CPHEMeeting In London On 11 May
At the invitation of the British Horological Federation, the Standing Committee of the European Watchmaking Industry (CPHE) held its first meeting of the year in London on 11 May under the chairmanship of Mr Francois Habersaat, the FH Chairman. In addition to the Swiss delegation, representatives of the French, German, Italian and of course the British watchmaking industry were present to discuss the following matters:
Electronic Waste
The CPHE began by considering the draft European directive on electrical and electronic waste, which seeks to introduce measures to control such waste and facilitate its recycling (elimination of waste, collection of discarded appliances, ecological label). The CPHE hoped that an exemption from this directive could still be obtained for horological products. The English and French texts do not make specific mention of watches on the list of products concerned. However, adoption of the final texts must be awaited before claiming victory.
Cites Certificate
The delegations took note of the position of the European Union, which did not wish to open discussions of a possible simplification of the Cites procedure for trade in products made from the hides of protected animals. The EU took the view that Community legislation did not permit such a simplification. A proposal had been made to computerize the procedure and abolish the need for Cites import permits.
Spare Parts
The EU delegations repeated their concern over the difficulties experienced in the procurement of spare parts. Some watchmaking associations complained that these parts were unobtainable. A question had been put in the European Parliament by an Austrian member and it seemed highly likely that the EU Commission would intervene. Excessively stringent measures must of course be avoided. The Swiss delegation pointed out that the brands wished to adopt selective distribution of spare parts based on their own distribution networks to ensure the requisite quality standard and avoid the growth of the grey market and counterfeit products. They also wished to limit the number of repair centres for reasons of economies of scale.
Nickel
On the subject of nickel, the delegations agreed to remain vigilant over the implementation of EU law. Some problems had been detected, notably in France, because products had been impounded by the customs authorities. The application of the European directive might in practice differ from country to country (Great Britain too had adopted instructions on the use of nickel).
Product Guarantee
The product guarantee was another area in which the implementation of a European directive at national level must be monitored. This directive is due to take effect in the member countries by 1 January 2002. In this field too the delegations had decided to inform each other of every new development because domestic legislation might differ from one country to another.
Basel Exhibition
The different delegations also raised the problem of the World Watch and Jewellery Show in Basel and future changes. Several participants voiced their concern over the transfer of the component show from Basel to Zurich and, more generally, over the lack of medium-term visibility of the policy followed by the event management. They hoped that better coordination would be arranged in future with the exhibitors over decisions to be taken.
Counterfeit Products
Finally, the Swiss delegation reviewed the subject of counterfeiting within the EU. It highlighted four regions that were particularly affected by this phenomenon: the Benelux countries, Spain, Italy and Turkey. While cooperation with some authorities in the Benelux and Spain was proceeding smoothly and had enabled large quantities of counterfeit products to be impounded, smuggling remained very active in Europe. It it was hoped that matters would improve. In Italy, identification of the centres in which counterfeit watches were manufactured is particularly difficult. The delegations placed their hopes in the measures that the EU Commission was planning to take following the publication of its green paper in 1998: better protection of intellectual property, exchange of information, administrative cooperation, training for the authorities.