CEP C 1 GFT 2011.1–Doc 4a (CEP C 1 GGT 2011.1–Doc 4a) Traducción del francés

CONSEJO DE EXPLOTACION POSTAL Comisión 1 (Envíos de Correspondencia) Grupo «Gastos Terminales»

Resultados de los estudios sobre los costos, los flujos, las tarifas y la cantidad de envíos por kilogramo

Nota de la Oficina Internacional (Punto 4a del Orden del Día)

1.

Asunto

Referencias/Párrafos

Resultados de los estudios sobre los costos, los flujos, las tarifas y la §§ 1 a 13 y anexos 1 a 4 cantidad de envíos por kilogramo.

2.

Decisiones esperadas

–

Tomar nota de los resultados de los estudios.

–

Tener en cuenta los resultados de estos estudios en la elaboración de la proposición para el Congreso tendiente a la introducción de un sistema de gastos terminales basado en los costos.

I.

Introducción

§ 14

1. De conformidad con la resolución C 43/2008 del 24º Congreso de la UPU, debe llevarse a cabo un estudio tendiente a establecer un modelo de relación entre las tarifas internas y el costo de tratamiento del correo internacional de llegada, y proponer al Congreso de 2012, en el marco de un sistema de gastos terminales basado en los costos, un método para la aplicación de la tasa o las tasas obtenidas a nivel nacional, regional o mundial. Como se establece en la resolución del Congreso mencionada anteriormente, el pliego de condiciones para el estudio de los costos fue aprobado por la Comisión 1 del Consejo de Administración (CA) en su período de sesiones de 2009. 2. Para cumplir su mandato, el Grupo «Gastos Terminales» de la Comisión 1 del Consejo de Explotación Postal (CEP) realizó los siguientes estudios: –

estudio sobre el costo de tratamiento de los envíos de correspondencia internacionales de llegada y de salida;

–

estudio sobre los volúmenes y los perfiles de los flujos de correo para los operadores designados;

–

estudio sobre las tarifas internas e internacionales aplicables a los diferentes formatos y servicios;

–

estudio sobre la cantidad de envíos por kilogramo (epk) en los flujos de envíos de correspondencia.

DER.PAE Agz/Mca 02.05.2011

2 II.

Resultados del estudio sobre el costo de tratamiento del correo internacional de llegada

3. En respuesta al oficio 0426(DER.PAE)1174 del 6 de setiembre de 2010, la Oficina Internacional pudo reunir información sobre los costos de tratamiento del correo internacional de llegada, sobre las cantidades de envíos de correspondencia (peso y cantidad de envíos) correspondientes a esos costos, así como sobre los ingresos teóricos.

/

4. Treinta y nueve operadores designados respondieron al cuestionario. Las respuestas se resumen en el anexo 1. De las 39 respuestas, sólo 15 contienen información suficiente sobre los costos para calcular las relaciones «costo/tarifa». 5. Estas relaciones, que figuran en el anexo 1, fueron calculadas según el método aprobado y son del 70% para los anteriores países del sistema objetivo (mínimo 56%, máximo 81%), de 81% para los nuevos países del sistema objetivo (mínimo 48%, máximo 135%) y de 98% para los países del sistema de transición (mínimo 32%, máximo 167%). Las relaciones promedio estimadas por los propios países son de 91% para los anteriores países del sistema objetivo y de 72% para los países del sistema de transición. Dos países suministraron las relaciones «costo/tarifa» estimadas y la información para el cálculo de estas relaciones según el método en vigor. Cabe señalar que existen diferencias de 3 y 16 puntos porcentuales entre las relaciones comunicadas y las que fueron calculadas.

III.

Resultados del estudio sobre los volúmenes y los perfiles de los flujos de correo para los operadores designados

6. En respuesta al oficio 0426(DER.PAE)1180 del 13 de setiembre de 2010, la Oficina Internacional reunió información de los operadores designados de los Países miembros de la Unión sobre los volúmenes y los perfiles de los flujos de correo a fin de confeccionar un cuadro representativo de los intercambios postales.

/

7. Respondieron al cuestionario 67 operadores designados. Un resumen de sus respuestas figura en el anexo 2.

IV.

