An explosion at the Lourdes fireworks factory in the Ta’ Qadi area of Naxxar, near Salina, shook nearby buildings and shattered windows. No people were killed. A nearby farmer and his son were injured. Political leaders offered sympathy and thanked first responders. The explosion soon appeared in international news.

Several animals were injured and killed in the blast, including race horses, and concerns were  raised over the contamination of food and feed.

Veronica Camilleri, who has resided in the area for over five decades, described the damage to her property to Amphora Media.

“Hinges and hooks flew off the doors, windows burst open, and anything on the windowsill was destroyed. My husband and I had minor scratches on our arms from the debris. We also had our boundary wall dislodged.”

“With every noise I hear now, I jump out of my skin. My husband, if he wakes up at night, can’t get back to sleep.”

She says she has filed a police report and started an insurance claim. Malta Today has reported that over 50 police reports of damage to livestock and property have been filed. The MaYA Foundation, which represents young farmers, has invited all affected farmers to reach out: “no one should feel that they have to face these challenges alone”.

This is not the first time the site has blown up. And in the years since the last explosion, the factory has been built partly without sanction, expanded with the regulator’s approval, and supported by public money to improve safety.

Who runs the factory?

Ghaqda Piroteknika 11 ta’ Frar San Gwann, a registered voluntary organisation, has declared that the factory in the Ta’ Qadi area is theirs.

Planning Authority filings indicate that it is built on government land and used by the San Gwann fireworks association. The Malta Pyrotechnic Association says farmers made the land available to fireworks enthusiasts in the 1980s.

Photos on the San Gwann association’s own Facebook page show men handling piles of explosives, both outdoors and indoors.

Planning Authority filings note a lack of nearby water hydrants, a gap that was predicted to make the work of first responders considerably harder.

Francis Xuereb is the president of the association, and the applicant on PA filings for the Ta’ Lourdes Factory. 

When asked, he told Amphora Media that he would not respond to questions regarding the incident. He said that neither he nor the fireworks association had responsibility over the land. He insisted he could not respond to questions when he was told his name was listed on the application. After the earlier explosion at the same factory, he told the media that everybody working with fireworks was duly licensed by the police.

In a statement following the explosion, the association claimed that, thanks to Our Mother of Lourdes, the firework technicians were unharmed. The association thanked emergency responders for their assistance.

2018: A Previous Explosion

The site has exploded before. In 2018, a blast destroyed part of the complex. At the time, Xuereb, as the Association’s President, said seven people were inside, two of whom suffered grievous injuries.

The factory had built unsanctioned structures, subject to PA fines. In June 2025, the Planning Authority approved the factory’s application to sanction building extensions, to build extra rooms and a water reservoir. The Building & Construction Authority validated the application’s declaration required for the works just last month.

For the application, the fireworks factory received a report from Fireworks Factory Complexes Policy Technical Committee, which instructed the factory to make sure that blast walls are kept empty, that an open shed is not used for fireworks manufacturing, and that vegetation on site and, when possible, in adjacent fields is cleared.

Supported by the government

The Lourdes fireworks factory was among those selected for the Arts Council Scheme to improve infrastructure and safety, allocating €5,000 per factory since 2018. The Arts Council’s annual report for 2021 shows that the association was allocated €5,000 for paving entryways and passages.

Asked whether it confirmed that security was improved, the Arts Council did not reply.

The factory was included among the Valletta 2018 locations.

“No one here is against fireworks, because they’re our tradition and they’re pretty,” says Veronica Camilleri, who has been living in the area before the fireworks factory was built and has suffered from the latest explosion. “But it is a dangerous – let’s call it – industry, so it has to be checked regularly, to see what they’re doing, how much they’re storing, how they’re storing it.”

What are fireworks manufacturers’ obligations?

By law, all individuals involved in the manufacture, storage, and discharge of fireworks must be trained and hold a licence from the police. For this, they must be recommended by a licensee, attend a course and pass an interview.

The police spokesperson did not reply when asked about the breakdown of licence holders allowed to work in this factory.

It is forbidden to manufacture fireworks without a licence. Only persons with specified types of licences are allowed to handle fireworks in factories, and a holder of the highest (A) licence category is in charge. Also, according to the law, any maintenance personnel must be authorised by the divisional police inspector responsible for the district and accompanied by the licensee of the fireworks factory. 
Regulations require that persons who discharge fireworks, which means setting them off insure their operations against a sum of €300,000, covering damage to third parties too. But manufacturing and storage are not mentioned.

Malta Pyrotechnic Association has appointed Global Insurance Brokers Limited to provide insurance for fireworks manufacturers. Commenting on the explosion, Global Insurance Brokers said this only covers transit and displays of fireworks during events. Malta Pyrotechnic Association did not reply to Amphora Media’s questions.

According to the law, in case of any breach of regulations, the Police Commissioner shall suspend the licence issued to the licensee, and/or any other person directly involved in the contravention. The police spokesperson declined to comment on the case while a magisterial inquiry and police investigations are ongoing.

But what shaped the vote itself? Which promises landed? And, with the campaigning over, which of them can realistically be delivered? This is a look back at the issues that drove the campaign and at the ones that barely featured.

Stability in the Economy & Energy 

Throughout the campaign, Prime Minister Robert Abela cast himself and his government as the experienced, trusted hands needed to steer the country through what he repeatedly called “global crises”; the reason, he said, that he had called a snap election in the first place. 

He worked to draw a sharp line between his own record and the relative inexperience of Alex Borg, who is still only 30 and less than a year into the Nationalist Party leadership.

Abela made repeated digs against Borg’s economic credentials in each national debate. This line was echoed among key Labour Party figures, including Finance Minister Clyde Caruana.

However, Borg’s performance, given the relative proximity to his ascending to the top of the PN, may concern the PL moving forward.

Malta has experienced strong economic growth. The European Commission’s spring forecast projects Malta’s economy to grow by 3.7% this year, the highest rate in the EU.

“The expansion is driven by robust domestic consumption and a thriving tourism sector, and is projected to moderate to 3.7% in 2026 and 3.6% in 2027 as external economic conditions become less favourable,” it reads.

Maltese households have been relatively shielded from the price shocks felt elsewhere. The prices of water, electricity, gas and fuel have held steady thanks to government intervention. 

Energy Support Measures – subsidies designed to shield households and businesses from rising global energy prices – are projected at €172 million for 2026, bringing the running total to €968 million by year’s end.

Abela was unmovable on keeping fuel subsidies, and pressed the claim that Borg and a Nationalist government would scrap them.

Yet the cost of living remains a real anxiety, and not every voter feels the much-cited economic boom is reaching them. At the end of March 2026, central government debt stood at €11.4 billion — €621.8 million higher than a year earlier. 

Labour’s headline pledge was a yearly “super bonus” for eligible workers, paid directly by the government. Beyond that, its offer leaned on expansion rather than reinvention: widening the first-time buyers’ scheme, lifting pensions and improving working conditions.

Borg and the PN pitched a different emphasis. Their economic case opened with tax cuts for SMEs and start-ups and the removal of inheritance tax, then widened to include an industrial strategy.

Borg also promised to cut public debt, subsidise long-term rentals for young couples and low-income earners, and match pensions to the cost of living.

The marquee idea, though, was an offshore fuel hub, and it became a campaign flashpoint. Abela attacked it repeatedly, at one point claiming, infamously, that it had first been pitched to him by a “contrabandist.”

On energy, the PN floated “aggressive” solar and wind subsidies and pilot projects for Gozo.

Traffic

Traffic consistently ranks among voters’ top concerns, and it is costly to leave it as is. 

According to Malta’s National Transport Master Plan, congestion costs the economy €770 million in 2025 and is projected to reach €917 million a year by 2030. That figure excludes environmental costs, CO₂ and other air pollutants, expected to add a further €195.4 million a year

In April 2026, days before the election was called, the government and Transport Minister Chris Bonett announced a revised €2.8 billion ‘La Valette’ light rail line, and Labour campaigned on it. 

Borg highlighted transport issues and championed his party’s mass transportation system, saying he was ready to resign if it failed. He regularly criticised the government for proposing a mass transport system but failing to deliver beyond the study stage.

Both parties avoid discouraging private car use. The PL has said it will keep subsidising fossil fuels, while the PN has hinted at reducing car dependence through changes to urban design and infrastructure to support alternatives.

Tourism, Population & Migration

This campaign was set against the backdrop of growing concerns about migration, overtourism, population, and a collapsing birth rate. 

Malta’s tourism numbers have more than doubled in a decade. The population has ballooned past 575,000. Absorbing that surge has eroded housing affordability, intensified development, stretched local capacity to manage waste and noise, and fed rising resident dissatisfaction. 

Yet despite concerns among residents, the issues did not form part of key campaign issues. Omar Rababah’s candidacy and questions about the development of a mosque drove the discussion.

The proposals on the table mostly addressed how to redistribute flows and revenue rather than curb low-cost tourism itself.

The Labour Party focused on giving councils direct revenue from outdoor dining permits and tourists’ eco-taxes, in addition to the incumbent administration’s reforms targeting short lets and hotels.

Both present incentives for family-friendly policies, but on migration, both focused on ramping up existing policies. 

The PN, on its part, presented a joint task force between the police and army on irregular migration and drug crimes, which was criticised by the PL.

The Environment

Environment and climate are regularly among the top 5 concerns for Maltese people and the 4th-highest concern for young people. Despite its booming economy, Malta lags behind most EU countries in key sustainable development metrics.

It was a focus of the election, but more on economic value and energy dependence.

The PL said it would reach a 25% renewable energy by 2030. Fourteen EU countries had already surpassed this target in 2024. It said it would also expand the shore-to-ship system, which, according to the latest data used by vessels 9% of the time.

It has pledged to continue the practice of hunting and reduce enforcement when offenders are caught committing environmental crime. The FKNK openly endorsed Gozo and Planning Minister Clint Camilleri, who is also responsible for the sector, during the election.

Subsidising fossil fuels has also received criticism.

The PN focused on investing in the green tech industry. But this push towards implementing legal safeguards against development on agricultural land, and an overhaul of planning policies and protection of ODZ.

It would also purchase private land in urban cores to create parks and gardens, introduce “aggressive” subsidies for solar and wind technology, and pilot projects for Gozo.

Like the PL, it said it would retain hunting and trapping despite court rulings.

Issues noticeably absent from the public debate:

Crime, Justice & Corruption

Malta is officially becoming safer. However, there is more domestic violence, drug-related, and environmental crime. Justice remains slow, and Malta continues to perform poorly on the EU’s justice scoreboard.

Corruption remains a significant issue. The Vitals case is ongoing, and several cabinet members resigned during the previous election amid major allegations. Roderick Galdes was even blocked from running.

However, Borg offered barely a whimper on the subject, choosing to focus on policy rather than on good governance issues. The PN had previously been accused of doing too little. It remains to be seen whether the party will ever commit to presenting major visions on both.

Equality, Education & Health

Malta’s changing economy and settlement patterns have affected different groups of the population unevenly. An equality and inclusion policy would help address gaps. However, it was among the weakest areas of the campaign.

Rarely a subject of political controversy, the education sector has seen several promises by both parliamentary parties. This is amid worrying trends: stagnating A-level attainment, disparities between state, church and independent schools, and gaps in women’s labour market attainment despite higher education.

On health, the PN made wide-ranging proposals, but as the campaign wore on, they seemed to be pushed further and further to the back. The Vitals case was referenced, but more for lost time and resources than for criminality. 

