Charting progress: A comparative analysis of national LGBTIQ equality action plans in the EU

Source: ✍️ Charting progress: A comparative analysis of national LGBTIQ equality action plans in the EU – Including summary

📜🔗LINK

Number of pages: 

1. Analytical summary

Context, inequalities, and the role of plans

The report is based on the findings documented by the FRA and ILGA-Europe: despite some progress, discrimination, violence, and exclusion against LGBTIQ individuals persist in all areas of life (employment, health, education, housing, services) and vary significantly between member states. It follows on from the LGBTIQ Strategy 2020-2025 of the European Commission, which encourages states to adopt national plans to translate this strategy into concrete and coordinated policies. The report does not measure the 'level of equality' in each country, but compares the use of LGBTIQ action plans as a public policy tool: existence, content, governance, implementation, monitoring. It draws on the guidelines of the LGBTIQ Subgroup of the Commission, the recommendations of the Council of Europe, and the work of Wittenius to define what constitutes a robust plan: empirical diagnosis, clear priorities, participation, resources, monitoring.

Operational contributions for stakeholders

The study provides a detailed mapping of the States that have LGBTIQ plans (12 out of 27 with an active plan and 2 with a plan in preparation) and shows how these are designed (specific or integrated plans, ad hoc or more permanent mechanisms, links with human rights plans). It concretely describes the types of measures (legal reforms, health, education, families, data, combating violence) and the conditions that make a plan operational: indicators, budgets, responsibilities, national/local articulation, involvement of NGOs and the affected public. It also identifies common weaknesses (too general objectives, lack of indicators, vague budgets, limited or non-existent monitoring) and documents transferable good practices, for example in terms of co-construction with civil society or detailed implementation strategy. Finally, the report proposes a framework that can be used by national and local actors to audit or design an LGBTIQ plan, covering the three key phases: preparation, implementation, monitoring/evaluation.

2. Key points of the document

1. The report establishes that in 2023, only 12 member States have an active national LGBTIQ plan or strategy (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden), and two more have a plan in development (Cyprus, Spain). (p. 25-27)

2. It shows that most plans cover several areas of public responsibility (law, health, education, employment, family, security, foreign policy), but that the precision of measures and the presence of measurable indicators vary greatly from country to country. (p. 45-48)

3. The study highlights that the empirical basis (surveys, baseline studies) is often partial: many countries rely mainly on European data (FRA, ILGA-Europe, OECD) and on civil society, and only a few states systematically integrate this data into their plans. (p. 38‑41)

4. The report documents that implementation is frequently the weak link: plans rarely detail responsibilities, budgets, and timelines, which undermines accountability and the ability to correct the course along the way. (p. 59‑63, 76‑77)

5. Regarding monitoring and evaluation, the majority of states do not have robust and independent specific mechanisms, and ex post evaluations are rare, while European recommendations emphasise regular, participatory, and methodologically sound processes. (p. 66‑72, 78)

3. Action points for local actors

1. Use the ‘life cycle’ framework of a plan (preparation, implementation, monitoring/evaluation) proposed by the report to audit your local or regional LGBTIQ plans and identify the weak links: diagnosis, co-construction, indicators, governance. (p. 23‑24, 74‑78)

2. Rely on the guidelines of the LGBTIQ Sub-group (six elements: data, priorities, legal protection, governance, mainstreaming, evaluation) as a checklist to structure or revise a local equality or sexual health plan including an LGBTIQ component. (p. 16‑21)

3. Take examples of concrete measures described (Luxembourg, Ireland, Malta, Portugal, Germany) to develop transferable action sheets at the territorial level: e.g. health protocols, civil status procedures, training of services, reporting mechanisms. (p. 52‑54, 76)

4. Demand, in your advocacy to local or national executives, that any LGBTIQ plan includes at a minimum: an empirical diagnosis, measurable objectives, an identified budget, designated responsible parties, and a review timeline, based on the Council of Europe’s criteria for a ‘good plan’. (p. 19‑22, 76‑77)

5. Systematically integrate intersectionality and the most vulnerable groups (young people, trans and intersex individuals, migrants, disabled people, older LGBTIQ individuals) by drawing inspiration from the sections dedicated to these groups in the analysed plans and the recommendations of the Sub-group. (p. 57‑60)

4. Additional references

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the topic of LGBTQI+ individuals ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/blog/tag/lgbtqi-210

5. Cross-cutting analysis — values of Health Practices

• Literacy: the document is not designed for audiences unfamiliar with LGBTIQ issues; it is aimed at decision-makers and experts, without simplified educational tools.

