Summary

  • BEREC’s draft puts four demands on one annual agenda: work required by existing rules, projects carried over from 2026, recurring tasks, and proposals from members or stakeholders. It also says some interesting proposals could not be included because of the expected workload.
  • The formal consultation can inform the final programme, but the Board of Regulators holds the statutory adoption role. Its December decision should make the consequential changes and deferrals legible without treating comments as votes or future ideas as commitments.

The sentence that changes how to read the draft

One line in BEREC’s draft Work Programme 2027 is more revealing than any single project title: some proposals from the early call were considered interesting but could not be taken on board in light of the envisaged workload. The draft places them in a closing chapter for future reflection. That is an unusually useful admission. An annual programme is not just a list of ambitions; it is a record of which work an institution expects it can carry.

The qualification matters. The future chapter is informational and expressly not final. It is not an approved backlog, a funded promise, or evidence that a proposal will return in 2028. The draft records a capacity boundary, not a later commitment. Readers should resist both easy conclusions: that an omitted idea was rejected on its merits, or that its appearance in the future chapter guarantees action.

Two opportunities to influence one decision

The process has a longer history than the October consultation alone suggests. The Board of Regulators adopted the 2027 outline on 30 January. BEREC then ran an early call for input from 27 February to 15 April and held a Stakeholder Forum on 31 March. At its 1–2 October meetings, the Board adopted the draft for formal public consultation. Contributions are due by 31 October. BEREC’s consultation page documents those stages and says contributions should identify specific paragraphs.

The two stages are useful, but they are not interchangeable. An early call can surface work before the draft is assembled. The later consultation can test a concrete set of proposed priorities. Neither turns commenters into the programme’s decision-makers. Under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971, the Board of Regulators must adopt the final annual programme by 31 December after consulting the EU institutions and interested parties. The statute locates authority and consultation in the same process while keeping their roles distinct.

That distinction is central to accountability. A consultation is not valuable because it simulates a vote. It is valuable when relevant people can place evidence, objections and alternatives before the institution that is legally responsible for choosing.

Four kinds of work compete for space

The draft gives readers a way to see why the agenda is constrained. First are statutory tasks, including benchmarking reports on roaming and intra-EU communications, annual monitoring of the Open Internet Regulation’s implementation, and opinions on general authorization and end-user rights under the European Electronic Communications Code. Those are not optional additions that can simply be traded away.

Second are carryovers: work started in 2026 and scheduled to continue in 2027. Third are recurring items, including regulatory accounting and continuing support for implementation of the Data Act. Fourth are member and stakeholder proposals. The 40-page draft, BoR (26) 142, describes the categories and lists work across connectivity, digital markets, end-user protection, resilience and institutional cooperation.

This architecture turns capacity into a governance question. The document does not provide a comparative staffing ledger or a quantified score for every proposal, so it cannot establish which item displaced which other item. It does show that selection occurs inside a mixed workload: legal duties, work already in motion, standing commitments and new ideas. A proposal’s absence from the funded annual plan may reflect capacity, sequencing or another judgment; the current record should not be made to say more than it does.

What the final record should make traceable

BEREC already has a consultation outcome obligation. Its published procedure says the organisation will publish a summary of contributions and explain how consultation results were taken into account in its final position. It also says contributions will be published, subject to confidentiality requests. The current consultation page repeats that commitment. There is therefore no basis to say that BEREC has no response mechanism.

The stronger question is whether the December record will let a reader connect a material proposal to an outcome. A clear disposition table would be useful: what changed; what remained; what could not be scheduled; whether the reason was a statutory priority, a dependency, the expected workload, or another stated consideration; and whether a future mention is only for reflection or has a defined next step. The law and the published consultation procedure do not prescribe that proposal-by-proposal format. It is a practical transparency recommendation for a plan that openly describes capacity limits.

The final version is expected in December, with 31 December as the statutory outer date. Until then, the draft is evidence of an agenda under formation—not the final distribution of work. The useful test will be whether the Board’s final decision explains the choices it can explain and preserves uncertainty where the evidence does not support a stronger claim.

Sources