• Three-quarters of Maltese respondents say the government is not doing enough to tackle climate change.
• Environment and climate are regularly among the top 5 concerns for Maltese people and the 4th-highest concern for young people.
• 35% of people in Malta reported exposure to pollution in 2023 — the highest share in the EU.
• Between mid-2023 and mid-2024, Malta recorded the fastest-growing emissions in the EU. Malta has negotiated its 2030 emissions target down to 19% — less than half the EU’s 40% commitment.
• The government has set up the Climate Action Authority, but its impact remains negligible.
• Malta is the highest proportionate spender on fossil fuel subsidies in the EU, projected at €172 million in 2026.
• Effective protection of natural spaces and enforcement of environmental law are lacking.

Do voters actually care about the environment?

Yes – and consistently – if surveys are the measure to go by. EU-wide surveys put the environment and climate change among the top five concerns for Maltese people.

A 2022 Ernst & Young survey of Maltese found that 93% of young people believe the environment is getting worse. Nearly half of millennials and 40% of Gen Z see it as a major challenge. 

But what do people want? More greenery and less traffic, according to a 2024 survey of children and adolescents.

Maltese respondents say they are ready to sacrifice EU competitiveness to fight climate change, and half are ready to pay more for climate-friendly agricultural products. 

In a 2024 survey, when asked about climate adaptation priorities, two in five Maltese called for tree-lined streets or green spaces to cool urban areas. 

Failing to address the environment can have a devastating impact on Malta’s reputation and industries that rely on it. 

“If people come to the island and they think it’s dirty, full of rubbish and so on, they won’t come,” tourism researcher Marie Avellino told Amphora Media in our short-lets investigation.

How much does Malta spend on the environment? 

Before the last general election, the environment held its own dedicated ministerial portfolio. Since 2022, however, it has been folded into Miriam Dalli’s expansive super-ministry covering Energy, Environment, and Public Cleanliness.

The ministry commands one of the largest budgets in government, with projected annual expenditure of €470 million in 2026. 

The Ministry has also been the largest spender on direct orders and has maintained an uncompetitive public procurement system since Robert Abela became Prime Minister in 2020.

The United Equipment Co (UNEC) Ltd, part of Bonnici Group, was the top beneficiary, receiving over €32.2 million in direct orders for power generation, infrastructural works, industrial supplies, equipment procurement and more.

The Ministry’s single largest outlay is the Energy Support Measures – subsidies designed to shield households and businesses from rising global energy prices – projected at €172 million for 2026, following an actual spend of €183 million in 2024. 

In total, energy support measures will cost Malta €968 million by the end of the year.

Actual expenditure for 2022: €234,189,597
Actual expenditure for 2023: €227,178,199 
Actual expenditure for 2024: €183,200,785
Approved estimate for 2025: €152,000,000 
Estimate for 2026: €172,000,000

This is proportionately more than any other EU country spends and is, alone, one of the largest items in the entire government budget. The EU’s Council has urged the government to “wind down” the subsidies.

The second-largest expense is the Solid Waste Management Strategy at roughly €41 million, followed by €23 million allocated to the feed-in tariff, which compensates households for solar energy sold back to the grid.

On the purely environmental side, the largest line item is the Environment and Resources Authority, whose projected 2026 operating budget is €21.8 million – a notable drop from the €24.4 million spent the year before.

Is climate change treated as an emergency?

Officially, yes. Malta’s parliament unanimously declared a climate emergency in 2019. However, actions have been limited to the creation of the Climate Action Authority (CAA) in October 2024.

An Amphora Media fact-check uncovered that the CAA’s claims that “Malta [was] at the forefront of planning for climate change adaptation” lacked substance and were false. 

Despite its booming economy, Malta lags behind most EU countries in key sustainable development metrics. Meanwhile, commitments are unambitious: the EU has committed to a 40% emissions reduction by 2030, but Malta negotiated its commitment down to only 19%. 

Malta was absent from the Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels conference, where the so-called High Ambition Coalition convened to design measures to address climate change in the absence of UN-level consensus.

Malta is currently ranked 34th out of 63 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index, with the implementation of climate policies rated “poor”. 

Between mid-2023 and mid-2024, Malta recorded the fastest-growing emissions in the EU.  It should be noted that international aviation and maritime transport emissions, important in the Maltese economy, are excluded from calculations.

Flight intensity, cruise liner arrivals, and Malta’s maritime registry – and the pollution that comes with them – have also grown. Malta currently has the largest registry of superyachts in the world and a growing airline registry that includes Ryanair aircraft. Ryanair calls itself “Malta’s No. 1 Airline”.

Meanwhile, an Amphora Media’s investigation revealed that only one in 11 cruise ship calls plugged into shore-to-ship power despite its availability. 

Has Project Green actually greened Malta?

In response to environmental concerns, the government established  Project Green, which aims to protect nature and create accessible green spaces. 

As of October 2024, Project Green said it would be working on 118 projects within different localities. When asked by Amphora Media for a full list in April 2025, Project Green provided a list of 46 projects. 

This year, it has launched public consultation calls for public park works at Manoel Island, Fort Campbell and White Rocks.

Our 2025 analysis showed that a fifth of Project Green’s planning applications included car parks, while a majority of projects fell within the constituencies of Minister Miriam Dalli and Prime Minister Robert Abela.

Beyond that, the Maltese government also diverted nearly 12% of EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding to Project Green, with no clear benefits to farmers.

Is Malta becoming cleaner?

In 2023, more than a third of people (35%) in Malta reported exposure to pollution, grime, and other environmental problems. This is the highest share in the EU and nearly three times the EU average of 12%. According to the report, high-earning households were more affected than low-earning ones.

Malta still relies heavily on landfilling, while a proposed waste-to-energy incinerator remains what it has been since its announcement in 2017: a proposal. Concerns have also been raised over its potential effectiveness.

In 2024, Circular Economy Malta, a government agency, introduced a scheme to encourage shops to offer discounts or other benefits to users who bring their own containers. The agency claims that this initiative has successfully prevented the use of 63,524 single-use containers – 87% of them were detergent containers. The take-up in other sectors proved lagging.

Is the government protecting nature or hunters?

Hunting and trapping remain a hot-button issue for many Maltese. However, both the PL and the PN have often failed to take action against the practices, amid allegations that they are afraid to take on the 10,000-strong FKNK and risk losing votes.

Malta has been subject to infringement proceedings over bird trapping. Yet the government has regularly changed the rules to ensure that trappers are granted a scientific derogation to continue the practice. 

Our fact-check showed that trapping has not produced scientifically useful research. The government has still issued a €7,500 direct order to FKNK to carry out ‘scientific’ bird ringing (read more about direct orders).

Pledges for constitutional protection – either for hunters or the environment, as the PL and PN have done respectively – are non-enforceable in court, and penalties are mild, despite proposals from both the PN and PL.

Another Amphora Media fact-check showed that the government had not used cultural heritage tools for that purpose. Hobbies such as fireworks, hunting, trapping, and shooting have not been added to Malta’s inventory of intangible heritage.

PL’s 2022 electoral manifesto had something for nature and heritage lovers too: it promised “green networks” for ramblers, hikers and “all those who visit the Maltese countryside.”  It is not clear how a network would be defined.

Amphora Media spoke to Ingram Bondin, the president of Ramblers’ Association of Malta to check up on the status of the network.

“It’s not ready, by any means, and it was a very slow process,” he said, praising Ambjent Malta for maintaining existing trails but pointing out that there is no network to speak of.

“[To move forward] you have to identify the sites that you really want the public to visit, and you have to break some eggs. For example, we have very beautiful sites that are becoming inaccessible as large landowners buy up everything. So if you want to give the public access to some of the most beautiful sites in Malta, you will have to challenge this.”

Bondin says that there is a lot of appetite for walkable spaces as people want “to relieve themselves from the construction, and the general chaotic environment of the towns”.

Are Malta’s seas ignored in the environmental conversation?

The sea is arguably Malta’s only wilderness. The EU’s Biodiversity Strategy sets a target of protecting 30% of the EU’s seas, and members of Malta’s government say the country is protecting about a third of its waters. Does it mean that the target has been achieved?

Our fact-check showed that this was another misleading claim. 

Malta has indeed designated marine Natura 2000 sites. These are not nature reserves – human activities such as fishing and tourism are allowed, as long as protected species remain in good condition. But Malta has a vast marine territory, of which it protects only under 10%. 

Even some protected areas are criss-crossed by heavy vessel traffic, alongside pressures from fishing, pollution and water sports.

Manoel Island: was the promise fulfilled?

Malta’s government has re-acquired Manoel Island from MIDI in a €47.3 million deal, ahead of a €50 million bond repayment deadline in July 2026.

It was seen as a major win for activists, after a long-standing complaint seeking to rescind Manoel Island from the MIDI concession due to numerous breaches. 

MIDI had claimed to have lost 10 years due to archaeological excavations on the two sites included in the concession, including when cemeteries were found. However, Amphora Media’s fact-check showed that the delays were not entirely outside MIDI’s control.

The deal has come at a hefty price, paid for with taxpayers’ money.

Project Green has since launched a call for the public to submit ideas for Manoel Island, alongside two other sites. The page for this consultation is now a dead link, and no summary of responses has been published.

Meanwhile, the Planning Authority’s case officer recommended granting permission to Sharlon Pace on behalf of Gzira United Football Club to sanction illegal padel courts on the island.

What to watch for:

Among Amphora Media’s 16 published fact-checks, five concerned environmental topics. Many propaganda claims continue to circulate, incorrectly claiming that Malta is a “leader” in climate change policy while politicians promise more fossil fuel extraction and processing.

But while many voters may not be thinking about the grand scheme of climate change, there are issues closer to home: polluted air, waste, declining biodiversity and urban heat.

Are political parties going to admit that the current system is not failing to protect nature? Will anyone dare to name the actors accountable for it – developers, environmental crime perpetrators and polluters?

By Daiva Repečkaitė, Sabrina Zammit, Evy Coeckelbergs and Julian Bonnici

Over €1.15 billion has been distributed in direct orders under the Abela, Muscat and Gonzi administrations. Under Joseph Muscat, a single ministerial portfolio – Family – awarded €410.5 million in direct orders without a competitive tender. For Robert Abela’s government, the Environment & Energy Ministry has taken over, with €110 million.

A new Amphora Media, in collaboration with Transparency International, analysis of all the direct orders & tenders published between 2010 and 2025 reveals that the Family, Health, Environment, Education, and Home Affairs ministries are the most lucrative portfolios for contractors to accumulate millions without a competitive process. 

Top spenders of direct orders according to ministerial portfolios under the last three administrations:

*Gonzi-era figures are based on disclosed amounts for 2011–2013 only; 2010 records largely lacked stated amounts

N.B: In Malta, ministerial portfolios, government agencies and other independent entities change over time– they can be merged and split between government terms as well as during reshuffles.

To address challenges with direct comparison across different administrations, Amphora Media looked at the first keyword in each ministry’s name (like “Transport” or “Justice”) to categorise the “portfolio item”.  We then tracked how much these entities spent on direct orders over time. 

The analysis does not cover portfolios that were merged with larger ministries (for example, when tourism was merged with foreign affairs in 2024).

Which contractors accumulated the largest sums under the different portfolios?

The Family Ministry, under different administrations and iterations, is where some of the eyewatering large direct orders are issued. 