Resultados del estudio sobre las tarifas internas e internacionales

8. En respuesta al oficio 0426(DER.PAE)1175 del 8 de setiembre de 2010, la Oficina Internacional reunió información de los operadores designados de los Países miembros de la Unión sobre las tarifas del régimen interno aplicables a los diferentes formatos y servicios y sobre las tarifas al por menor del régimen internacional para los servicios de envíos de correspondencia de salida.

/

9. Respondieron al cuestionario 94 operadores designados. Un resumen de sus respuestas figura en el anexo 3.

V.

Resultados del estudio sobre la cantidad de envíos por kilogramo (epk) en los flujos de envíos de correspondencia

10. En respuesta al oficio 0426(DER.PAE)1022 del 23 de febrero de 2010, la Oficina Internacional reunió información sobre la cantidad de envíos por kilogramo (epk) en los flujos de envíos de correspondencia intercambiados entre los operadores designados de los Países miembros de la Unión en 2009. /

11.

Respondieron al cuestionario 59 operadores designados. Sus respuestas se resumen en el anexo 4.

12. La información obtenida fue tenida en cuenta en el cálculo de los nuevos valores de epk para los diferentes grupos de países así como en el cálculo de los valores globales. Estos valores serán utilizados para la elaboración del modelo de sistema de gastos terminales aplicable durante el próximo ciclo.

3 13. Además, sobre la base de estos valores, se presentó al Comité de Gestión del CEP para aprobación una proposición referente a los epk aplicables en 2011 en virtud del artículo RL 221.1 del Reglamento relativo a Envíos de Correspondencia. Este Comité, en su reunión de noviembre de 2010, fijó, en nombre del CEP, los epk promedio recomendados para evitar los gastos de muestreo en los intercambios de correo entre los países del sistema objetivo en 2011, como se propone en el documento CEP CG 2010.2–Doc 9.

VI.

Decisiones esperadas

14.

Se solicita al Grupo «Gastos Terminales» que:

–

tome nota de los resultados de los estudios, que figuran en los anexos 1 a 4;

–

tenga en cuenta los resultados de estos estudios en la elaboración de la proposición para el Congreso tendiente a la introducción de un sistema de gastos terminales basado en los costos.

Berna, 22 de marzo de 2011

CEP C 1 GGT 2011.1–Doc 4a.Anexo 1

Analysis of responses to the questionnaire on the cost of handling inward international mail

1

Thirty-nine responses were received as follows:

–

10 from target countries;

–

5 from new target countries;

–

24 from transition countries.

2

Out of these responses, 15 contained sufficient information on costs to calculate the required ratios.

3

The number of responses to the different questions is presented below:

Question 1 – Costing method –

Fully allocated costing: 25

–

Marginal costing: 1

–

Other costing method: 8

Question 2 – Cost data provided in the questionnaire reviewed by an external auditor Cost information reviewed by an external auditor: 17 Question 4 – Cost for international inbound mail Fifteen countries provided cost information. The average, maximum and minimum ratios are presented below by group of countries. Table 1: Cost-to-tariff ratios No. of countries

Average cost-to-tariff ratio

Maximum

Minimum

1.1

4

70%

81%

56%

2

3

81%

135%

48%

3, 4 and 5

8

98%

167%

32%

Group

Question 5 – Performance of the DO in total or by segment Thirteen countries provided information on the profitability of the DO in total, one on the profitability of the domestic service and one on the profitability of the inbound service. The average, maximum, minimum and median ratios are presented below by group of countries. Table 2: Profit-to-revenue ratios (DO in total) Group

No. of countries

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Median

1.1

5

2.11%

6.64%

-5.57%

3.84%

2

1

0.04%

–

–

–

3, 4 and 5

7

5.47%

17.74%

2.04%

4.69%

2 1

Table 3: EBIT-to-revenue ratios (DO in total) Group

No. of countries

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Median

1.1

4

1.61%

6.53%

-5.45%

2.69%

2

1

0.82%

–

–

–

3, 4 and 5

7

6.04%

16.89%

2.04%

5.38%

Question 7 – Cost of the processing and delivery of international inward mail in relation to the costs for domestic mail Table 4: Cost of inward mail in relation to the cost for domestic mail Group