• Empowerment: the involvement of beneficiaries is variable; only the Irish example shows direct participation of LGBTIQ individuals, taking into account their intersectional experiences.

• Participation: the most advanced plans describe structured mechanisms for co-construction with LGBTIQ NGOs and sometimes trade unions, but participation often remains consultative.

• Community health: the collective dimension appears through references to community actions, co-construction, and local plans, but health is only one aspect among others.

• Ethics: the report identifies structural biases (lack of data, absence of legal protection, under-representation of certain groups) and promotes transparency, empirical foundation, and non-discrimination.

• Human rights: the approach is explicitly based on fundamental rights, equality, and non-discrimination, in line with the Council of Europe and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

• Intersectorality: the text recommends coordination between justice, health, education, social affairs, interior, equality, and territorial levels, but notes gaps in coordination in many countries.

• Partnership: it documents formalised models, such as national councils or working groups where NGOs and public institutions co-pilot plans, notably in Malta, Greece, and Italy.

• Combating discrimination: discrimination, violence, and 'free zones' are at the heart of the diagnosis, with attention to non-judgment, the diversity within LGBTIQ communities, and the multiple grounds of discrimination.

6. Assessment of the reliability of the resource

• Scientific relevance: the report relies on a network of national experts in non-discrimination law, on robust institutional sources (FRA, ILGA-Europe, OECD, Council of Europe), and on official guidelines; the methodology (detailed questionnaire, structured analysis grid, explicit cut-off date) is clearly described and consistent with comparative analysis standards.

• Operational relevance: for field actors, this is not a 'one-size-fits-all' guide, but a strategic framing tool to demand serious plans and structure their own approaches; its value is high for those who design, evaluate or advocate on LGBTIQ plans (ministries, agencies, local authorities, large associations), more limited for the individual intervenor without a mandate on public policies.

7. Multiple Choice Questions — 5 questions

Part 1 — Statements (without answers)

Question 1 (pp. 7‑9):

What is the main objective of the report 'Charting progress'?

a) To assess the level of support from political parties for LGBTIQ rights

b) To compare the progress of national LGBTIQ plans in the EU

c) To measure the prevalence of domestic violence among LGBTIQ individuals

d) To analyse mental health policies for LGBTIQ individuals

Question 2 (pp. 16‑18):

According to the LGBTIQ Sub-group, what element is essential for evidence-based policy?

a) A one-off consultation of national NGOs

b) A general opinion poll on human rights

c) Regular collection of disaggregated equality data

d) A government statement in favour of equality

Question 3 (pp. 25‑27):

How many EU member states have an active national LGBTIQ plan at the time of writing?

a) 5

b) 8

c) 12

d) 20

Question 4 (pp. 59‑63):

What element is most often missing from LGBTIQ implementation plans?

a) The list of competent ministries

b) References to international law

c) Detailed budgets, responsibilities, and timelines

d) The translation of the plan into all EU languages

Question 5 (pp. 66‑72, 78):

What does the report highlight regarding the monitoring and evaluation of LGBTIQ plans?

a) Most states have annual independent evaluations

b) Specific monitoring procedures remain rare and underdeveloped

c) Monitoring is entrusted solely to international NGOs

d) Plans do not require formal evaluation

Part 2 — Commented correction

Question 1:

✅ Correct answer: b) Compare the progress of national LGBTIQ plans in the EU.

📝 Explanation: The report does not aim to directly measure the level of equality, but to analyse whether and how member states use LGBTIQ plans or strategies to protect fundamental rights, covering preparation, content, and monitoring. Source: pp. 7‑9.