The largest beneficiary during the period was the JCL and MHC Consortium, which received €273.6 million for Management Services of the New Hospital/ Residence. This was the largest single direct order issued over the fifteen-year period.

Another 11 beneficiaries of direct orders in this portfolio made over a million in direct orders over the period:

Care Malta Ltd (almost €61.8 million), Primecare Ltd (€10.1 million), Support Services Ltd (€8.5 million), Caring First Ltd ( €5.8 million), Age Concern Company Ltd ( €5.6 million), Healthmark Care Services Ltd ( €5.1 million), Malta Health Care Caterers (almost €4.8 million), X-Clean Ltd (over €3.6 million), Archdiocese of Malta Homes for the Elderly (€over €2.5 million), Villa San Francesco (nearly €2 million), and Falbra Ltd (€1 million).

The Environment Ministry is also among the highest spenders on direct orders. 

The United Equipment Co (UNEC) Ltd, part of Bonnici Group, was the top beneficiary, receiving over €32.2 million in direct orders for power generation, infrastructural works, industrial supplies, equipment procurement and more. 

More recently, the Shift News revealed that the government issued a €120 million direct order to a consortium led by the Bonnici Brothers.

Bonnici Bros Services was separately awarded early €3.5 million across direct orders for works on a shooting range under the Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation Ministry. 

It was flagged by the National Audit Office for flawed management and weak internal controls,  including deficiencies in documentation and procurement record-keeping.. 

The official explanation was that the shooting range works were fast-tracked to ensure completion in time to host an international sporting event. In response to the unfavourable NAO conclusions, the government insisted it was still “proud” of whoever worked on the project.

Within the Environment Ministry, Ozo Malta received the second most, with €9.6 million in a single direct order for the “supply of administrative/operational services” to Wasteserv.

The Health Ministry is another major distributor of direct orders. Drugsales Ltd was the top beneficiary, with over €23.5 million in direct orders for various medical supplies and equipment.

Technoline, which has been accused of money laundering in connection with the Vitals hospital concession corruption case, is among the top 10 recipients of direct orders from the Health Ministry. Over the period, it received almost €4.7 million in direct orders for various hospital supplies.

The company was acquired by Ivan Vassallo with a loan from Vitals Global Healthcare. Prosecutors allege that Technoline Ltd was fraudulently acquired by Gateway Solutions Ltd using funds linked to the Vitals hospitals concession, allegedly structured through a loan arrangement. 

Investigators alleged that the company was “destined to be owned by former chief of staff Keith Schembri and ex-minister Konrad Mizzi, among others”, according to court reporting. 

In 2024, the court upheld an asset freeze against the company. Technoline received direct orders worth over € 226,000 from the Health Ministry post the asset freeze.

Technoline was also among the top contractors for the Agriculture Ministry, receiving over € 215,000 for animal health supplies. These were issued before the charges. 

In response to the findings, a lawyer representing Technoline wrote asking “to ensure that you differentiate between a direct order sic et simpliciter and a purchase order because of and as a result of, contractual obligations.” Procurement from Technoline was classified as direct orders in the government gazette

“My client is fully operational according to law and is administered by a Court-appointed administrator,” the lawyer representing Technoline explained, adding that the company’s representatives are not “ allowed to reply to any question put to them, which question might somehow directly or indirectly refer to, or be linked with, or referenced to the pending proceedings in Court.”

Beyond Technoline, Smart Care Pinto received more than €22 million in a single direct order for long-term care beds. Infrastructure Malta, a government agency, received direct orders worth over €7.7 million.

In Home Affairs, the largest beneficiary was GO, the telecommunications company.  Gold Guard Security is also among the top providers, with one direct order worth €1.3 million. Amphora Media has previously reported on the concentration of security contracts among several providers, Gold Guard Security being one of them.

The Ministry of Gozo, which added planning to its portfolio in 2024, also issued direct orders in the millions. 

Cassar Fuel was the top beneficiary, with €6.7 million, including a single direct order worth €2.5 million, an extension of a previous marine gas oil supply contract won by tender.

Manoel Island Yacht Yard, which is not part of MIDI’s Manoel Island concession, received €2.26 million for vessel servicing, among other purposes.

In the Transport portfolio, the largest beneficiary was Link-2018 JV (reportedly a consortium between V&C Contractors, Schembri Barbros and Schembri Holdings), which received almost €2.7 million direct order, in addition to the €28 million tender it was awarded.  

Direct orders were also awarded to Enemalta – €3.9 million in total.

The ministries did not comment.

Consultancies & IT Providers

When ranking suppliers by the amount received under each portfolio, the analysis showed that consultants, including IT providers, lawyers and others, were often the largest beneficiaries of direct orders.

Notably, Mifsud Bonnici Advocates made nearly €346,000 in direct orders for legal services between 2016 and 2022. Amphora Media has reported on how Aron Mifsud Bonnici’s tax evasion and money laundering charges were extinguished after he reached an out-of-court settlement under a new legal mechanism, while he continues to face separate charges in connection with the Vitals case

Asked about this, Aron Mifsud Bonnici replied, “My firm was not the authorities’ preferred choice. The longstanding and dominant pattern of direct procurement of legal services by Maltese public entities has always centred on larger, traditional commercial law firms, which have received direct instructions from government consistently across successive administrations — before, during, and after the period your questions reference. My firm’s engagements during that period represented a temporary broadening of the pool of firms instructed, not a displacement of the established pattern.”

“It is the norm, not the exception, for legal work involving specialist expertise or urgency,” he wrote, adding about the Vitals case that “A conflict of interest requires competing interests that compromise the integrity or independence of a decision or of a professional’s conduct. No such competing interests are identified. The question simply juxtaposes two separate and unrelated matters — the Vitals case and direct orders for legal services — and invites the reader to infer a connection. None exists, and none has been established in any forum.”

A breakdown of ministry spend in these areas is below:

• Finance Ministry: FTI Consulting, a US-headquartered company, emerged as the top supplier for the Ministry of Finance, with €3.4 million in direct orders. A direct order of over €2 million was also issued to Oliver Wyman, an American consultancy. Aside from foreign consultancies, the ministry and entities under it spent €1.2 million on Tal-Lira.
  
• Justice Ministry: Directed multi-million sums to Calamatta Cuschieri & Co, a financial advisory (including €3.2 million in a single direct order) and a number of security companies: Signal 8 Security, Kerber Security and G4S Community Services were among the top 20 beneficiaries.
  
• Culture Ministry: with €1.8 million in a single direct order, the top beneficiary was software supplier European Dynamics Consortium, a multinational company.
  
• Economy Ministry:
  • Gauff Consultants received €1.4 million in direct orders;
  • Wyzer Ltd – a software consultancy co-founded by the government’s AI taskforce member Abdalla Kablan, was contracted to provide services to Malta Business Registry for over €1.2 million.
    
• The Office of the Prime Minister: Exigy Ltd was the largest beneficiary, with nearly €1.2 million. Moreover, PTL Ltd received a single direct order worth €557,272.
  
• Agriculture Ministry: Loqus Services was the top beneficiary, receiving €773,135. Separately, Loqus Business Intelligence, not registered as a company on MBR but appearing as the group’s brand, received €137,875. The group provides IT services;
  
• Energy Ministry: This portfolio’s top contractor was Darttek, with €378,704.

• Tourism Ministry: Although most top-20 contractors are corporate, there is one individual name, Marika Micallef. She received a total of €105,000 in direct orders;
  
• Social inclusion/ equality Ministry: In 2021, KPMG received a €138,000 direct order in this policy area; Labour politician and activist Desiree Attard was contracted for over €49,000 via direct order to serve as legal advisor to the Human Rights and Integration Directorate..
  

The Public Works Ministry: Awarded JF Group, which provides staffing with over €128,000 in direct orders received over 2024.

In tendering by portfolio, over three-quarters of tenders are concentrated in the hands of the Department of Contracts, making comparison with the distribution of direct orders difficult. Infrastructure Malta is the runner-up with under 9% of tender volume.

Over the period spanning 2011-2025, construction work benefited from more spending than any other tendering area, with €1.6 billion. It was followed by medical equipment, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (over €724 million) and health and social work services (over €676 million).

The Government and the National Audit Office did not reply to the questions sent.

• Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the EU’s flagship funding stream for farms, mainly benefits road building, wineries, the poultry sector and Project Green in Malta;
• Project Green was the largest single beneficiary of the  €166 million fund, receiving €15.8 million, with no clear links to farming.
• Over €1.2 million went to Infrastructure Malta road-building projects.
• The authority claims it benefited over 308,508 persons from the ‘rural population’, which is more than half of Malta’s population, and dwarfs the number of registered farmers.
• Wine producers benefited from CAP’s basic income and environmental measures.
• Montekristo, which ran unsanctioned operations until 2025, also benefited.
• Farmers’ representatives have repeatedly voiced their needs: help acquiring land, reduced bureaucracy, and market access. “I had to drive around the island on the day of the deadline to find the right office,” farmer Cane Vella said about bureaucracy.
• At an average of over €201,000 per hectare, the purchase price of arable land in Malta is by far the highest in the EU, while rental rates are far below the EU average at €91 per hectare.
• CAP distribution is questioned not only in Malta; reporting from Italy shows that the selection process disadvantages small farmers who market products locally, even though small farms were historically dominant in Italy.

This investigation is part of Senza Segnale, a collaborative project. Together with Facta, Amphora Media reviewed who benefits the most from CAP and who is left out.

In Malta, most EU farm subsidies do not reach farmers. Data shows a large proportion went to roads and infrastructure investments. Wineries, the poultry sector and even Project Green scored big.

An analysis by Amphora Media of data published by fondi.eu and the Agriculture and Rural Payments Agency (ARPA) indicates that, since 2023, the majority of funds under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been captured by government bodies, while individual farmers have received a much smaller share.

“There is an office in Ta’ Qali with fifty farmers sitting half a day waiting,” farmer Cane Vella says of applying for a young farmer subsidy. “When you get inside, it’s very rushed.”

When the European Commission approved Malta’s CAP plan in 2022, Agriculture Minister Anton Refalo said that European Funds “will continue to assist all workers in this field.”

“The EU scheme is straightforward, but land registration is not,” Vella says. “There is no handbook.” Farmers’ representatives echoed the lack of coordination and strategic vision among government entities.

How does the EU fund Maltese farming?

The CAP is one of the 19 EU funding streams implemented by the government. It is financed through the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

In Malta, the Funds and Programmes Division within the Ministry for the European Funds oversees CAP funds as the managing authority. Applications and payments are processed by the ARPA. 

CAP goals include supporting farmers to help them “make a reasonable living”, sustainable management of natural resources, and keeping the rural economy “alive” by promoting jobs in farming, agri-food industries and associated sectors. 

Between 2023 and 2027, Malta will distribute a total of €166 million (EU funds and Maltese co-financing). 

Pillar 1: direct payments to farmers

Pillar 1 consists primarily of a direct income supplement for farmers to ensure their income stability and to recognise other benefits, including their role in caring for the countryside. This is entirely EU-funded.

Across the EU, nearly two-thirds of CAP funds are paid out this way. Between 2023 and 2027, nearly €43 million has been allocated to these direct payments in Malta.

Basic income support is evenly distributed, with the top 10 recipients sharing around 2% of the pot. The largest beneficiaries, Meridiana and Marsovin wineries, received over €26,500 between them.

