OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Centre National de Coopération au Développement- 11 11 11

CNCD-11 11 11

Coordination des organisations belges francophones et germanophones de solidarité internationale en vue de -récolter des fonds -mener des campagnes de sensibilisation de l'opinion publique et d'éducation à la citoyenneté mondiale et solidaire -articuler des activités de plaidoyer sur les institutions belges, européennes et internationales en vue de promouvoir la solidarité Nord-Sud et les Objectifs de développement durable

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Philippe Lamberts (Principal Adviser Inspire, Debate, Engage and Accelerate Action)

4 Mar 2025 · Omnibus; future of EU climate policy

Meeting with Benoit Cassart (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2024 · Accord commercial UE-Mercosur

Meeting with Rima Hassan (Member of the European Parliament)

1 Oct 2024 · Produits en provenance des colonies illégales en Cisjordanie

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament)

20 Apr 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Didier Reynders (Commissioner) and

5 Jun 2020 · Sustainable corporate governance

Response to Evaluation of the EU's external action support in the area of gender equality and women empowerment

23 Sept 2019

Despite important progress over the past decades, gender inequalities persist. The denial of women’s and girls’ rights is one of the biggest causes of poverty worldwide, and a grave injustice. In order to make European development cooperation strategic and effective, the EU need to step up its efforts to tackle the underlying causes of gender inequalities and address issues such as women and girl’s sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), prevent and combat gender-based violence, women’s decent work, unpaid care and domestic work, support gender-responsive public services and promote equal political participation of women. The current EU Gender Action Plan II is soon coming to an end. CNCD-11.11.11 as part of CONCORD welcomed GAP II’s emphasis on gender equality with the dual argument that gender equality is important in and of itself, but also essential to sustainable development. We appreciated the continuation of the three-pronged approach introduced already in the first GAP: gender mainstreaming, specific actions and political dialogue. GAP II made a systematic gender analysis mandatory for all new external actions and extended the reach of GAP II to all areas of external action, not just development cooperation. CONCORD highlighted a few key areas for improvement in relation to GAP II (non exhaustive list): • The EU must promote CSO inclusion at all levels. EU Delegations and Member States should engage more actively with CSOs around GAP II; • EU Delegations and Member States need to find ways to ensure the sustainability of gender projects and programmes in the face of declining ODA and phasing out of EU ODA and the increasing role of non-traditional donors; • The final evaluation for GAP II, and the drafting process of GAP III, should highlight enabling factors and markers of change, as this will be the best way to evaluate its impact. Looking ahead, a new GAP (III) should build and expand on the path laid out in the current GAP (II). As there is a lot of momentum and ownership, and given the strong content of the GAP 2016-2020, there should be a high level of alignment between GAP II and GAP III. • The new GAP should build on activities and priorities from GAP II. A new GAP (III) should continue with its work on institutional and cultural shift and the 3-pronged approach, where the EU uses political dialogue, targeted activities and gender mainstreaming to bring about the transformation of gender relations. • The GAP III should continue to focus on all aspects of EU external action, and not only on development policies, and this at all stages, including implementation and reporting. Gender must be mainstreamed in all sectors, including in non-social sectors such as trade, energy, agriculture and migration. • The next GAP should focus on impact for women and girls on the ground. Therefore, all programmes that the EU funds should be based on an analysis of the current situation of women and girls, and the identification of priority areas of intervention in consultation with women’s rights groups themselves. [Further suggestions are included in the attached PDF-file on GAP III messages]. With regards to the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework: • The EU should adopt and fund a gender-responsive approach to the next MFF and subsequently in each annual budget in order to promote gender equality (gender budgeting). • The EU commitment made in the GAP II that at least 85% of ODA-funded programmes should have gender equality as a significant or principal objective (OECD Gender marker 1 or 2) should be enshrined in the Regulation of the new Neighbourhood, Development, and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) in the next MFF. In order to make sure targeted action gets the needed resources within this wider commitment, 20% of the NDICI funding go to programmes having gender equality as a principal objective (G2).
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of six Euro-Med FTAs

17 Dec 2017

We support the points made by ANND and FTDES. We stress that this ex-post evaluation is welcome and that, as aluded to in the impact assessment, its conclusions must feed into, first, the revision of existing association agreements to fix any negative impact identified, before talks on future DCFTAs can go any futher. We would also add that a central criteria for conducting the evaluation is who in civil society is involved. Too often have we seen so called « inclusive » processes where the organisations historically most active on trade issues in the regions have not even been invited. It should be included as a central criteria of success of the evaluation that he conductants do everything they can to include the organisations who have a proven track record on engaging on trade issues, who published analysis, organised events or participated to panels on association agreements, DCFTAs and other related issues, and on social and economic rights in the region in general. If those organisations have not been deeply involved troughout the evaluation process, the evaluation should not be considered valid. We also stress the need to not rely solely on economic models like CGE that are structurally unable to evaluate the main claimed benefit of the AAs : job creation (and in general impacts on workers). The evaluation must rely on other models fit to evaluate the impacts on workers and job creation or loss, and as much as possible on empirical data and not only on modeling. We stand ready, with our partners around the mediterranean see, to contribute to the evaluation process if the consultation/concertation process is meaningful and contributions are included in the evaluation.
Read full response