No. of countries

Inbound mail cost less Inbound mail cost than domestic mail cost equal to domestic mail cost

Inbound mail cost higher than domestic mail cost

1.1

7

3

0

4

2

4

1

2

1

3, 4 and 5

18

3

5

10

Total

29

7

7

15

Question 7.1 – Reasons for which the cost of processing and delivering international inward mail deviates from the costs for domestic mail See paragraph 5 below. Question 7.2 – Relative cost of processing and delivering international inward letter mail compared with the equivalent cost in the domestic service Table 5: Ratio of inward mail cost to domestic mail cost Group

No. of countries

Average

Maximum

Minimum

1.1

4

118%

166%

86%

2

3

97%

111%

80%

3, 4 and 5

8

113%

150%

79%

Question 8 – Estimate of the cost of handling an international inbound average item as a percentage of the average domestic revenue per item Table 6: Cost-to-tariff ratios estimated by the DOs Group

No. of countries

Average cost-to-tariff ratio

Maximum

Minimum

1.1

3

91%

110%

75%

2

0

–

–

–

3, 4 and 5

2

72%

–

–

1

EBIT = earnings before interest and taxes.

3 Question 9 – Inbound international mail A total of 20 responses relating to inward flows were provided, 13 of which were undifferentiated and 7 broken down as required. The information provided was used for the calculation of the hypothetical revenues (see paragraph 4 below). 4

On the basis of the approved methodology, the following steps were followed:

a

Hypothetical domestic revenues were calculated based on the inward flows and domestic tariffs. Where undifferentiated flows were provided, the mail structure from the previous cycle's study were used in order to multiply the provided tariffs by the flows at weight-step level.

b

The cost-to-domestic-tariff ratios were calculated by dividing the cost of handling international inward mail by the hypothetical domestic revenues.

5

Comments received from 20 countries in response to question 7.1 are presented below:

–

Reasons for higher costs: i

The mail typically travels further in the system than a domestic item; many domestic customers send a high proportion of local mail; this leads to higher transportation costs for inbound mail, and more sortation steps.

ii

The quality of the mail pieces is lower (address quality, item readability, etc.) than domestic mail, leading to higher manual sortation – a significant cost driver.

iii

The mail make-up is worse than mail in street letter boxes – domestic mail is received with letters separated from packets/parcels; there is extra work to separate inbound mail by format, and also to move the separated mail to different facilities in the same city (letter and parcel plants).

iv

Letters and flats are received in bags rather than trays from commercial entities (foreign postal administrations), when domestic commercial customers would never be permitted to do this; higher costs as described above.

v

International inbound mail has lower address quality, leading to higher cost to get the item correctly to destination.

vi

International inbound mail has a lower probability of having the addressee match the address on the item, leading to a higher rate of "return to sender", which leads to higher return-to-sender costs based on proportion of the mail undeliverable.

vii

Return-to-sender items incur a higher cost of return, as they must be returned at cost to an international destination, instead of to a domestic destination.

viii

Customs treatment involves costs that cannot be fully recovered by the operator, and this cost is not part of the domestic service.

ix

Customer inquiry processes are expensive and cumbersome – especially for registered mail, but also for all the inquiries for small packets, since customers assume they are parcels and trackable, especially from countries that falsely barcode their packets as if they were trackable items.

x

Accounting processes are paper-based and expensive; no domestic commercial customer would be permitted to use such outdated and inaccurate billing processes.

xi

Inbound mail must be sampled to be billed; this is not required for domestic mail.

xii

Domestic customers are normally required to at least meet machinability and address quality requirements, but also large portions of the product line include pre-sortation requirements, which are not part of the international inbound product; this leads to higher cost for inbound.

xiii

International mail arrives at all times of the day and night, requiring several shifts to process the mail; domestically, the great bulk of mail arrives at one time and workload scheduling is much more straightforward.

xiv

International inbound mail is subject to pay-for-performance arrangements, and the inbound country must bear the costs of service performance measurement, whether for equipment or for ongoing costs every year to support the system; domestic systems are more cost-effective since the testing is spread over much larger volumes of mail.