Pillar 2: rural development and investments

In Malta, the first pillar is dwarfed by Pillar 2, which funds rural development measures including infrastructure, training schemes, and other investments.

Here, unlike Pillar 1, national governments co-finance and select projects under a national programme.

In Malta, EU funding for Pillar 2 is set at nearly €100 million for the funding period (around €76 million in EU funds and more than €41 million in national contribution).

Malta’s Government is the Major Winner

The published list of Pillar 2-funded projects shows that government bodies were the substantial beneficiaries of CAP funds:

• Around €40 million in EU funding, or 65% of allocated Pillar 2 funds, went to the central government.
• If entities like the Public Abattoir and the University of Malta, a public university, are included, the public sector’s share rises to nearly €42 million in EU funding, or 68% of Pillar 2.
• In contrast, farmers were collectively allocated almost €14 million in EU funds from this (rural development) pot. 

ARPA’s data shows that in 2023-2024, public sector entities accounted for the largest share of total funds disbursed.

The Ministry for Gozo and Planning received funding from three measures, the largest payment being for Investments in physical assets – over €986,000.

‘Local’ Funds for Project Green

The largest share of EU rural development funds went to support region-based local action groups, which together were allocated over €20 million to projects worth around €25 million.

Project Green, a centralised government agency, was the single largest CAP beneficiary, receiving €15.8 million, more than any individual local action group, which received some €1.4 million each, despite guidelines stating it is intended for non-profit local action groups.

Project Green’s CAP funds have been used to clean up Wied Għajn Riħana, remove illegally dumped waste, and support ‘afforestation’.

Project Green and ARPA did not respond to questions.

Read more about the workings of Project Green

Water Upgrades: Useful, But Not for All

The second-largest chunk of EU funds, €14.8 million, went to Water Services Corporation (WSC) for “Upgrading The Production Capacity of Reclaimed Water in Gozo and Malta North”.

In 2024, WSC distributed 1.5 million cubic meters of New Water: 0.35 million in Gozo, 0.77 million in Mellieha, and 0.37 million in Marsaskala. WSC reports that more than 1,800 registered users of the water supply

“The issue is that it is very unreliable. Sometimes there’s water, sometimes there’s no water,” Malcolm Borg of Għaqda Bdiewa Attivi, a farmers’ organisation, told Amphora Media.

“Not all farmers get this new water,” he continued. “This is causing a bit of unfair competition.”

In an interview with TVM, a farmer who lacked access to recycled water said he spent at least €4,000 per year irrigating his land.

A farm map by Friends of the Earth Malta shows a high number of farms in Rabat (Malta), Attard, Zebbug (Malta), and other areas that are not covered by New Water dispensers.

The Western district, for example, had the largest number of agricultural holdings (as of 2020), yet it is not served by recycled water.

In a government consultation, one part-time farmer wrote that a recycled water connection he applied for “never worked” and remained out of service for nearly a year.

Road building takes over a million euros in CAP

Published data show that Infrastructure Malta was allocated over €1.2 million to “improve accessibility to farmland”.

For 2023, ARPA reported that 308,508 persons benefited from this as part of the “rural population”. This is more than half of Malta’s population, and far surpasses the number of registered farmers.

“Farmers sometimes complain that their road is not [great], but it is very low on the priority list of farmers,” Malcom Borg told Amphora Media.

“Agricultural fields are being used for recreational purposes – those people want good vehicle access to rural areas,” he claimed.

“Improvement in rural roads was an investment that was long overdue. But there are other pressing matters that need more attention and are not necessarily solved through funding, but through more organised public administration,” comments Jeanette Borg, who has founded and runs the Malta Youth in Agriculture Foundation for young farmers.

The organisation she leads has been active in policy dialogue.

In October, it brought together farmers, students, and tech industry representatives to develop ideas for tackling land access and water resilience, among other issues.

One of the key discussions centred around the question “Why are farmers often forced to choose short-term survival over long-term investments such as training and marketing?”

“We’re an arid country. It’s getting worse, so I would prioritise building reservoirs and research about pest control,” Jeanette Borg said. “Farmers face many stumbling blocks by the Planning Authority in building reservoirs, and we do not even have a national lab that can test for pesticide residues.”

Borg also co-authored a study on young farmers. It showed that the main challenges they identified were resources, market issues, and a lack of assistance from authorities.

She is adamant that Malta must fix its food production system before trying to entice young people to become farmers.

The Malta Food Agency and the Ministry for Gozo and Planning emerged among other top CAP Pillar 2 beneficiaries, as did AgriConnect, an advisory service for farmers.

Emanuel Ciappara, a chicken-farm operator, was the only farmer to make the list of top 10 beneficiaries of Pillar 2 schemes.

“My clients are already benefitting from the funding received through the latest machinery and innovations in the poultry sector and are currently enlarging the production capacity to meet the demand for local poultry that is a staple for a healthy diet,” a lawyer representing Ciappara said in response to Amphora’s questions about the grant awarded.

CAP funding is at odds with farmers’ needs

Farmers’ representatives say the most urgently needed interventions are elsewhere. Unaffordable land, overexploited aquifers, competition and complicated bureaucracy are acute pressures.

Unaffordable Land:

Eurostat shows that, at over €201,000 per hectare on average, the purchase price of arable land in Malta is by far the highest in the EU, although renting land is well below the EU average and cheaper than in most countries, at €91 per hectare.

“In Malta, one of the smallest countries in the world, land comes at a premium, and access to land is very limited. So if you have a new farmer, it’s almost impossible to enter the sector because they don’t have access to land and water,” Malcolm Borg says.

Bureaucracy:

“I’m afraid that the applications are very complicated, and most farmers would not have the knowledge of how to fill these in,” Jeanette Borg told Amphora Media.

“There are two major departments or entities that are stumbling blocks: the Lands Authority and Planning Authority.”

Approximately half of the total declared land and of used agrarian land is rented from the government and, according to Malcolm Borg, “is managed disastrously”.

Jeanette Borg agrees. “The Lands [Authority] is not organised, and whenever farmers go to change the tenureship, it’s a nightmare,” she told Amphora.

“I had to drive around the island on the day of the deadline to find the right office,” farmer Cane Vella remembers about his experience applying for a subsidy.

Lands Authority and the Ministry for European Funds and the Implementation of the Electoral Programme did not reply to Amphora’s questions.

Local farmers face significant competition from foreign exports:

Malta relies heavily on agri-food imports from other EU countries, exporting very little. Its agri-food trade with non-EU countries, including the UK, is more balanced.

Malta buys at least €155.6 million worth of agricultural produce from Italy, its top importer of animal and vegetable products, accounting for nearly a quarter of all imports.

However, research by Facta, our partners in this investigation, shows that small Italian farms struggle equally with access to land and credit, as the CAP system favours economies of scale.

Small and local Italian farms also disproportionately suffer from ‘informatisation’ of agriculture – having to submit indicators to relevant authorities for monitoring, Italian wine researcher Alessandra Biondi Bartolini told Facta.

“Those operating in disadvantaged or remote areas often lack a reliable internet connection, which becomes a major obstacle: these are people who have to get off the tractor and go into an office, and time is scarce,” she explained. Facta also notes that farmers cannot apply for subsidies directly – they must use consultants, who take a cut.

Read our partners’ stories in Italian: by Facta and by IRPI Media

How are the subsidies reaching farmers?

Large farm projects (worth over €30,000) accounted for the third-largest share of EU CAP funds in Malta, benefiting 104 farmers, with average projects below €120,000.

A €1.95 million scheme supported 393 farmers with small on-farm investments, averaging €4,961 each, for equipment and upgrades.

To apply for support, farmers must show they can cover the remaining 40% of costs, either with their own funds or a bank loan.

Ensuring that expenses are eligible is a challenge, says Cane Vella, as farm expenses are diverse and sometimes unexpected.

“Engine failures. Implements breaking. Pump failures. Rats eating pipes. Hailstorm destroying crops. These are just a few common occurrences,” he lists these unexpected costs.

“Farmers say: Don’t make orders before the subsidy is in your bank account,” he says.

Who benefits most: private operators and CAP funding

The list of private individuals benefiting from subsidies is published without identifiers, making their areas of activity difficult to verify.

Among the largest 2023-2024 beneficiaries that applied as legal persons were:

When asked to explain why an event caterer and a communications company received agricultural subsidies, ARPA promised to respond. Weeks later, its reply was still not ready.

Animal products get a strong focus in CAP

The choice of which sectors CAP supports has received international criticism.

“The CAP has always favoured intensive agricultural species like cereals, corn, etc, along with livestock. It has never been a tool in favour of maintaining small multifunctional farms, nor of the agro-ecological transition,” says Italian agronomist Riccardo Bocci.

In terms of production value at basic prices, vegetables and horticulture (growing garden plants) in Malta account for by far the highest share, a third (33%) of all output value. They are followed by milk (20%), eggs (12%) and poultry (10%).

Jeanette Borg and colleagues’ study found a strong interest in fruit and vegetable farming among young farmers: a third of those surveyed grow fruit and vegetables, although many also raise cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs.

Malta’s CAP subsidies show a strong focus on animal products.

This is not unique to Malta and has been criticised by four major environmental networks in a joint report, where they argued against the use of CAP funds for “on measures that encourage large-scale unsustainable farming”, notably livestock, across the EU.

Chicken farmer Emanuel Ciappara is the private farmer to be allocated more than €1 million in CAP funds during the current financing period. He is also the largest beneficiary of the Maltese CAP’s “On-Farm Productive Investments”. 

His project, an “Investment in new state-of-the-art broiler production facilities and ancillary machinery”, is estimated to cost over €2 million out of an indicative budget of €10 million for this measure.

A lawyer representing Ciappara and his companies said he is “a self-employed poultry breeder and he personally operates a poultry farm, breeding poultry, in his own personal name, separately and distinctly from [a separate beneficiary] C & K Ciappara & Sons Limited” – the funds received are “to upgrade and expand his poultry breeding operations”.

The dairy sector is considered to be strategically important to Malta, maintaining stable milk production since Malta joined the EU despite the number of raw milk suppliers shrinking in half between 2003 and 2019. 

Malta Dairy Products, the owner of the Benna brand and a ‘quasi-monopoly’ of fresh milk, was allocated over €450,000 in EU subsidies during the current period.

Data provided by ARPA shows that over the current period, 223 eligible applications from dairy farms, 226 from sheep farms, 85 from beef farms and 29 under a livestock measure were received.

Wines benefit from CAP’s environmental measures

Vineyards are the largest recipients of funds and measures designed to pay farmers directly for environmentally beneficial practices, a part of CAP’s focus.

According to ARPA’s data for the current funding period, no farmer applied under the biodegradable mulch measure, only eight applied under the biodiversity scheme, 124 applied under the integrated pest management scheme, and 11 applied under the organic farming scheme.

Montekristo benefits from CAP despite irregularities

One of the largest recipients is Montekristo Vineyards Ltd, established in 2003, and owned and run by Carmel (known as Charles) and Paul Polidano. 

Montekristo received agricultural subsidies in 2023 and 2024, after the Planning Authority had issued enforcement notices for illegal building in an agricultural area on this site, which also features a concrete plant and a batching plant.

Charles Polidano’s 2009 and 2010 applications to sanction Montekristo’s family park, including an illegal zoo and an extension of its winery, in Siggiewi, were approved by the Planning Authority in July 2025 despite pending court cases concerning the site.

