is a routine system which we use to mail, to route our mail to a country. So that's a code which by which a country is carbonised, that's what's called the IMPC codes and standards. Thank you very much. Lady in the front to me, followed by the gentleman with the black jacket afterwards, thank you. Hello, it's Christiana with the German Press Agency, another consumer question. In the event that the US leaves, are we going to see piles and piles of small packages building up in countries or in sorting centres? What exactly is going to happen on the 20th of October? Well, if United States leaves you will get those piles you are talking about here for sure. Because somehow every country has to figure out how to send mail to the United States. Because we will never, I mean the traditional system will completely shut down according to our current rules unless that is changed. So it means then that all the customers that are selling and those who are expecting to receive will be disappointed globally. It's a disruption, major disruption is in the way, if we don't solve the problem today. Please go ahead. Hi, I'm Ben Simon from AFP. Sir, you're a public servant from a developing country and I assume you interact with a lot of other public servants from developing countries. Do you think it's appropriate that China still retains that title as a developing nation given the size and capacity of its economy? Well, I think that is outside my pub view. I don't determine where, what is the level of development of any country. I think there are other borders like United Nations which classify that probably they cannot say better than I can do that. So we do respect that. Thank you. Any further questions in the front row, gentlemen of the White Jackets? Yes, good afternoon. John Zarekostas from Penske Media Corporation in the US. I was wondering, sir, you elaborated the differential between exporters and net importers. Can you give us an example for our lay readers, what it means in a big country exporter like China exporting to the US? What for a two kilogram package would be the subsidy equivalent given by the US personal service in a transaction like that? Just hypothetical. Well, what we mean by net exporter is a country that exports a lot of small packets out of the territory, outbound mail is called net exporter. And net importer is those countries that receive those mails. Which means that the outbound is less than the inbound. So if you have more mail going out of your country than you receive, you are an exporter. But if you, so I hope you understand that. So the question is, please, remind me of your second question you said. What is the differential, what is the amount for a two kilogram package, for instance, that the net importing country would be subsidizing the exporting country? Right, this is again the contentious issue here. What happens here is that the United States is saying that they want to determine their self-declared rates. And here, this is something which, when you say self-declared rates is based on what? They say our country costs. Who determines those costs? And who compolises that? There are 192 countries. Each one has a different level of economic development. Each one has different priorities and everything. So how we can figure out what is average and what is a bit difficult here? And who will certify that? So this is a debate, that's the crux of the matter of what we are trying to deal with. But in the amount of volumes, of course there are specific prices we have set for the small-limit pocket parcels. And I think that depends on the volume, I mean the traffic between two countries. I remember those figures. I'm sorry to push this issue, but for our readers, what is on the two kilogram package, what is the subsidy equivalent today? Is it 50 cents a package, 20 cents, 10 cents? Just to give a perspective to our readers, otherwise we are lost here. Okay, probably sir, with due respect I can refer that to my technical team who deal with the finance issues. And we can give you that information a little later. Thank you. Please Paul. Paul Eden from CB Research. We report on global postal industry plus 15 years. I'll just cover the detailed questions really. Can you just clarify how many countries are actually present here now, and therefore how many have voting rights, and therefore what would be the necessary majority for any of the options? Question one, question two, is if option C is accepted in voting form, what is the timings for the implementation of option C? And the third question, which I've just forgotten. Okay, let me deal with the first two. According to when we checked the column this morning, we have seen nearly 140 countries, I think maybe here in this book, how many have the credentials, because again there's another level, the right vote that we have to establish, because the post people are still coming this morning. So I feel that we have to deal with that. So that's not quite clear to me as I speak right now, but because these are the numbers that are moving. But I think we have a substantial column that can be able to take valid decisions on that. The second question again. The second question is if option C is accepted. So again the other question I have is can you just also tell us what is the timing for the votes? On the different options. Okay, that I'll tell you. Sorry, and then the final question then is if C is accepted, what would be the timing for the implementation of C? Alright, first of all the voting begins this afternoon on option B. There's a procedural issue here. What we do here is that when we have so many options like this, the principle which applies to the UPU here is that we always take the option that is farthest away from the status quo is the one that's going to be addressed first. So in this case B is the farthest away from the status quo, therefore the option which is sponsored by the United States and a few other countries would be the first one to go into a discussion this afternoon. And if countries now will have to vote on that, now the results could be either things. Either it passes, which means it is voted positively, and then everything else falls. C and B and A and C minus, whatever we're talking