4

–

xv

M bags are really parcels, but without the ability to track, and with the additional costs of customs clearance, as we observe increasing situations of merchandise included in the items, forcing Customs to open the bags and return the opened bags in multiple pieces to the operator to deliver; this would never happen in the domestic service.

xvi

Registered items are mis-barcoded, or coded with identical tracking numbers, leading to extra costs of handling inquiries, and also confusion; the domestic service is much more cost-effective and reliable.

xvii

Registered items also require the return of AR cards at a cost that cannot be easily recovered anywhere in the system.

xviii

International business reply service (IBRS) items in turn require segregation and separate handling to recover any revenue at all, and therefore usually end up being cost items for which there is no revenue; this never happens in the domestic service.

xix

There is an increasing proportion of inbound commercial mail, especially from developing countries, where the addresses are almost unrecognizable due to derivation from e-mail lists, websites, etc., and this new quality downgrading factor forces additional cost into the system; once again, this is not matched in the domestic system.

xx

Inbound mail integrity is lower than domestic mail integrity; a higher proportion of inbound mail arrives damaged or bent, and this drives costs to repair the items, prevents letters and flats from being processed on mechanized equipment, etc.

xxi

Inbound mail carries security risks not found in domestic mail to the same degree, and therefore proportionately more resources must be devoted to the inspection of this mail – a task only partly performed by the customs agency; it is also performed in part by postal operator staff.

xxii

When mail is diverted, missent, etc., the processes for following up and correcting the problems are more costly than for domestic services, since the parties involved are often not in the destination country – they include the origin post, any transit post, the carriers, cargo handlers, etc. – it entails complex logistics management, and the costs are out of proportion to the volume of mail handled in these processes; some countries even missend mail to avoid the higher terminal dues or transportation costs that they would have incurred if they had sent the mail to the correct country in the first place; the verification note process is incredibly inefficient and paper-based and costly, and there is no equivalent in the domestic service.

xxiii

The vast majority of domestic mail letters conform to specific standards, which make handling them on the fully automated processing machines of our sorting centres easier, faster and at a lower cost.

Reasons for lower costs: i

Avoided costs for collection of mail and transportation to first sorting centre.

ii

Mail delivered directly by the origin designated operator to the office of exchange.

iii

Lower costs attributed for retail outlets, partly compensated by higher costs at office of exchange due to lower address quality.

CEP C 1 GGT 2011.1–Doc 4a.Anexo 2

Analysis of responses to the questionnaire on flow volumes and profiles for designated operators

1

Sixty-seven responses were received as follows:

–

9 from target countries;

–

8 from new target countries;

–

50 from transition countries.

2

The summary of responses to the different questions is presented below.

Questions 1.1 and 1.2 – Inward mail flows by groups of countries Table 1 – Inward mail volumes by type and service and group of countries Group of destination

Group of origin

Airmail priority (kg)

Surface priority (kg)

Surface nonpriority (kg)

S.A.L. nonpriority (kg)

Total weight (kg)

1.1

1.1

56,052,728

15,137,459

12,705,481

5,933,899

89,829,567

1.1

1.2 and 2

9,626,659

289,540

208,208

457,061

10,581,468

1.1

3, 4 and 5

5,498,697

233,465

307,192

580,777

6,620,131

1.2 and 2

1.1

4,809,617

424,250

1,477,703

538,190

7,249,759

1.2 and 2

1.2 and 2

785,142

286,093

278,150

129,913

1,479,298

1.2 and 2

3, 4 and 5

506,870

11,819

224,523

89,498

832,710

3, 4, 5

1.1

14,144,020

361,953

646,051

2,110,190

17,262,214

3, 4, 5

1.2 and 2

1,145,402

82,827

100,886

204,190

1,533,305

3, 4, 5

3, 4 and 5

1,477,169

252,995

413,828

303,779

2,447,770

94,046,304

17,080,400

16,362,021

10,347,496

137,836,221

68.2%

12.4%

11.9%

7.5%

100.0%

Total volume Mail structure

Table 2 – Distribution of flows between groups of countries From

Old target system countries

New target system countries

Transition countries

Old target system countries

65.2%

7.7%

4.8%

New target system countries

5.3%

1.1%

0.6%

12.5%

1.1%

1.8%

To

Transition countries

2 Table 3 – Distribution of flows by size TD system

Indicator

Target system

Number of flows

451

251

60

31

% of flows

–

56%

13%

Number of flows

3146

2708

% of flows

–

86%

Transition system

Total

Less than Between 10 Between 30 Between 50 10 tonnes and 30 and 50 and 100 tonnes tonnes tonnes