Wine making on the site can be traced to 2005, when the group obtained permission to convert a pig farm into a winery and vineyard, and later to expand it. However, case files indicate that the area used for winemaking was to be limited.

Today, Montekristo is identified as one of Malta’s main wine producers. In 2014, the Times of Malta reported that it had already received agricultural subsidies intended for farmers in disadvantaged areas. 

Montekristo group did not respond to repeated attempts to reach it for comment.

What the people wanted

The latest EU regulation on CAP acknowledges that “Member States should have the option to design a specific intervention for small farmers replacing the other direct payments interventions”.

Yet, international NGOs have noted that “the EU’s CAP has largely failed several of its objectives. It failed farmers, who continue to leave the sector en masse and are hit by one crisis after another. It also failed to address environmental issues, and in some cases even exacerbated them”.

A survey among Maltese residents found that nearly all consider agriculture important for the future, yet an overwhelming majority would sacrifice EU agriculture’s competitiveness to fight climate change.

Nearly a third — more than the EU average — hold farmers responsible for protecting the environment, and half are ready to pay more for climate-friendly products.

Against this backdrop of criticism, public concern and policy reform, the debate over CAP’s future remains far from settled. While many farmers continue to struggle financially, expectations of the sector — particularly on climate and environmental protection — are only increasing.

“Farmers are living in economic poverty, but are rich in other ways,” Cane Vella concludes.

This investigation is part of Senza Segnale, a collaborative project that reconnects news deserts in the Mediterranean.

Senza Segnale is a project by Amphora Media and IrpiMedia, in collaboration with Fada, Facta, Indip, Infonodes, Centro di Giornalismo Permanente, in cooperation with the Allianz Foundation.

Giulia Bonelli (Facta) contributed reporting. Rui Baros contributed data scraping.

From hunting and fireworks to village feasts, many Maltese pastimes depend on open spaces. In the wake of the opposition Nationalist Party’s (PN) voted-down attempt to enshrine the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, Prime Minister Robert Abela pledged constitutional safeguards for traditional hobbies, portraying his party as their only “guarantee.”

The debate has pitted environmental protection against the preservation of tradition. But is that really the case? And has “constitutional protection” become a buzzword that means little in practice?

On 12th October, Prime Minister Robert Abela promised constitutional protections for traditional hobbies and said that the Labour Party is the only guarantee for amateurs and hobbyists. 

He did so in reaction to the opposition’s motion to enshrine a right to a clean and sustainable environment as a constitutional right.

Abela told the Times of Malta that this proposal was “contrary to what others tried to do, who attempted to take away that protection and deprive [hobbyists] of their pastime.”

Abela also said that he would offer constitutional safeguards to ‘all traditions’, including hunting and trapping during a limited season.

“We know the challenges hunting and trapping face locally and in Europe. But traditions like fireworks, feasts, and sports, sometimes taken for granted,” are now at risk, Labour Party MEP Alex Agius Saliba said.

“Will this give me, as a citizen, the right to play hopscotch out in the streets, as we used to in the past?” Birdlife Malta’s Darryl Grima told the Malta Independent.

A green paper published by the government after the PN’s the proposal claimed “Safeguarding the environment is a national priority” and that “the country’s commitment to environmental protection is demonstrated through a robust framework of constitutional provisions and international legal agreements.”

According to reports, Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms Rebecca Buttigieg claimed on national TV that the environment as a human right was already in the constitution, which is not the case.

The government’s proposal and protection of tradition:

Malta’s government is yet to present a bill regarding the constitutional protection of hobbies.

In its 2022 electoral manifesto, the PL had a section on recreation and hobbies. It made promises for caravan, camping and picnic enthusiasts, and promised green networks for ramblers, hikers and all those who visit the Maltese countryside.” It also mentioned amateur fishing and promised safeguarding “equal and equitable” hunting and trapping in line with EU directives.

However, several safeguards are already available.

Malta has ratified UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. “Intangible cultural heritage” can refer to social practices, rituals and festive events, and the signatory countries are committed to “take the necessary measures to ensure the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory”. 

Malta’s Cultural Heritage Act defines cultural heritage as including “intangible cultural assets comprising arts, traditions, customs and skills employed in the performing arts, in applied arts and in crafts and other intangible assets which have a historical, artistic or ethnographic value”.

According to this law, “every citizen of Malta as well as every person present in Malta shall have the duty of protecting the cultural heritage as well as the right to benefit from this cultural heritage through learning and enjoyment.”

The state, in turn, “shall have the duty of establishing and maintaining administrative and regulatory structures of superintendence so as to ensure that this heritage is protected and conserved”.

Malta’s inventory of intangible heritage includes the traditional village feast, falconry, sea salt harvesting and other practices, but not fireworks, hunting, trapping and shooting.

Malta had the option to sign the Council of Europe’s Faro Convention, which defines cultural heritage and demands that “exercise of the right to cultural heritage may be subject only to those restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the public interest and the rights and freedoms of others.” But it did not sign it.

It is unclear how the constitutional protection would address challenges of high population density and fragmented land.

Speaking at a Labour Party event, Lucas Micallef, president of the National Association of Hunters and Trappers (FKNK), said, “If we do not have a natural environment to go to, if we do not have rural spaces, we cannot practice what we love so much.”

What’s happened abroad?

Specifically on hunting, different legal traditions exist in Europe. Polish academics have noted that falconry, for example, is “is considered to be a form of intangible heritage manifested in knowledge and practices regarding nature and the universe”, but English fox hunting with dogs is not and has been banned. 

“The heritage cultivated by hunters should not be reduced to some open-air folk museum. It should be a living element valuable for the cultural cohesion of local communities, their connections and sensitivity to the natural environment,” the authors argued.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand legally recognise traditional native hunting and fishing, but their criminal systems impose “burden of proof of traditional practice as a defence”.

In 2013, Spain adopted a law to enshrine bullfighting as a heritage practice – the law is still in force despite a petition for the “No Es Mi Cultura” campaign to remove the protections gathering over 700,000 signatures, according to the campaign organisers.

The law establishes that the government must guarantee Spaniards the right to practise bullfighting freely, subject to applicable regulations. Bulls used for fighting, as well as hunting dogs, are excluded under the 2023 national animal welfare law.

PN’s proposal

PN’s bill, presented by Darren Carabott, was debated in two parliamentary sessions. It aimed to add the environment among rights to ‘enjoy’ alongside property and the protection of the law. 

“All persons in Malta shall have the right to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment,” the proposed article read.

It specified that “a person bringing such an action shall not be required to show any personal interest” when pursuing contravening actions.

The Opposition’s proposal had courted significant criticism from the government and lobbyists, some of which were tabled in parliament. These included The National Band Clubs Association, The Malta Maritime Forum, FKNK, The Malta Shooting Sport Federation, and the football association. 

Kaċċaturi San Ubertu, another hunters’ organisation, voiced its support for making the protection of the environment constitutionally enforceable, but added that “if environmental rights are to be recognised in the Constitution, then the same consideration should be given to the incorporation of the right to practice traditional and regulated hunting and trapping.”

The opposition’s proposal was shot down in Parliament with 32 votes in favour, and 40 against. PL MPs all voted against the proposal.

A right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment was promised in PN’s 2023 guidelines. The proposed bill defined environment as including “the social conditions, aesthetic coherence and cultural attributes”. 

On hobbies, the PN’s electoral manifesto singled out “festivals, celebrations, and other manifestations”, and promised to “take all the necessary decisions not only to prevent these habits from being lost but to strengthen them.” It did not mention hunting and trapping.

Legal protections of the environment

Currently, Malta’s constitution states that “the State shall protect and conserve the environment and its resources for the benefit of the present and future generations and shall take measures to address any form of environmental degradation in Malta” in Declaration of principles, which are not enforceable in court.

In comparison:

• The Spanish constitution contains the clause that “Everyone has the right to enjoy an environment suitable for personal development”;
• The Greek constitution enshrines a right to a natural environment;
• The Portuguese constitution protects the right to a “healthy and ecologically balanced human living environment”;
• The Slovak constitution establishes that “Everyone has the right to a favourable environment” and “No one may endanger, or damage the environment, natural resources, and the cultural heritage beyond the extent laid down by law”.

In a 2022 resolution, the UN’s General Assembly recognised “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right”.

Malta has the Environment Protection Act. It stipulates that “It shall be the duty of every person and entity, whether public or private, to protect the environment” and “It shall be the duty of the Government to protect the environment for the benefit of the present and future generations”. Those provisions are not enforceable in court.

The Crimes against the Environment Act lists several offences that include radiation, pollution, and the destruction or trading in protected species.

If the crime does not harm humans, the punishment is set at “imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine (multa) not exceeding one thousand euro.”

The government’s green paper acknowledges that “evolving challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and pressures on natural resources demand further strengthening of existing laws” and that “Responsible execution also entails collaboration with citizens, businesses, and eNGOs so that compliance becomes part of a shared culture of environmental responsibility.” It does not mention courts, police or environmental crime.

Is the constitution an effective safeguard?

When Malta joined the European Union, the European Union Act gave EU law supremacy over Maltese law. It specifies that any Maltese law conflicting with Malta’s EU obligations or with rights derived from EU law is “without effect and unenforceable.” 

EU Law vs Malta’s Constitution 

For Malta, bird trapping is a clear instance where traditional hobbies clash with EU law.

According to the jurisprudence of the Maltese Constitutional Court, a law that breaches EU law is contrary to the Constitution. Last year, the Court of Justice ruled that the bird trapping derogation is in breach of EU law.

If a right to traditional hobbies were added to the constitution, but the practice of those hobbies clashed with EU law, the constitutional ambiguity would have to be either anticipated and addressed in legislation or resolved in case law, potentially inundating the Constitutional Court.

Implementation

Meanwhile, there are regular concerns over the applicability of constitutional court decisions in Malta to actual legislation.

The constitution contains Chapter II, in which “The provisions […] shall not be enforceable in any court, but […] it shall be the aim of the State to apply these principles in making laws.”

In its latest rule of law report, the European Commission highlighted that it is “up to Parliament to repeal or amend laws found unconstitutional”.

This means that “unconstitutional laws remain valid until Parliament repeals them”.

If any national or EU law were to conflict with constitutional provisions, even a Constitutional Court ruling in one case would not mean that the uncertainty would be resolved for all similar cases, because “judgments of the Constitutional Court lack universal applicability.”

As is the case in human rights cases, or even old rent laws, constitutional redress is not an effective remedy in Malta, and judgments of the Constitutional Court lack universal applicability.
Carabott’s bill addresses these limitations by prescribing direct court intervention.

Malta’s constitutional and legislative framework means that rulings by the Constitutional Court lack universal applicability. This weakens constitutional protection, whether for hobbies, traditional practices, or the environment.

For example, although the Constitution already contains environmental provisions, key laws remain weak and often preclude effective litigation.

Alarmist claims that stronger environmental protections in the Constitution would spell the end of traditional hobbies are difficult to justify, as are the claims that hobbies can only be protected by the Constitution.

Malta has failed to use existing tools to protect certain hobbies as intangible cultural heritage, the way it has done with village feasts and falconry. Nor has it signed the relevant Council of Europe convention requiring that restrictions on traditional practices be properly justified.

Ultimately, politicians’ assertions that constitutional safeguards are the only guarantee for hobbyists are misleading.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

Malta’s 2025 trapping season is now open.This year, the government has relaxed rules on scientific bird ringing, removing references to EURING, the coordinating body of bird ringing schemes. The state insists the trapping effort is for research despite the EU Court of Justice ruling that Malta failed to prove a lack of alternatives.

