WRITTEN QUESTION P-3770/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Conversion of the arms industry.
Date: 2002-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU initiative, Structural Funds, arms industry, co-financing, industrial conversion, product diversification, use of aid

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/71

How will the Commission ensure that Microsoft does not misuse Palladium in order to eliminate

1.
competitors? Will Palladium jeopardise the development of free software/open source development?

PCs equipped with Palladium will be able to operate only with Palladium-compatible software. It is
2.
for a company which itself sells software to make the rules relating thereto? Does not the
lawful
Commission see it as its role as the authority in charge of competition issues to lay down the requisite
rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

1.
The Commission is aware of Microsoft’s Palladium initiative. This project is still in its early stages.
As such, and in the absence of any formal complaint, the Commission is not investigating Palladium. The
Commission is nevertheless fully aware of the potential impact of technologies such as Palladium on a
range of areas, including the development of open source software, user control and user rights issues,
privacy issues and content provision. The Commission is committed to act within its powers in favour of
innovation and is actively engaged in dialogue with all parties expressing views on Palladium.

2.
Palladium is not currently incorporated in any Microsoft products on the market, and it is therefore
premature for the Commission to make an assessment of its effects. As the authority in charge of
competition issues, the Commission is committed to ensuring that conduct in the market is in compliance
with the Community’s anti-trust rules, such that market outcomes which are beneficial to consumers,
competition and innovation are attained.

(2003/C 242 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3770/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Conversion of the arms industry

Before the reform of the Structural Funds, the Konver programme was implemented. It made funding
available to the arms industry, if the latter so wished, to enable arms manufacturers to switch to civil
production. Such conversion measures for the arms industry now form part of the normal budget for the
Structural Funds.

How much money has been spent on assisting conversion measures in the arms industry in the past 15
years? Can the Commission indicate, for each Member State, how these funds have been used?

In the specific case of Belgium, can it indicate which companies or authorities have taken advantage of this
assistance?

Has overall assistance with the conversion of the arms industry been evaluated, and can the Commission
accordingly state how many jobs have been transferred from the arms industry to the civil sector?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The Konver Community Initiative was set up in 1993, carrying on from the Perifra I and II special
measures adopted in 1991 and 1992. It was devised at the end of the Structural Funds’ 1989-93 budget
period, as part of an annual programme linking with the 1994-99 period. This Community Initiative was

C 242 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

initially allocated a budget of ECU 130 million. In 1994 it was decided to extend Konver. The budget of
ECU 500 million allocated to this Initiative for the 1994-1999 period broke down as follows:

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

11,45

2,35

219,4 12,75

23

70,15

IRL

(cid:1)

I

L

NL

P

UK

Total

45,3

0,35

11,45

7,80

95,7

500

Konver was designed to enable regions strongly dependent on the defence industry to speed up
diversification of their economic activity. The programmes linked to this Initiative have not yet been
financially closed.

Subject to the programmes’ final closure, the following information relating to Belgium can nevertheless be
passed on to the Honourable Member:

(cid:1) During the 1994-1999 period, the Flemish Region benefited from a Konver programme concerning
the administrative districts Brugge, Leuven, Hasselt, Turnhout and Tongeren. At
the end of
January 2003, a total of EUR 5 806 098,82 was committed under part-financing by the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

(cid:1) Most of the projects part-financed comprised renovating disused military land or buildings. Other
projects related to converting industrial land or development sites. The Flanders Konver programme
did not part-finance armament firms wishing to switch to non-military production.

(cid:1) An initial Konver programme for Wallonia was approved in 1993. It gave rise to Structural Funds
support of EUR 1 096 million. For the 1994-1999 period, EUR 6 119 million were part-financed in
this context. About a hundred businesses were involved, mainly small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Konver programme helped them to open up their markets to new areas of activity. The
Commission estimates that 68 new jobs were created thanks to this Community assistance.

Lastly, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that conversion
measures can also be provided for under the Structural Funds’ operational programmes, since firms
affected by the problems of switching away from the military sector are among those eligible for part-
financing from the Structural Funds under the rules applicable.

(2003/C 242 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3795/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Global poverty statistics

In its texts concerning globalisation, sustainable development and development aid, the Commission often
uses statistics on poverty which show that 1,2 billion people have to live on less than a dollar a day and
that 1,6 billion people have to live on less than 2 dollars a day.

How reliable are statistics such as these (which more often than not are gleaned from the World Bank)? Is it
possible to assess average incomes in countries where trade essentially takes the form of bartering, and
where production and consumption take place in an informal economy?

Are anodyne statistics such as these of any real value? Might it be possible to find a more reliable way of
measuring global poverty?