Between 100 and 200 tonnes

More than 200 tonnes

31

23

55

7%

7%

5%

12%

218

57

61

46

56

7%

2%

2%

1%

2%

Question 1.3 – Use of CN 61 detailed accounts available at the QSF secretariat None of the responding countries chose to use the CN 61 detailed accounts available at the QSF secretariat for the purpose of the study. Question 1.4 – Inward mail flow profiles in terms of weight Thirty countries provided information on inward mail volumes by format and type of service. The analysis of data provided revealed that a large percentage of mail consists of small letters for the groups 1.2, 3, 4 and 5. Respondents were asked to confirm whether the percentage referred to the number of items or to the weight of items for each format. The IB has not yet received the responses to this request for clarification. Table 4 – Airmail priority Group

No. of countries

Letter-shaped

Flat-shaped

Packet-shaped

(P)

(G)

(E)

1.1

3

17.13%

43.16%

39.71%

100.00%

1.2

1

85.00%

5.00%

10.00%

100.00%

2

1

9.00%

66.00%

25.00%

100.00%

3

7

67.03%

9.83%

23.14%

100.00%

4

12

57.47%

22.58%

19.95%

100.00%

5

6

59.39%

15.50%

25.11%

100.00%

30

55.35%

21.11%

23.54%

100.00%

No. of countries

P

G

E

1.1

1

30.00%

31.00%

39.00%

100.00%

1.2

0

2

0

3

3

86.00%

5.67%

8.33%

100.00%

4

4

34.85%

53.00%

12.15%

100.00%

5

2

55.00%

25.00%

20.00%

100.00%

10

53.74%

31.00%

15.26%

100.00%

Average Table 5 – Surface priority Group

Average

3 Table 6 – Total priority Group

No. of countries

P

G

E

1.1

3

18.71%

44.67%

36.63%

100.00%

1.2

1

80.00%

7.00%

13.00%

100.00%

2

0

3

8

64.78%

14.57%

20.66%

100.00%

4

9

51.18%

28.82%

20.00%

100.00%

5

3

58.01%

10.17%

31.82%

100.00%

24

53.71%

22.81%

23.48%

100.00%

No. of countries

P

G

E

1.1

2

29.26%

25.34%

45.40%

100.00%

1.2

0

2

0

3

5

62.40%

8.60%

29.00%

100.00%

4

8

25.75%

58.25%

16.00%

100.00%

5

1

12.00%

0.00%

88.00%

100.00%

16

36.78%

34.98%

28.24%

100.00%

No. of countries

P

G

E

Total

1.1

3

11.00%

45.82%

43.18%

100.00%

1.2

0

2

1

11.00%

29.00%

60.00%

100.00%

3

4

38.75%

26.00%

35.25%

100.00%

4

9

17.72%

65.22%

17.06%

100.00%

5

3

36.97%

17.33%

45.70%

100.00%

20

23.47%

45.47%

31.06%

100.00%

Average Table 7 – Surface non-priority Group

Average Table 8 – S.A.L. non-priority Group

Average

4 Table 9 – Total non-priority Group

No. of countries

P

G

E

1.1

3

22.22%

27.68%

50.09%

100.00%

1.2

0

2

0

3

6

48.88%

21.40%

29.72%

100.00%

4

7

17.28%

61.84%

20.89%

100.00%

5

2

29.45%

1.25%

69.30%

100.00%

18

29.99%

35.94%

34.08%

100.00%

Average

Question 2 – Ratio between domestic and international mail Table 10 – Ratios in terms of weight Group

