2028-2034 MFF: Single Market and Customs Programme

The IA is part of the second package of Commission proposals for programmes under the 2028 2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF). It acknowledges from the start that it deviates from the scope and standard IA methods defined by the Commission's better regulation guidelines and toolbox, which affects all parts of the IA. Another particularity is the fact that the IA is entirely qualitative and does not provide any quantified estimates, either for the problem definition, or for the impacts, or for the 'one in, one out' approach. The problem definition lacks coherence and substantiation. It describes in short sections a panoply of problems in the design of the broad range of current programmes and policies covered by this initiative, without clearly indicating the link between these problems, the drivers causing them, their consequences or, for that matter, the overall magnitude (and relevance) of the problems. Furthermore, the IA's objectives do not fulfil the better regulation 'SMART' criteria – they are relevant, but not specific, measurable, achievable or time-bound. The description of the limited range of options (two) is vague, because the IA does not present any specific implementation or governing measures for them. Therefore, the assessment of their impacts is also vague, as the difference between the options remains blurred. The IA focuses on regulatory impacts and does not assess economic, social or environmental impacts, or other potentially relevant impacts, such as budgetary implications or impacts on third countries. The IA does not assess proportionality. Nor does it provide monitoring or evaluation indicators in relation to the initiative's objectives. The critical comments of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on the draft IA were only partially taken into account, at best, in the final IA. Finally, the evidence base of the IA seems limited and often unspecific, with several of the most cited sources (interim evaluations) not publicly available. The methodology and the IA's underlying assumptions are not explained, nor are potential uncertainties or limitations with the analysis, which limits the IA's transparency significantly. The legislative proposal is in line with the IA's preferred option but goes beyond the IA, which takes a general approach overall.