The government’s decision has split both sides of the trapping debate: the National Association of Hunters and Trappers (FKNK), the leading hunting and trapping association, Kaċċaturi San Ubertu (KSU), a smaller NGO, and conservation NGOs.

“This historic step opens a new chapter in our country’s approach to bird conservation and research,” FKNK said.

KSU’s secretary Adrian Cauchi emphasised that no formal ringing course exists in Europe, and all ringers must ultimately be allowed to operate by the government. 

“I cannot do the [training to become a ringer] with Birdlife, because Birdlife is with EURING. EURING is not giving us a way out because it wants to abolish the traditional methods,” he told Amphora Media.

For Birdlife Malta, this “ill-conceived plan is destined to fail. Scientific bird ringing is only credible when carried out within the EURING network, the only recognised European framework for bird ringing. Any attempt to operate outside this network will produce meaningless data and expose Malta to further ridicule and sanctions.”

Trapping continues to court controversy, but the question is: Is trapping in Malta really all for research?

Malta’s government began declaring research derogations for trapping in 2020.  Maltese law allows “under strictly supervised conditions and in a selective manner, a research derogation to obtain scientific data on Malta’s reference population of the seven finch species”. 

The legal notice argues that “ornithologists  and  licensed  bird-ringers  have  been unsuccessful  in  collecting […] the required  data  to  meet  the  stated  objective  of  the  Finches Research  Project,” which is:

“Where do finches that migrate over Malta during post-nuptial (autumn) migration come from?”

Police spot-checks within each region are promised to be daily.

The Wild Birds Regulation Unit (WBRU), under the Ministry of Gozo and Planning, explained in 2021 that trappers can “control”, or temporarily capture, the seven finch species, “determine which are fitted with a ring”, and immediately release them.

“Once data saturation has been reached for all seven finch species, the research project will terminate in its entirety,” WBRU said in 2023. The government considers that “data saturation may be reached at a threshold of 60 ring recoveries per species”.

The Ministry for Gozo has claimed it is “the least intrusive course of action to gather quality data on the provenance of migratory finches.”

“This initiative is generating robust information, including a significant increase in foreign ring recoveries through the clap-net system, which in some species has even surpassed existing information. In five years of such research, the information collected from ring recoveries exceeded 100 years of ring recoveries by BirdLife Malta. This information is essential for calculating the populations of these bird species,” the ministry said in a press release.

FKNK has argued that the derogation combines “deep socio-cultural traditions with scientific research” and that banning the practice risks “the potential for stagnation in the field of ornithological research”. Its president thanked the government for allowing the ‘continuity’ of the practice.

In 2024, FKNK published a series of claims regarding the research project and EURING, the European coordinators of bird ringing schemes. These included:

• Trappers’ nets are more effective than ringers’;
• Each bird is screened for a scientific ring; 
• “EURING and the local monopoly of bird-ringing made it challenging to persuade impartial candidates (…) to endorse the Project.”
• “Throughout the open hunting and trapping seasons, the Maltese islands are effectively under police control.”

Conservation NGOs have a different view. 

“Trapping is an unsustainable method of hunting which causes damage to wildlife and habitats,” Birdlife Malta has said, adding elsewhere that the traditional trapping method destroys natural habitats, harms non-target wildlife, and fuels illegal wildlife trade.

“In a last-ditch attempt to justify this discredited scheme, Minister for Hunting and Trapping Clint Camilleri, supported by Minister for the Environment Miriam Dalli, has enacted amendments to the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations that would significantly dilute the standards for scientific bird ringing,” the NGO said.

The NGO Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) claims that, “Many bird trappers did not comply with the law even before the final finch trapping ban and either laid out their nets in spring or used electronic decoy callers. (…) Police controls are rare, and court decisions against the few convicted bird trappers are usually at the bottom of the penalty line”.

Timeline of events:

1st May 2004: Malta joins the EU. The EU’s legislation on wild bird conservation became binding, but Malta is allowed to phase out finch trapping and replace it with a captive breeding programme.

2008: Arrangement expires. 

2009-2013: Trapping is prohibited in Malta.

2013: FKNK submits a request to reopen trapping season following the change of government.

2014: Government reopens trapping season in autumn.

2018: The European Court of Justice issued the first ruling on Malta’s finch trapping practice. In its ruling, it said that the government did not prove that no alternative solution exists and that insufficient evidence meant arguments that trapping affects a small number of birds could not be substantiated.

2020: Malta’s government started declaring research derogations for trapping. 

2024: EU court issues ruling on research derogation, finding that Malta’s authorities did not prove a lack of viable alternative, and “there is no mention of other standard scientific means of research in the ornithological field”

2025: Legal notice 251 removes a requirement for rings to only be obtained from bird ringing schemes approved by EURING. Trappers now allowed to use live decoys.

The European Commission’s infringement case against the research derogation remains active. The Commission has sent a letter of formal notice for failing to comply with the judgement. The Commission may decide to refer Malta back to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a request to impose financial sanctions. The Commission’s spokesperson said, “The Commission is assessing the available information before deciding on next steps”.

Does the derogation follow a research methodology?

Official bird ringers, under the EURING umbrella, ring finches in the countries where they breed. The WBRU argues that the birds are not followed as they migrate, and the Maltese “research project is what renders the effort invested by bird-ringers in other countries to ring finches worthwhile”.

To participate in the scheme, trappers must check for scientific rings, a process called ‘control’. 

Participating trappers are “instructed and examined on the procedure”, and captured finches are “immediately released unharmed back into the wild”, “including those that are “not fitted with a scientific ring or satellite-tag”.

In Malta, bird ringing was previously carried out by Birdlife Malta, the only partner of EURING. The legal notice now allows licensing & ringing from any “qualified trainer who is part of a bird ringing scheme”.

In a December 2024 statement, EURING said that the Maltese trapping research project “is unlikely to provide useful scientific data on a reasonable timescale, and that the poor-quality data being gathered does not meet acceptable scientific or ethical standards.” 

“The intensity of finch trapping that is being undertaken is likely to have major impacts on bird movements and behaviour, and is therefore not compatible with studying the natural movement patterns of these species,” it continued.

Nicholas Galea heads Birdlife’s EURING-approved ringing scheme in Malta, with 29 licensed ringers on the islands. According to the government’s 2023 report to the European Commission, Birdlife ringed 20,847 birds in 2023. 

“We are not against research, but we are against the use of research as a disguise,” he told Amphora Media, confirming that in previous seasons he verified the trappers’ information on ringed birds after it is passed to him.

“Data is always data, and information is information,” he said, adding that this does not mean he approves of the capturing method.

Amphora Media spoke to Kaċċaturi San Ubertu’s (KSU) secretary Adrian Cauchi. KSU “practices a policy of zero tolerance towards any hunting illegalities and vets all of its members prior to acceptance.”

“I would have expected EURING to jump on the possibility be there, supervise, offer their expertise and influence, as much as possible, to the legislator to carry out the best activities for the birds,” Cauchi said, adding “why not involve trappers if you really want to convert them, if you really want to ensure that you know exactly what they’re doing, why not get them under your umbrella rather than push them as far away as possible?”

In previous seasons, Birdlife declined government requests for ringers to accompany the trapping scheme, citing the disparity in numbers between trappers and ringers.

“With 10 trappers and ringers, it’s fine. (…) But [the government] always wants 4,000 trappers and one or two ringers, which means the others will always do what they want,” Galea said.

Amphora Media also spoke to Mark-Anthony Falzon, the former chairman of the Ornis Committee (2014-2017), an advisory board made up of hunters, trappers, conservationists and government appointees.  In 2014, Falzon abstained from the vote on allowing the trapping derogation but defended the position. However, he is critical of the research derogation.

“To do research, you need researchers. (…) Trappers are not scientists. They are not trained in any scientific method. Bird ringers are not scientists either (…) but they follow the scientific method tightly regulated by EURING,” he said.

“For a trapper to release what they have just caught is unthinkable. It’s like winning the lottery and tearing up your ticket. (…) Some of these birds are highly prized.”

Have the trappers produced quality data?

A Wild Birds Regulation Unit’s 2024 report states that 4,105 General Licences for Live-Capturing of birds were issued. 

In addition to collecting research forms filled by trappers, the WBRU commissioned surveys of migratory finches by two scientists with marine ecology specialisations.

One of the objectives was “to correlate migration data gathered through the present survey with bag data for the relevant species, should any live-capturing derogations or research derogation be applied during the autumn season of the contracted years.”

However, the authors said “the two sets were collected for different purposes, using very different methodologies, and therefore the magnitude of values are not directly comparable” which is required for “robust and rigorous assessment”. 

For example, on some days, trappers caught over 200 common linnets and 50 common chaffinches. In contrast, staff at monitoring stations across Malta counted up to 10 common linnets and even fewer common chaffinches per day – sometimes none. 

Malta submits yearly derogation reports to the European Commission. This is what the trappers have found over the years, according to these reports.

Reports to the Commission reveal that across thousands of trapping sites, trappers “controlled” only 40 ringed finches, and a fifth of them had already been caught by bird ringers in Malta.

A comparison with the government contractor’s data, suggests trapping hundreds of finches has resulted in very few ring recoveries, including only one in 2022. Trappers also send reports on rings that EURING was unable to verify.

EURING’s data Amphora had access to shows that out of 64 ring records submitted between 2020 and 2024, 18 had flaws: unclear country of origin, untraceable ring number, unknown scheme, or suspicious bird properties.

Fourteen birds carried a Maltese ring, but in several cases, trappers incorrectly recorded ring numbers. Ten of the birds had already been confiscated from trappers and apparently re-trapped.

“You can’t have 4,000 trapper-ringers all active at the same time in such a small country, because the same birds will be caught and caught all over again causing too much disturbance and stress,” Galea said.

“It’s difficult to decipher what people submitted. Sometimes they catch birds with our rings, and I cannot conclude which one it is. And really, what they’ve been discovering is that they’ve discovered nothing new.” Before trapping was outlawed, Birdlife Malta had already collected and published data on finches from trappers.

A search on Google Scholar for the listed finch species, the mention of Malta and WBRU did not return ornithology or biology articles, except for one that was about ticks in birds and was co-authored by Nicholas Galea.

KSU has implemented turtle dove satellite tagging projects, which Cauchi cites as an example of how traditional trappers can be retrained and benefit research. “The trapper was happy. The traditional method was kept, and this study and the research part was kept as well.”

The Ministry of Gozo and Planning did not respond to Amphora’s questions, and neither did FKNK.

Has the research effort reduced illegal trapping?

One of the conditions of applicable European laws for issuing derogations is that the practice must be appropriately supervised. But enforcement resources have been gradually reduced over the years, Malta’s derogation reports to the European Commission reveal.

The number of officers dropped from a maximum of 64 to a maximum of 53 between 2020 and 2023; as has the number of vehicles from 15 to 9. 

The EU’s court found that “In the context of Malta, characterised by a very high density of licence holders […] the fact that merely 23% of hunters have been subject to individual checks seems inadequate”.

The Malta Ranger Unit has recorded alleged instances of illegal trapping of protected species, use of illegal devices, and trapping outside the permitted hours. In a recent case, illegalities reported by the MRU led to a conviction of a trapper and cancellation of his licence.

Camilla Appelgren, from the MRU, told Amphora Media that officers often lacked training and coordination. At the same time, trappers allegedly had extensive networks of CCTV cameras and spotters to monitor NGO and police presence.