about, everything is gone. But if B does not get sufficient support, then we can go now to C, and C has developed 12 different proposals around C. So the feeling I got here from other countries is that C had a lot of interest of compromise maybe around C, I don't know. This will depend on the member countries, but if A does not pass, then certainly we're going back to C, and countries now will have to see what that C will look like. So there's some people who want to push the C towards B, and the other group which wants to have a C minus pushing them towards A, so that's where the divide will be. But we feel that could be the area of compromise and discussion. If that turns to option C. One follow-up and then Nick after that. The only follow-up is just to clarify, if any of the C options are, any of the options C amendments are accepted, basically, when would all this actually be implemented? What would happen next? So the time is caress on distance. There's an implementation phase of about five years, beginning 2021. There will be a baseline for this year which is 2020, then from there 2021, 2023, 2023, 2024, 2025. That's the transition period which is actually embedded in option C. Thank you. Nick, go ahead. Good morning. Nick, how are you? I presume that you have some questions for my team. Well, I'll address this to you first, if I may. If option B was adopted, what is the formula that would be applied to determining self-declared rates for 190 countries? Secondly, I have a delegate suggesting that if the United States was to pull out unilaterally, somebody's describing to me as the beginning of the end of the UPU, would you endorse that? How would you do that? Well, let me answer the question. Really, UPU is a UN organisation with 192 countries. We've had other organisations that, why US was a member and they pulled out and it was not the end of that organisation. So I think, of course, there's a big disruption certainly, but the sun will always rise and member countries will find other alternative means to be able to exchange this global network. I don't think it's going to disappear just like that. What was the first question? The first part, I missed it again. The first question was, if option B were adopted, how do they determine the self-declared rates for 190 countries? Well, it means then that every country will be able to set up their own rates and so the current system will fall. That's what it means. So UPU will not be able to set the rates for any other time of the year system, so it is everybody for themselves and then we'll have to have an agreement. I mean, more or less, there will be agreements to be in place, I think. Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay, I'm very sorry, I didn't see you before. Let's just have a comment from Mr Bosgeik and then go into the final round of questions. We'll take a quick comment on the questions from Mr Bosgeik and then I'll come back to you. Okay? Thank you very much. All the questions were addressed to Albert Duget, so I was relieved. This point is highly important. The real message has to be that the union has to overcome this problem and strengthen the networks that it has. No member country should face the withdrawal of any other country in the future. Therefore, we are really working hard on the compromising rules. But we also need to understand the fact that all the countries are sovereign countries and they can make their own decisions. And I believe that during this three-day working period, we will try to find a common ground to make all the countries happy and we will also provide our union to be kept as a whole. And there is a very intensive competition all around the world which forces every member country to make their own decisions in various manners. And you also asked the question about this issue. This overall general status will increase the cost and it will have a negative impact on the customers. And this is not something that we desire as the sector. Therefore, we need to take immediate actions in order to prevent a high cost. And the solution is not the withdrawal of any country or keeping all the countries all together. We need to focus on maximization of the cost of all countries. And I do believe that if optimization is our approach, then the solution will come faster. And otherwise, the cost will be higher in the future and all the people will escape from our sector. And actually this situation will conclude and only the withdrawal of one member country from the union but it will also have a very negative impact on all union, on all member states in this sector. But I am highly positive about the discussions here and I do believe that we will have a very common solution to this. Thank you very much. The lady with the v-neck, black jumper in the corner to the left. I have a couple of questions. First, if I got this correct, I think the United States does respond to the agreement then you will be obliged to go ahead and have a bilateral agreement with the federal agreement from 190 countries. If it is unable to do this within a year or whatever it is, I would like to know what the revocation of that will be. Will it mean that the countries with whom it doesn't have an agreement will no longer be in any postal service won't be able to put a stamp on a package that countries will have to use delivery of organizations like UBS and DHL and the next and so forth. So again, I would like to know a $4 package. How much would that cost? You know, what would that cost be? And then secondly, there is some question as to whether China is a developing country or not. But there are countries in Africa, elsewhere where there is no question that they are developing countries. What will the impact be upon countries in Africa and developing countries? Well, Madam, just to answer your question, really as I said, the moment a country walks away from a treaty in the Universal Postal Union, all the services and all the standards and the rules that govern the international supply chain system developed for 145 years will no longer be accessible to them. Even with those, they are going to make bilateral arrangements. That is not postal mail. That's the cargo. And the airline's cargo, they can take whatever form or