THE DEBATE Recreational Craft Directive
Has the RCDachieved its aim?
G3A <=
B]\g8]\Sa30bSQ\WQOZQ]\acZbO\b 8]cY]6cXc[O\OUW\URW`SQb]`4W\\P]Ob
t’s important to remember that the original purpose n its aim to create a common I
of the RCD was to ease trade within the EU by
making it impossible for individual
countries to ban the import of
other countries’ recreational I
European market without
technical barriers, the
Recreational Craft Directive
has certainly succeeded — but
craft because they didn’t comply with only if we are talking about what can
the importer’s national rules. Sadly, be seen as the traditional boating
these rules were often applied only countries. Whether the RCD will work
to imports, and were used as a form successfully in the new EU-countries
of protectionism. The only way to remains to be seen.
prevent this was by having a common There are a number of problems
set of rules. The RCD has certainly that exist and which need to be
achieved this primary aim and must addressed. For instance, market
be considered a success. Ask any surveillance of the Directive
boatbuilder old enough to remember has been problematic in many
producing French, German, Italian, countries and in this sense the
etc. versions of each boat to meet RCD works inconsistently. This
national requirements and who is refl ected especially in the CE-
met obstructions at every turn. The marking of products imported into
RCD has eased EU internal trade the EU from third countries.
When it comes to post
construction assessment (PCA) for secondhand “It’s a success. Ask the
boats, the RCD is not working as well as we would
builders who had met have wished. And the treatment of old boats — those manufactured before 1996 when the RCD was fi nally
obstacles at every turn” implemented — is far from fair. The interpretations of
PCA also varies in different countries.
and contributed to an improvement in the quality of
European boatbuilding by adopting high standards for “Market surveillance
safety aspects. It was sensible to adopt a ‘compliance’
approach to standardization, allowing builders good and CE-marking have
fl exibility in how best to fulfi l the requirements, as both been problematic”
opposed to the prescriptive approach which would have
dictated the exact method in each case.
The consumer has also been well served by the In Finland, we have found that the strong position
increased levels of safety and standardization of of the voluntary certifi cation according to the Nordic
aspects such as electrical wiring protocols. Boat Standard has made it easy to apply the safety
Of course, the RCD isn’t perfect and some minor requirements of the RCD as well as the technical
arguments over national ‘interpretation’ of the rules are requirements of related ISO-standards.
ongoing. And probably always will be. The amount of paperwork involved in coping with
The original RCD (94/25/EC) was amended in 2007 the RCD has however grown a lot during the years in
to include noise and emissions standards which few which the RCD has been in effect, which is clearly a
argued with. The danger is that problem for the manufacturers
this success will now be eroded — especially for the smaller
by unnecessary alterations and Next debate boatbuilders.
‘improvements’ by bureaucrats However, the RCD is an
looking for employment Has the recession actually important initiative because we dWR0SZZ
continuity. My opinion is that if it all need to have rules for the
isn’t broken, spurious attempts to been good for boatbuilders? game — but they have to be rules bW]\(2OO
mend it should be resisted. that are equal for everyone. b`
7ZZca
We’re always keen to know your thoughts on our EB debates.  
Email: dennis_o’neill@ipcmedia.com. Editor reserves the right to edit published opinions.
#$ August/September u0s www.europeanboatbuilder.net
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60