“There are times we don’t have any environmental police, and the district police don’t take environmental cases, so there is no one to call,” she said. 

During the first days of the season MRU, Birdlife and police collaborated in an operation which led tthe o confiscation of illegally used equipment, including electronic bird callers, and unattended clap nets.

Gozo, meanwhile, presents a separate issue altogether. Data shows that contraventions are minimal compared to Malta. In 2023, there were 50 contraventions in Malta, compared to 12 in Gozo.

“With respect to hunting and trapping, it’s an open secret, really, that in Gozo, there is much less law enforcement, and police find it very hard to do their job,” Falzon added.

Galea and Appelgren warned that trappers inform each other of police presence, especially in Gozo”.

Enforcement Figures (Source: WBRU): 

On 16th October, a trapper from Mgarr, caught in September 2022, was sentenced and had his trapping licence revoked for three years, CABS said in a press release. CABS members went to court as witnesses.

Between 2014 and 2024, the NGO’s reports resulted in 298 prosecutions for trapping illegalities. Out of those, 187 trappers were convicted, and “thousands” of birds were seized”.

Cauchi of KSU disagrees that policing levels are low. “You’ll see the police every day, twice, three times a day,” he said. His view is that illegalities are decreasing, but evidence collection methods have improved, and more of them make it to court.

“We should let authorities work and one of the key objectives is to ensure that trappers become researchers in their entirety. These things require a generational change. [An octogenarian] is a difficult person to change. I’m the next generation. I’m a converted man. I would very happily, very happily give all my [hunting and trapping] licences and just do ringing.”

He suggests that, contrary to popular view, KSU, as a hunters’ and trappers’ organisation practices discipline and enforcement internally. 

“We don’t go and say these things on Facebook, but we do it in our own circles. The results speak for themselves in terms of targeting of protected species.” He would like to see court-mandated courses to rehabilitate perpetrators of illegal trapping.

Police spokesperson did not reply  to Amphora Media’s questions.

Is trapping environmentally sustainable?

Superimposing the map of 2024’s licensed trapping sites on the map of Natura 2000 sites, which is allowed in Malta, reveals significant overlaps. Trappers can catch birds along the entire protected Southwestern coast of Malta and Southern Gozo. Trapping sites next to bird sanctuaries can also be found.  The EU’s court criticised the decision.

Appelgren of MRU reports having observed cases where trappers clear vegetation, drastically reducing biodiversity at the sites they use. “It’s worse than hunting, they kill their land, and so that nothing will grow, and they keep them barren for the purpose of trapping birds,”she said.

In 2014, the FKNK acknowledged the use of agricultural pesticides but claimed this “can easily be reversed”.

Falzon doesn’t see a reason why Natura 2000 protection should exclude trapping. “So you have people fishing, you have people walking dogs and a million other things. Why not trapping?”

Asked about the matter, the European Commission’s spokesperson said that “The Commission has no information on the practice in question.”

Falzon warns that rampant development will likely spell the demise of the trapping hobby. “In the past there were trapping sites all over the place. Now there are far fewer” .

Cauchi of KSU believes that unsustainable agricultural practices threaten finches, and that there is scope for trappers and conservationists coming together to protect birds. “I’d be willing to sit down with another moderate individual, but I cannot sit down with someone whose idea is abolishing hunting and trapping,” he said.

The government’s claims to allow trapping as a scientific derogation are misleading. 

The research derogation has resulted in few ring recoveries and, despite hundreds of birds caught and dozens of rings recorded. Trappers’ data has not been cited in published scientific literature that could be found on Google Scholar. Many of the recovered rings belong to birds already caught in Malta. Trappers’ representatives consider that ringer’s refusal to cooperate explains it.

Police presence remains weak, especially in Gozo, while monitoring 4,000 trappers is a major logistical challenge. Many experts, including those in favour of trapping, said the derogation is a guise and that quality data is not being produced. However, KSU expressed willingness to shift its trapper members to ringers in the future.

Rather, as Mark Anthony Falzon puts it:

“[Trapping] is a practice that I think should be absolutely valued for what it is. Malta should make its case that this is a local practice that has value. This is why this deception is going to fail.”

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

• Cruise ships in Malta’s Grand Harbour connected to the onshore power supply system just 9% of the time in the first year
• Cruise vessel traffic and arrivals continue to rise annually, now at over 940,000 visitors, raising doubts about whether overall air pollution is actually decreasing compared to the years prior.
• Shorter stays saw higher OPS use: 19% of ships berthed for a day or less plugged in, while none of those docked for longer than two days did.
• MSC World Europa accounted for just over half of OPS connections, yet failed to plug in on several occasions.
• Carnival Corporation’s liners used the technology only 6 times out of 58 calls, despite contractual obligations and available equipment.
• The 45% of port arrivals occur at 7am or earlier, intensifying early-morning noise and air pollution in nearby communities.
• The Senglea air monitoring station — which tracked near- real-time particulate matter — was removed in October 2024, reducing both monitoring of a ‘crucial’ pollutant and transparency in air quality monitoring around the Grand Harbour.
• Local residents continue to raise health concerns, with the Southern Harbour region recording the highest asthma hospital discharge rate in Malta between 2017 and 2022.
• Costs, grid stability, and outdated ship technology as possible reasons for low OPS uptake.

After a year in service, Malta’s Onshore Power Supply (OPS) system was used by cruise ships just 9% of the time, according to an analysis by Amphora Media.

That translates to roughly five and a half minutes per hour for every cruise ship berthing in the Grand Harbour. 

Using publicly available data from the Valletta Cruise Port website and records on OPS (shore-to-ship) connections obtained from Transport Malta through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, Amphora Media was able to calculate the total percentage of time vessels plugged in between July 2024 – when the ship-to-shore system in the Grand Harbour kicked off – and July 2025. 

The data also shows that, as the number of cruise ships plugging into the OPS continues to gain momentum, the flow of cruise ships berthing in Malta’s Grand Harbour is also increasing annually.

The technology for cruise liners, launched by the government in 2024 and co-funded by the European Union, allows vessels to plug into the national power grid, instead of generating power from their own engines, slashing harmful pollutant emissions.

It was launched nine months prior to the EU setting a 2030 deadline for maritime ports to install onshore power supply infrastructure and for vessels to plug in.

Shore-to-ship promises to slash 90% of air pollution from berthed cruise ships in the Grand Harbour for roughly 17,000 people who live in the surrounding areas. 

Research by the organisation Transport & Environment shows that the shipping sector is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution.

It is estimated to be responsible for more than 250,000 premature deaths per year worldwide, from cancer and cardiovascular diseases alone. And while all ship types have an environmental and climate impact, air pollution from cruise ships is particularly worrying, Transport & Environment highlights.

OPS Was Not Used for Longer Stays

Within the one-year period analysed by Amphora Media – between July 10th 2024 and July 10th 2025 – there were 373 cruise ship berths in the Grand Harbour. Out of these, the vessels plugged into the shore-to-ship technology 67 times, and not always for the complete duration of the stay.

Out of the total number of vessels at the port (without calculating power supply usage):

• 312 were berthed for one day or less 
• 38 were berthed between one and two days
• 23 were berthed for between two to four days

Our analysis shows that cruise ships were more likely to plug into the onshore power supply when berthing for one day or less (19.6% compared to 16.2% and 0%). No cruise ships that were berthed for two to four days used the technology.

Shipping giant MSC, which co-owns Palumbo Malta Shipyard LTD, located within the same waters, plugged into Malta’s system over half (35) of the total 67 instances in which the system was used, with its MSC World Europa cruise ship. However, the same cruise ship did not plug into the OPS on another 16 occasions when it was berthed. 

Asked by Amphora Media why they would decide to plug-in on some occasions but not on others, the company did not reply.

Since signing a ‘‘shore power agreement’ with the Maltese government, Carnival Corporation’s cruise liners only made use of the technology 6 out of 58 times berthing in the Grand Harbour, even in the cases where the vessel has shown the capability to plug in.

For example, the cruise vessel Costa Fascinosa plugged into the OPS technology on 13th June 2025, however, it did not make use of the technology during its following three berths in the port between June and July. Similarly, Aida Diva plugged into the system on 1st April 2025 but not on 8th April 2025.

In a request for comment, Transport Malta explained that Carnival Corporation connected to the OPS infrastructure for “testing and commissioning purposes to obtain the necessary certification” as “Onshore Power Supply ready”, adding that “once this process is completed, the vessels will be able to use the system routinely.” Carnival Corporation echoed the same justification.

Transport Malta turned down Amphora Media’s request for a copy of the shore power agreement, citing “strict” confidentiality due to its “commercial nature”.

Number of Cruise Ships and Passengers in Grand Harbour on the Rise Again

Following a near-standstill of cruise ship activity during the COVID-19 year 2020, the number of cruise ships berthing in the Grand Harbour have been increasing annually, with the number of passengers hitting record figures in 2024 and registering quasi-pre-pandemic levels in terms of cruise vessel calls.

Valletta Cruise Port figures show 357 cruise liner calls in 2024. That’s up from 312 calls in 2023 and 283 in 2022, and slightly lower than the 372 calls logged in 2019.

Meanwhile, passenger numbers also hit new all-time highs: 940,915 in 2024, compared with 889,336 in 2023 and just 147,132 in 2021, and more than the 902,425 recorded in 2019.

This means that for overall air pollution in the area to decline, the emissions avoided through OPS must outweigh the added emissions from the rising number of berthed ships

The government celebrates this constant growth in cruise arrivals. However, residents in the area who are concerned about the impact fumes spewing out of the ships are having on their health do not share the same jovial tone.

For Alex, a resident who has been living in Floriana for over a decade, the growing presence of cruise ships has led to increased noise pollution and a growing concern about the impact this surge in numbers is having on his own health and that of the rest of the community. 

“Now they [cruise ships] come in at 5:30am in the morning,” he told Amphora Media. “Sometimes the whole building shakes … just to give you an idea of the impact”.

Data collected by Amphora Media indicates that 45% of port call arrivals occur at 7am or earlier, with the earliest port arrivals occurring at 4:30am.

Together with other residents, Alex started a Facebook group called ‘Clean Air for the Grand Harbour’, and since then has lent an ear to residents, who have noticed a decline in their respiratory health, among other concerns.

Figures can back up the reality of respiratory issues for residents surrounding the Grand Harbour. 

Data on asthma as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis from Mater Dei Hospital between 2017 and 2022, made available to Amphora Media, shows that on average, the Southern Harbour region – which includes Floriana, Valletta, The Three Cities, and other towns surrounding the Grand Harbour – was the district with the highest discharge rates.

The region experienced 1.18 diagnoses per 1000 people over the six years, followed by an average of 0.95 in the Northern district and 0.91 in the Northern Harbour district.

Infrastructure Malta, the agency overseeing the shift to OPS technology, had in fact stated in 2023 that “17,000 families residing around the Grand Harbour area” would benefit from cleaner air through the investment. 

The Environment Ministry did not reply to questions by Amphora Media on the matter.

The reasons not to use the OPS system today may vary.

Francisco Ferreira, President of the Portuguese NGO Zero, which closely monitors the development of OPS systems in Portugal, explained that vessels are not yet equipped with the technology or choose not to connect, as plugging in is often more expensive than running on their own fuel.

