Insightful strategy analysis! 

An element worth considering is whether EU countries are (legally) competent to unilaterally impose import bans for products outside EU. In the EU, certain campaigns for national import bans have stranded once NGOs realised their country could simply not impose it (e.g. Belgian judiciary stopped the Flemish import ban on horse meat from South-America). At first sight, I would think EU law allows national bans for frogs (ChatGPT said no but I disagree).

If EU countries are not competent, it could still be a good lobbying priority at EU level as the ban does not seem to hurt local farmers or producers, but only local economy (mainly importers and restaurants so turnover should be low i think?). As far as i know (correct me if i am wrong) there is no precedent of an EU import ban on animal products that was not inspired/preceeded by national bans? I think the seals products ban was first in other countries (like Belgium)? 

Very good idea! 

It makes me think about a recent Belgian company that does something similar, but not as a gift, and not EA-focused, but more focused on 'local' NGOs. Basicially, you pledge to give a monthly amount, and then they present possible NGOs every month, based on your preferences (or you can browse yourself): https://better-app.org/en#explainer . Some Belgian companies even give their employees such a subscription (instead of cash because the subscription is tax deductble i guess)

It was very grassroots, and mostly GAIA (the biggest aw NGO in BE by far). They collected many signatures in favor of this legal change and, in 2017, they convinced two seasoned politicians to submit a proposal to Senate in order to insert the provision in the Constitution (1 Flemish/center politician and 1 Walloon/right wing politician). 

Left wing policitians (Groen/ecolo/ps/Vooruit) came up with a new proposal that would give the provision teeth but found no majority in Senate. In 2024, they finally gave in and fell back to the original provision of 2017.

Lobbying was constant, fierce and personal. GAIA kept the pressure high throughout the entire process (many mailings, volunteer attendance in parliament (day and night), surveys amongst citizens to show support...).

Interesting analysis - thank you for this. Having followed this ordeal very closely and for many years, i do not fully agree. 

1. Legally; and most importantly, the provision remains symbolic as it is not binding (it may seem bonkers but some provisions in our BE Constitution are not binding and thus not enforceable). The non-binding nature of the new provision was confirmed by several legal experts advising Parliament. But right-wing party NVA wanted absolute certainty on the non-binding character. So they went all creative and submitted a last-minute amendment to the provision which would make it binding BUT requesting all political parties to vote against this amendment. This amendment was voted against in parliament (as planned) just to make clear the original provision is purely symbolic. 

2. Politically; i agree VB's abstention showcases their (semi) pro-animal view, but NVA's abstention does not. After their amendment was rejected in parliament (see point 1), NVA was enough confident enough the provision would be purely symbolic. They could save face by abstaining instead of voting against. They really feared backlash from GAIA and the likes (and rightfully so, considering GAIA's campaign against CDV for voting against, in the run up to previous elections). 

   Beyond this specific issue, I partly concurr with your analysis that Flemish far-right (VB) is generally more pro animal welfare than Flemish right (NVA). Again proven to be true with the recent vote on access to justice for aw ngos. But only partly, because VB does not seem to care any more about farm animals than NVA in recent years. 

3. EA; i am not sure wheter this symbolic trophee was really worth the many ressources used by NGOs (mainly GAIA). It was no doubt good for their community building and funding to have this trophee and say 'we get shit done'. In my opinion; welfare impact seems insignificant in the long term. In the short term, impact seems negative as lobbying/campaigning for aw became more difficult imho (having to rebut the argument that 'animals are already in the constitution so we do not need any better legislation or changes').