Document MMn03B0QNkmJNd8Oqpq3vXwJz

Belgium does not agree due to political reasons based on the political problem in Antwerp area by the legacy PFAS. In addition, not any deeper analysis of the need is done due to this political decision. Thus in order to understand, please can you prepare a summary of the conflicting answers reaching you . As I am not so much involved on the conflicting information. I see from the answers that issues in the military are not clearly defined in which sector for each MS. In my opinion, there are army forces, air forces, naval forces. It is obvious that the Naval needs more derogated time. I would not try to cut into pieces the MoDs. (I would apply the derogation for all the military forces). Just to be on the safe side. Then it depends also on the MS. Some MSs have got a lot of army , some othesr not. So their replies in the questionnaire are not representative or very elaborated as they may not have army. For example, I was trying to find the navy ships of Belgium and most of them have been sold to Bulgaria. In other words, in the military area I would not go with the worst scenario of RMOs. If a MS needs this derogation because of the use in case of any emergency , we should granted it. The Commission can always put a review clause as I believe that in 5 years , the USA and others would have moved usually faster than us to the specifications and therefore the need at that time would be much more clear. PS: Now that I am back I am each day busy with meetings and discussions so I am not so sure that I can attend your meetings. However, I would appreciate if I receive a short memo of the most important points. Thank you very much colleagues Kind Regards