Postal Regulation in the E-Commerce Era | Brian Mwansa Interview
Watch on YouTubeVideo summary
The entry of new market players into the e-commerce landscape has created a significant regulatory gap, as many of these operators fall outside the scope of postal sector regulations in numerous jurisdictions. This lack of oversight leaves consumers vulnerable to issues such as unauthorized parcel opening, loss of items, and misdirected deliveries, protections that are standard for regulated entities but absent for unregulated ones. To address this, regulators must prioritize formalizing activities on the periphery of the current regulatory space by bringing these operators under official scrutiny. By doing so, basic rights and obligations can be established to ensure consumer safety, effectively closing the loopholes that allow unchecked competition to compromise service standards.
Regulators face substantial challenges in executing these protective measures due to a combination of structural and behavioral factors. The field of postal sector regulation is relatively new, resulting in a scarcity of formal academic training globally, which limits the expertise available to regulators who often operate with limited staff and resources. Furthermore, certain operators have amassed considerable market power as global multinationals, sometimes resisting regulatory oversight due to their dominance. These capacity limitations and the resistance from powerful industry players hinder regulators' ability to identify, locate, and integrate all operators into a cohesive regulatory framework, making it difficult for small government institutions to manage nationwide operations effectively.
Despite these hurdles, the fundamental reasons for regulatory intervention remain unchanged, particularly in ensuring universality, consumer protection, and service quality. Without regulation, market forces alone tend to lead to "cherry-picking," where operators focus only on lucrative areas while leaving remote or less profitable locations without any service. The primary evolution in this sector is the shift toward a highly digitalized environment where consumers interact with postal services entirely through mobile apps for tracking and payment. Consequently, regulators must adapt their frameworks to leverage these digital tools, ensuring that quality of service standards can be monitored and enforced within the same platforms that facilitate modern delivery confirmations and messaging.
To effectively navigate this complex digital landscape, there is a strong argument for enhancing the role of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) as a global coordinating body. While the UPU has successfully established rules-based systems for the operational exchange of international mail, it needs to extend this mandate to foster regulatory consensus among member states. By bringing regulators together in formal structures like technical working groups, the UPU can facilitate discussions on common licensing and operational issues, allowing technocrats to develop shared approaches rather than isolated national policies. This collaborative effort is essential for maintaining a harmonized global postal sector that protects consumers and ensures universal access, regardless of the rapid technological changes reshaping how services are delivered and regulated.
Read the full video transcript
That's a very important question because
what has happened or what is happening
now with the entry of new market players
is that uh a good number of them
actually fall outside the scope of
postal sector regulation in many
jurisdictions. This is something that as
we are trying to address uh through uh
promoting a harmonized postal sector
definition methodology that our
regulators can use. But to go back to
your question, what is happening is that
you have a multitude of operators who
are falling outside regulatory reach and
uh because of that consumers are are
left exposed to several ills. The things
that we take for granted for instance
such as your parcel not being opened
without authority or it being lost
altogether or it being misdirected to
the wrong destination. All these kinds
of protections do not exist for those
operators that are outside the
regulatory scope. So one of the main
things that regulators need to do to
protect consumers is to formalize those
activities which are happening on the
periphery of the regulated space. Bring
those operators into the influence of
regulatory oversight so that basic
rights and obligations can be handed out
to them in the interest of consumer
protection.
Postal sector regulation as a field is
is relatively new and you cannot find or
you will be hardressed to find right now
formal academic education on postal
sector regulation anywhere in the world
you will be lucky to find it. Yes, there
are institutions there. Um I know in
Asia I know we did try to partner with a
university in South Africa to offer some
kind of training formalized training in
the sector regulation. But this is
really a gap uh which regulators are
facing the just the formal training the
academic training in postal sector
regulation as a field of expertise. The
other caps obviously are their reach. As
I mentioned before there are several
operators which are offering their
business outside the scope of
regulation. Identifying, locating and
bringing them on board is a key
challenge that regulators face. And mind
you, you're talking about a relatively
small government institution with
limited staff, limited reach. Uh
sometimes they have limited operational
capacity to actually undertake this
broad kind of work which is nationwide
in its nature. So that kind of capacity
limitation is definitely something that
is handicapping a number of regulators.
One of the other issues is at the actual
behavior of operators themselves and you
will find that certain operators have
been the first movers in the industry.
They have amassed considerable market
power, market dominance. Some of them
are global multinational companies with
a lot of corporate power behind them and
they do sometimes tend to resist
regulatory oversight and this becomes a
challenge for regulators uh across the
board. So yes, these are some of the
challenges that I would uh immediately
identify.
The market on its own uh cannot deliver
certain outcomes that we are looking
for. These are desirable outcomes. One
of which is universality. If left to its
own devices in most countries, you will
find that the operators will cherrypick
the most lucrative markets and
concentrate themselves there. That will
leave other markets, other locations.
geographical location devoid of any
service at all. So you do need
regulatory intervention in order to make
that happen to mandate a designated
operator to deliver in those far-flung
areas and to offer services to those uh
particular locations. So as a regulator,
your fundamental reason for existing has
not changed. It is not likely to change.
Universal access and service is one of
those functions. Consumer protection is
one of them. Quality of service is one
of them. What has changed is the
environment we find ourselves in. It is
an increasingly digitalized environment.
Now we are looking at services which are
offered now more than ever using a
mobile app. So a consumer will be able
to call for, they will be able to pay
for, they will be able to track and do
and they are actually doing all this
using their mobile phone. So how has
traditional regulation kept pace with
this evolution in service delivery? Do
we for instance have the capability to
track quality of service on the same
apps which consumers are accessing the
services when the delivery is confirmed
through an app an SMS do we have the
capability to track that delivery of
that messaging and you know match that
to the quality of service standards that
we have set. So really the the the
challenge for regulators is to move into
this digitalized environment still
taking care of the same fundamental
functions for which we exist but to
leverage the digitalized environment to
effectively do our work.
There is no other global institution
like the UPU which can bring together
regulators from all over the world into
one room on one platform to discuss
regulatory issues that are common to
everyone. My belief is that only the UPU
can achieve that. My only intervention
in this is that are we doing enough as
the UPU right now? I believe we are on
the cusp of concluding a very successful
uh postal regulation conference uh
another one in the series. Uh but my
personal view is that we need to go
above and beyond the conference. If the
UPU has been able over the years to
cultivate and establish a global
rules-based system on the operational
side for the exchange of international
mail and parcels and documents. If on
the operator side we have been able to
do this as the UPU, why can we not do
the same for regulatory thought,
regulatory consensus, regulatory
approaches? Only the UPU has the mandate
to bring together regulators from across
the member states to sit in one room in
one structure, formal structure such as
a committee, a technical working group
and the purpose of such a gathering
would be to actually discuss the real
regulatory issues that are common to all
the member states. So for instance, if
we're talking about licensing, why
should one country license in a
particular way when the general
licensing concerns are similar to those
that are being faced in the multitude of
other UPU member countries? Why can we
not have a common approach especially if
this approach is arrived at in consensus
where we have the real technocrats
bringing to bear their thoughts and
their ideas on a particular issue and
resolving to go a certain way. I believe
the UPU can do this. If we can do this
for the exchange of international mail,
why can we not do it for the regulation,
for the regulatory side of things? I
think this is possible. And this is the
the the true mandate of the UPU. The UPU
represents not only the designated post
operators. It represents the governments
themselves at the ministerial platform
and importantly for our question, the
regulators as well. We are part of the
UPU.