No. of countries

Domestic mail

Inward mail under the TD system

Inward mail under direct access

Outward mail

Total

1.1

3

91.1%

2.8%

0.6%

5.5%

100.00%

1.2

0

2

1

91.3%

4.7%

0.4%

3.6%

100.00%

3

5

95.3%

3.3%

0.0%

1.4%

100.00%

4

8

78.2%

15.3%

0.0%

6.6%

100.00%

5

10

64.4%

21.8%

2.6%

11.2%

100.00%

Total

27

78.18%

13.68%

1.04%

7.11%

100.00%

Table 11 – Ratios in terms of number of items Group

No. of countries

Domestic

Inward TD

Inward DA

Outward

Total

1.1

4

93.0%

2.9%

0.5%

3.6%

100.00%

1.2

2

88.1%

3.5%

0.1%

8.3%

100.00%

2

4

93.1%

3.5%

0.4%

3.0%

100.00%

3

12

75.9%

14.5%

9.6%

100.00%

4

12

50.2%

39.8%

10.0%

100.00%

5

9

40.4%

33.4%

26.2%

99.99%

43

65.05%

22.90%

11.96%

100.00%

Total

0.09%

5 Question 3 – Information on outward flows Table 12 – Outward mail profile in terms of weight Group

No. of countries

Social mail

Business mail

Total

Priority

Non-priority

Priority

Non-priority

14%

10%

47%

30%

100%

1.1

4

1.2

0

2

0

3

6

87%

2%

9%

2%

100%

4

7

74%

3%

21%

2%

100%

5

7

92%

0%

8%

0%

100%

24

20%

9%

44%

28%

100%

Total

Table 13 – Outward mail profile in terms of number of items Group

No. of countries

Social mail

Business mail

Total

Priority

Non-priority

Priority

Non-priority

38%

8%

37%

18%

100%

1.1

5

1.2

0

2

0

3

7

88%

3%

7%

2%

100%

4

5

35%

14%

51%

0%

100%

5

7

62%

0%

38%

0%

100%

24

43%

7%

35%

15%

100%

Total

CEP C 1 GGT 2011.1–Doc 4a.Anexo 3

Analysis of responses to the questionnaire on domestic and international tariffs

1

Ninety-four responses were received as follows:

–

19 from target countries;

–

14 from new target countries;

–

61 from transition countries.

2

The summary of responses to the different questions is presented below.

Question 1.1 – Domestic tariffs differentiated on the basis of speed of service (e.g. priority versus nonpriority) Table 1 Yes

No

No answer

Old target countries

13

3

3

New target countries

6

4

4

Transition countries

31

23

7

Total

50

30

14

Group of countries

Question 1.2 – Domestic tariffs differentiated on the basis of content (e.g. letters versus printed papers) Table 2 Group of countries

Yes

No

No answer

Old target countries

11

5

3

New target countries

8

2

4

Transition countries

43

16

2

Total

62

23

9

Question 1.3 – Domestic tariffs differentiated on the basis of size and shape (e.g. letters, flats, packets) Table 3 Group of countries

Yes

No

No answer

Old target countries

15

2

2

New target countries

4

6

4

Transition countries

25

31

5

Total

44

39

11

2 Question 1.4 – Domestic tariffs differentiated on the basis of distance (e.g. local versus national) Table 4 Group of countries

Yes

No

No answer

Old target countries

4

12

3

New target countries

1

8

5

Transition countries

11

46

4

Total

16

66

12

Question 2 – Published domestic tariffs list and a description of the characteristics of the service Table 5 – Domestic tariffs Group of countries

Tariffs provided

Tariffs searched on the Total number of DOs with website tariffs in the database

Old target countries

15

10

25

New target countries

10

9

19

Transition countries

35

13

48

Total

60

33

92

1

Question 3 – Do the tariffs provided include VAT or other similar taxes? The tariffs provided by 29 DOs include VAT. In the case of six DOs, VAT or other taxes are charged in addition to the published tariffs. Question 5 – Are the domestic retail tariffs subsidized? In 18 cases, the domestic tariffs are subsidized, the level of subsidies varying from 5.8% to 40%. Question 6 – Designated operator's published domestic commercial mail tariffs (bulk mail or other category as applicable) Forty-eight DOs provided information on domestic commercial tariffs. Question 7 – International outgoing priority/non-priority retail and commercial letter-post tariffs, including books and pamphlets and mail for the blind, up to the maximum weight for the categories offered by the designated operator Table 6 – International tariffs Group of countries

Tariffs provided

Tariffs searched on the Total number of DOs with website tariffs in the database

Old target countries

15

10

25

New target countries

11

12

23

Transition countries

30

11

41

Total

56

33

89

1

Value-added tax.

