Market surveillance is the mechanism by which member state authorities check that products sold in the EU are compliant with the union’s various regulations and standards, such as the machinery directive (covering product safety) and environmental legislation, such as emissions requirements.

As with the Machinery Directive, the EU doesn’t directly enforce market surveillance. Instead, it sets the framework, the final deliverable, and the benchmarks, which are then implemented and enforced by member states. In some member states, like Germany, enforcement is carried out by the country’s different federal states; in others, such as France, national agencies implement market surveillance. Different regulatory requirements may be enforced by different types of public bodies: some by environment agencies, some by customs, others by occupational or public health bodies.

With this much variance in how machinery is checked, having a clear framework for market surveillance is vital. So far, market surveillance has been focussed more on the safety of consumer goods. Given the risks and value associated with heavy machinery, it is a mistake not to take an EU-wide approach to them.

The FEM, CECE and the other associations have been working within the EU’s often difficult bureaucracy to make sure a sensible proposal is adopted. Within the EU, proposals are put forward by the European Commission, and then voted on by the directly elected EU parliament and by the European Council, representing member states. When the EU Commission put forward a new market surveillance package in February 2013, the associations supported it, and worked with the European parliament to refine it, making sure industry’s concerns were addressed in the version moved forward by parliament.

The problem came with the move to the European Council. The other proposal of the package, on consumer product safety, included rules on indication of origin labelling. The Council is roughly split between southern countries like Italy and France that support provisions on issues like labelling food stuffs (like regional cheeses) and northern countries like the UK and Germany, which are less keen.

The trade associations, representing capital goods manufacturers, would not be directly affected by this. They have, however, expressed frustration that it is delaying vital work on improving safety and ensuring fair competition. They suggest splitting the package to as to move the market surveillance proposal forward. That seems like a very sensible approach.

Will North Editor
wnorth@cranestodaymagazine.com