Question 2:

✅ Correct answer: c) A regular collection of disaggregated equality data.

📝 Explanation: The Sub-group's guidelines emphasise the need for an accurate empirical picture of the situation of LGBTIQ people, based on disaggregated and regularly collected equality data, to inform decisions. Source: pp. 16‑18.

Question 3:

✅ Correct answer: c) 12.

📝 Explanation: Chapter 2 indicates that 12 member states had an active national LGBTIQ plan or strategy in place (plus 2 with a plan in preparation) at the time of data collection. Source: pp. 25-27.

Question 4:

✅ Correct answer: c) Detailed budgets, responsibilities, and timelines.

📝 Explanation: The report shows that most plans remain vague on the allocation of responsibilities, resources, and deadlines, complicating implementation and accountability. Source: pp. 59-63, 76-77.

Question 5:

✅ Correct answer: b) Specific monitoring procedures remain rare and underdeveloped.

📝 Explanation: Chapter 4 highlights that few states have specific, regular, and independent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, which are essential for adjusting measures and planning subsequent cycles. Source: pp. 66-72, 78.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Who is the main target of this report?

   The report is aimed at European institutions, national governments, and experts responsible for designing, implementing, or evaluating LGBTIQ equality plans, but it is also useful for NGOs and researchers. (pp. 10-15, 74)

2. Does the report assess the level of respect for LGBTIQ rights in each country?

   No, it does not rank states on their level of equality; it examines whether, and how, they use LGBTIQ action plans to promote rights, describing the mechanisms rather than the final outcomes. (pp. 10-15)

3. How was the information collected in each member state?

   The Commission sent a detailed questionnaire to national experts in non-discrimination law, covering three phases of the life cycle of plans (preparation, implementation, monitoring/evaluation), and analysed their responses. (p. 15, 81‑82)

4. What are the main success factors identified for an LGBTIQ plan?

   The report emphasises political will, a solid empirical diagnosis, structured involvement of civil society, clear and measurable objectives, dedicated resources, coordinated governance, and independent monitoring. (p. 16‑24, 74‑77)

5. How is intersectionality integrated into the plans?

   Most plans mention particularly vulnerable groups (trans and intersex people, youth, disabled people, migrants, older LGBTIQ people), but the intensity and depth of the intersectional approach vary; some countries make it an explicit focus. (p. 57‑60)

6. How can this report be useful to a local actor (city, department, region)?

   It provides concrete criteria to assess the robustness of a plan (or an LGBTIQ component in a broader plan) and offers examples of transferable measures, which can help structure advocacy or a local co-construction approach. (p. 23‑24, 45‑54, 74‑77)

7. Does the report offer ready-to-use plan models?

   No, it does not provide a single model, but an analytical framework and examples of good practices that can inspire the drafting of plans tailored to national or local contexts. (p. 23‑24, 72‑77)

9. FALC Rewriting 

Title

Plans for LGBTIQ Equality in Europe

FALC Summary

Many LGBTIQ people still suffer violence and discrimination in Europe.

The countries of the European Union have very different situations.

Some countries have a plan to better protect LGBTIQ people.

This report looks at how these plans are made and used.

It does not say which country is 'better', it describes ways of working.

It shows what helps to have a useful plan for rights.

Key points FALC

• Existing plans

  Some countries have a national LGBTIQ plan, others do not.

  Sometimes the plan is only national, sometimes also regional.

  The plans do not all have the same quality.

• Content of the plans

  A good plan has clear and concrete objectives.

  It must say who does what, when and with what money.

  Many plans do not provide all these details.

• Data and ground reality

  A good plan starts by looking at reality with numbers.

  It must listen to LGBTIQ people and their associations.

  Often, countries mainly use European data.

• Most vulnerable groups

  Plans must consider the most at-risk individuals.

  For example, trans, intersex, migrant or disabled people.

  This attention is not always very precise.

• Monitoring and evaluation

  A plan must be monitored over several years.

  It is necessary to check what works and what does not.

  In most countries, this monitoring remains weak.