3 Question 7.1 – Percentage split of outbound international mail by sender – social mail (stamps and franking machines) and business origin (all others) Table 7 – Split of outbound mail by sender Group of countries

No. of responses

Business mail

Social mail

Old target countries

8

58.61%

41.39%

New target countries

7

31.67%

68.23%

Transition countries

29

31.97%

68.03%

Total

44

36.78%

63.22%

CEP C 1 GGT 2011.1–Doc 4a.Anexo 4

Analysis of responses to the questionnaire on the number of items per kilogramme (IPK) in international letter mail flows

1

Fifty-nine responses were received as follows:

–

10 from target countries (group 1.1);

–

14 from new target countries (groups 1.2 and 2);

–

35 from transition countries (groups 3, 4 and 5).

2 Twelve designated operators provided data by format and weight step, 45 provided data only by format, and two provided data undifferentiated by weight step or format. 3 On the basis of the sampling data provided, and using the postal statistics mail volumes as a weighting factor, the following average IPK values were calculated: Table 1 – Average number of IPK by category of mail service and in total Service type Airmail priority

S.A.L. non-priority

Surface non-priority

Surface priority

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

Between old target DOs

14.40

9.02

4.73

9.70

12.16

From, to and between new target DOs

12.62

17.12

13.93

17.56

13.35

Between target DOs (old and new)

13.93

10.33

6.36

10.33

12.43

Between transition DOs

11.84

9.66

12.53

25.68

12.66

Worldwide

13.38

10.20

7.31

14.58

12.48

Mail flows

Total

4 The mail structure, in terms of number of items and weight, calculated by weight step and by format is presented in the following table: 1

Table 2 – Mail structure by weight step and format based on information provided by 12 DOs Weight step

Format

Weight

Items

No. items

Average weight (kg)

0–20 g

P

9.56%

55.65%

7.33

0.013

0–20 g

G

0.23%

0.98%

0.13

0.018

0–20 g

E

0.13%

0.54%

0.07

0.019

21–50 g

P

6.25%

15.63%

2.06

0.030

21–50 g

G

2.23%

4.55%

0.60

0.037

1

P = letter-shaped; G = flat-shaped; E = packet-shaped.

2 21–50 g

E

0.44%

0.77%

0.10

0.044

Weight step

Format

Weight

Items

No. items

Average weight (kg)

51–100 g

P

1.49%

1.59%

0.21

0.071

51–100 g

G

4.76%

4.74%

0.62

0.076

51–100 g

E

1.31%

1.15%

0.15

0.087

101–250 g

G

11.99%

5.52%

0.73

0.165

101–250 g

E

5.42%

2.20%

0.29

0.187

251–500 g

G

8.60%

1.81%

0.24

0.360

251–500 g

E

10.04%

1.99%

0.26

0.383

501–1,000 g

E

18.94%

1.98%

0.26

0.726

1,001–2,000 g

E

15.65%

0.83%

0.11

1.432

> 2,000 g

E

2.95%

0.07%

0.01

3.091

100.00%

100.00%

13.16

Total

Table 3 – Mail structure by format based on information provided by the same 12 DOs Format

Weight

Items

No. items

Average weight (kg)

P

17.30%

72.87%

9.59

0.0180

G

27.81%

17.60%

2.32

0.1200

E

54.89%

9.53%

1.25

0.4375

100.00%

100.00%

13.16

0.0760

Table 4 – Mail structure by format based on information provided by 57 DOs (including the 12 DOs above) Format

Weight

Items

No. items

Average weight (kg)

P

16.4%

67.9%

8.30

0.0197

G

29.8%

19.7%

2.40

0.1238

E

53.9%

12.4%

1.52

0.3540

100.0%

100.0%

12.23

0.0818

NB. – i The difference between the IPKs in tables 3 and 4 is due to the fact that the calculations are based on a different set of DOs. Some big volume countries are not included in the calculation of the above structures, as the information provided was differentiated neither by format nor by weight step; their data was used only to calculate the worldwide IPK. ii

The IPK values by format in tables 3 and 4 are calculated on the basis of net weight as opposed to the gross weight used for the calculation of the worldwide IPK in table 1.