shape. We don't call them mail because that's not a stamp. So there are many other things that are attached to this. There is a national accounting system. How do they compensate each other? How do they deal with issues of return much of the service, for example, the inquiries that follow, I can tell you more than 20, 30 different things that cannot be able to be addressed by one. Here with one signature, you get access to all these services. But when you get out, then you're on your own. So the same problem will be on the reverse side. Because all these other countries, we have to deal with them on similar terms as well. So it's a big disruption that I have seen. The question of how much it will cost a packet. I don't know. Once you declare yourself, you declare it first of all, you have to say what your terms are first. And then the customers on the other side have to know and those post-organizations, whoever you are dealing with on the other side have to load those costs of the new tariffs which they have set up into their costings. Then it will impact on the customer. So there's no question for me in my mind that we are going to have price hikes. The whole thing about this in ratio is some countries want it to hike at the prices. Another thing, no, let's keep it low. Let's keep it low. And the implications for developing nations or less developed nations? Here it affects every country, not the developed or developing countries. Because the same tariff which was raised, if the US decides okay fine, this packet of 2 kilos will cost 10 kilos, I mean 10 dollars in their country and that's going to be uniform for everyone else. So this is the way we see it. So that may have an impact on every country to be honest. I don't know really. I can't give you specific figures of how much to impact on developing countries, but certainly developing countries exchange may with the US and any other country that may wish to go that route. And therefore the consequences are quite there. We have written a full report on this, 70 pages or 80 pages on this on the consequence of the departure of a major country. You can find them on our website. Then it probably will give you a more detailed issue. If you put your hand up I think over here. I think at the back. Do you still wish to ask a question? Okay. Okay. Gentlemen to my left. Anadolu Agency by the Malta Turkish News Agency. He asked a question to Mr. Kenan Bozik. You are very optimistic to find a solution for the options. What if you don't find common ground during this extraordinary assembly? What is the next step for you as you are coming from the sector as you are one of the key members of the European Union? Thank you very much for the question. I can say that we have been conducting very long-term studies and we have been carrying out discussions on this issue. And I believe that leaving the European Union will never be an advantage of any member country. And the countries who voted for option B are also well aware of this fact. And therefore I sincerely believe that the countries will focus on discussing the option C to try to find a common ground. And this big negativity about the option B will also have a big negative impact on the majority of the member countries. And I can see that the EUPU members will not show a positive approach towards the option B. But I think that our members are really optimistic and majority of the members are paying efforts in order to compromise. Therefore at this stage I do believe that finding a common ground on a joint solution will be an advantage of all member countries. And I do also see that a member country realizes the fact that leaving, withdrawing from the union will never be their advantage. Thank you very much. Go ahead sir. Let me just say something here please. So that I am not misread or misquoted. I am very optimistic that we are going to find a solution here. Countries can come in different positions but we have a track record of solidity. We have survived two world wars and the universal postal union has always really reinvented itself. The history will bear us out that every single technology when they arrive on the scene people thought the post office will disappear. When the aviation came and the railways came and the motor vehicles came and we moved from the horses I mean that is the change of technology. When the internet came we came with new services when the telegraph and everything came so everybody every age as we had had our own challenges. This is a new age we have been having serious problems with the substitution electronic substitution and the letter mail has been declined for a couple of years now and understandably people are using new technologies but technology has always been an enabler for us to provide better service and faster services and that is why today we have entered into e-commerce space we are using the latest technologies we are using drones we are using robotic and phishing intelligence and we are really in the cutting edge of things. Today the biggest growth potential for the postal network is the e-commerce and financial services which all use the digital transformation that all countries are going through. So we are there very current we are there with the customers and this problem here is just a small one in our view and we are going to have watch this space tomorrow or the day after tomorrow you will see that you know there is much of any country here or rather a stalemate to happen in this meeting we may have different hard discussions but eventually I am optimistic that we are going to have a potential which will be able to keep the union together no country is going to walk away and will be positive that this union is going to see another hundred or five years coming. Thank you very much for your attention and for your questions Okay thank you very much No we will go back to your room just to say very very quickly obviously we are releasing press releases, other statements as we go forward with the congress please keep in touch this may not be the last press conference okay so thank you very much I will let you know pleasure pleasure very good I have what you said perfectly on message by the way in my notebook I used to work with the way the way