Transport Malta reiterated that before the 2030 obligation designated by the new EU law, “subject to the condition that vessels comply with emission requirements, connecting to the onshore power, at this stage, remains the prerogative of the shipping line.” According to Ferreira, one of the biggest challenges for cruise lines is retrofitting their fleets.

“In many cases, if you have an old ship, it’s better to scrap it than retrofit it. It’s better to buy or build a new one. (…) The problem we see in this industry is the very slow pace of transformation from the current fleet to one capable of connecting to onshore power supply.”

He also stressed the importance of competitive pricing for OPS. “If the cost difference is too high, retrofitting becomes more attractive to operators than continuing to rely on diesel while at berth,” he said.

The Transport Ministry did not reply to Amphora Media’s questions on the prices Malta has currently for the use of the OPS infrastructure.

Senglea Air Monitoring Station Removed, and Particulate Matter Monitoring Removed With It

As cruise ships in the Grand Harbour increase, and OPS technology use remains low, the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA)’s mobile air monitoring station in Senglea has been removed, along with its near-real-time monitoring data, which was available for the public to view online.

Questioned about the absence of the monitor, a spokesperson for ERA confirmed the removal to Amphora Media.

“The mobile station was intended to be located there for a specific period to collect enough samples to be able to perform a study on any impact shipping in the Grand Harbour may have on air quality,” the spokesperson said. “This monitoring exercise was completed and removed from Senglea at the end of October 2024.”

The air quality in the area is now only monitored through the passive diffusive tube network, meaning that as of October last year, residents surrounding the Grand Harbour do not have access to monitor air pollution in the area in real-time.  

The passive diffusion tube network monitors the Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Benzene levels around the island. The mobile monitoring stations, meanwhile, additionally calculate Particulate Matter (PM) levels and Ozone (O3) levels, among others. 

In a conversation with Amphora Media, BirdLife Malta’s Head of Conservation, Nicholas Barbara, explained that monitoring particulate matter is “crucial” for monitoring the impact of the air pollution on the health of people in the area, and there is no other way to monitor PM levels other than through live monitoring. 

BirdLife Malta has been one of the local NGOs at the forefront of advocating for clean air in the area.

“If they are going back to the diffuser only, they are not measuring the particulate matter at all.” he said. 

Barbara argued that the government should now be thinking of a more permanent setup to continue the monitoring efforts that were covered by the Senglea monitor, since “the cruise ship industry is not going to go [anywhere], for sure, in the coming years”.

By the time of publication, ERA did not reply to questions on the absence of monitoring particulate matter in the area and the Environment Ministry did not reply to questions about the decrease in monitoring in the area.

Potential Strain on National Grid Could Be Legitimate Reason Not to Connect to OPS Under New EU Law

Concerns about the stability of Malta’s national grid in relation to OPS technology have been raised since the introduction of the new system.

Last year, it made headlines after Prime Minister Robert Abela pointed to it as one of the reasons why the power grid was under pressure.

In July, the Nationalist Party also questioned the stability and reliability of the shore-to-ship power supply after alleging that cruise liners suffered power outages while connected to the national grid – allegations that Transport Malta and Enemalta denied. 

Under the new EU law, vessels will be allowed not to plug in to OPS systems in cases where they are “unable to connect to OPS because, exceptionally, the electrical grid stability is at risk, due to insufficient available shore-power to satisfy the ship’s required electrical power demand at berth.”

This investigation is part of Senza Segnale, a collaborative project that reconnects news deserts in the Mediterranean.

Senza Segnale is a project by Amphora Media and IrpiMedia; in collaboration with Fada, Facta, Indip, Infonodes, Centro di Giornalismo Permanente; in cooperation with the Allianz Foundation.

Environment Minister Miriam Dalli made the bold claim at an informal meeting of EU Environment Ministers in Aalborg this July, while discussing new EU measures and targets to curb pollution, policies that could prove both costly and unpopular at home.

Yet Malta’s energy policy has come under criticism from EU institutions. Council has urged the government to “wind down the emergency energy support measures”, which is estimated to be worth around 1% of Malta’s GDP on subsidising climate-harming fuels. In a meeting with social partners, Prime Minister Robert Abela promised to retain these subsidies in the 2026 budget.

According to the Commission, Malta maintains sizeable fossil-fuel subsidies without a planned phase-out before 2030. Many of these subsidies neither protect vulnerable households nor safeguard energy security, and hinder the shift to cleaner transport and industry.

Both narratives overlook one crucial factor: Malta’s environmental footprint extends beyond its coastline. Our impact extends outward through ships and planes, our waste and electricity, and all that we consume to keep the island running.

Against this backdrop, Dalli’s claim raises a key question: is Malta really such a small polluter?

Speaking in Aalborg, Minister Dalli said:

“To achieve [Climate neutrality by 2050] we need to have specific targets, but we want those targets to be fair, ensuring they follow the most cost-effective path. We want the national circumstances of different countries to be taken into consideration, particularly in our case, since we [Malta] are among the countries that pollute the least.”

“We need to make sure that what we are agreeing upon is being implemented and is realistic for countries, particularly for small countries like Malta, where our position is to keep insisting that Malta is the country with the lowest per capita pollution in the European Union. We are making every possible effort, but we do not want to place a burden on the people.” 

In 2023, more than a third of people (35%) in Malta reported exposure to pollution, grime, and other environmental problems. This is the highest share in the EU and nearly three times the EU average of 12%. High-earning households were even more affected than low-earning ones. However, the share was 40% in 2013.

When we look at domestic net greenhouse gas emissions per capita, Malta’s are indeed third-lowest, as of 2023. But this calculation has an important caveat: “emissions from international aviation and maritime transport are excluded”.

Counting emissions strictly within national boundaries fails to capture the total pollution generated by a country’s economy.

Many other EU economies emit greenhouse gases to produce the goods and services people need, such as food or household items.

Malta has the lowest share of agricultural production in its economy (alongside Luxembourg), the third-lowest share of manufacturing, and even the third-lowest share of construction.  That means, for all the added value generated in the Maltese consumer economy, the contribution of productive industries is minimal.

To account for this, the EU also calculates greenhouse gas footprint. Here, as of 2022 Malta ranks in the middle third of EU countries emissions per capita linked to consumption.

Malta’s invisible emissions: The sea and air

That’s not everything. Footprint calculations follow “the concepts and definitions of national accounts.” These accounts do not include international aviation and navigation (shipping). According to UN standards, these are reported separately and are not subject to the limitation and reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol . This has left governments with fewer incentives to reduce emissions in these sectors.

Malta’s tourism boom has seen an increase in aircraft travelling in and out of Malta.

The Malta International Airport reported nearly 59,000 aircraft movements in 2024, up from around 51,000 in 2023 and some 40,000 in 2022. The amount of cargo flown in also increased, with planes transporting almost 24,000 tonnes of cargo in 2024. As of April Malta’s aircraft registry has 929 planes and other aircraft types.

Meanwhile, Malta’s maritime registry grew by almost 10% in 2024, strengthening Malta’s position as the largest maritime registry in Europe and the sixth largest in the world.

Ships can register in any country, without having links to it. Shipping companies, which already enjoy VAT advantages, can register in low-tax jurisdictions and compete with more environmentally friendly means of transportation.

According to NSO’s latest data, there were 8,644 vessels under the Maltese flag as of 2022, with 797 new vessels added. Three-quarters of these new additions were pleasure yachts.

The government has announced that in the first quarter of 2025, the registry surpassed 10,000, and Malta has the largest registry of superyachts in the world. 

According to Eurostat (2023 data), with nearly 46,000 ships, Malta ranked 9th in the EU in terms of vessel arrivals. Meanwhile, data from Transport Malta shows that 779 vessels arrived in Malta with wheeled cargo, such as vehicles. Additionally, 470 ships transported crude oil, and 420 vessels carried cruise passengers.

In 2023, the European Federation for Transport and Environment, an advocacy group, published a study on the cruise industry and stated that “The sector still relies almost entirely on fossil fuels of the dirtiest kind, full of toxic substances including sulphur.”

In 2021, researchers at Indiana University estimated that a superyacht with a permanent crew, helicopter pad, submarines and pools is “by far the worst asset to own from an environmental standpoint”.

Oxfam’s 2024 analysis found that “an ultra-rich European on their yachts emits, on average, as much carbon as an ordinary European would in 585 years”. It shows that 22% of superyachts’ overall emissions are generated while moored, which means that Malta-flagged superyachts moored elsewhere would pollute another country while enjoying exemptions from EU carbon pricing.

A 2023 strategy document by the Transport Ministry aimed to “make Malta a jurisdiction of choice for the superyacht industry”, adding that “diligence must be exercised to ensure that coastal infrastructure and other activities associated with yachting do not cause pollution or deterioration of the coastal environment.” Words like ‘emissions’, ‘carbon’ and ‘greenhouse’ are never mentioned.

The EU has taken steps to account for the pollution from planes and ships within the bloc. Companies flying to and from the EU must obtain emissions allowances. Since last year, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has been extended to maritime transport (shipping) emissions. For now, 12 companies are assigned to report to Malta.

These changes mean that counting and reducing emissions is gradually becoming mandatory for ships and planes, through international frameworks that require reporting and impose reduction obligations— though these systems do not yet set absolute caps on total emissions. The rules on shipping are new and will be phased in gradually, so we will need to wait for statistics.

Malta’s waste overseas: Over 130,000 tonnes sent abroad for recycling

Waste is another item that Malta partly offloads to other countries. Its reliance on exporting waste for recycling (see our earlier reporting) makes it challenging to calculate what share of exported waste is actually recycled and what ends up burnt or landfilled abroad, generating emissions without satisfying consumer demand the way real recycling does.

According to 2023 NSO data, Malta sent around 130,000 tonnes of waste abroad for recycling and nearly 12,000 tonnes for energy recovery. 

Plugged In Abroad:  A third of Malta’s electricity is imported

Energy supply figures show that Malta’s dependence on energy imports increased between 2023 and 2024.

Last year, nearly a third of Enemalta’s supply came from the Malta-Sicily interconnector (less than a quarter in 2023).

About two-thirds of this import was generated by natural gas – a fossil fuel – and only 8% by renewables.

In absolute terms, the increase in electricity imports appears even more striking, rising from 648.36 GWh in 2023 to 970.42 GWh in 2024. Italy itself is a net importer – it imports energy for its own needs.

Through the interconnector, Malta can also export energy, but these exports dwindled between 2022 and 2024.

Minister Dalli refers to a “burden” in her comments after EU recommendations to stop subsidising fossil fuels.

In July, ARMS Ltd, an entity under Dalli’s ministry, circulated individual letters to households, saying, “The government is fulfilling its commitment to support families amidst the increase in international oil and energy prices, which support is resulting in continuous savings for you.”

According to the European Environment Agency, fossil fuel subsidies in 2023 in Malta represented the highest share of gross domestic product (GDP) among EU countries. Energy subsidies were the third-largest item in the Programmes and Initiatives category of the state budget, in the first half of 2025, after social security benefits and church schools.

A recommendation drafted by the European Commission was scathing: “In Malta, fossil-fuel subsidies – such as the ongoing support to Enemalta, subsidies for petroleum producers, and a reduction of excise duties on petrol and diesel – are economically inefficient and act as disincentives to the uptake of renewables and the decarbonisation of economic activities. Moreover, they represent a budgetary burden on Malta’s public finances.”

When considering domestic net greenhouse gas emissions per capita alone, Malta is indeed among the lowest polluters. However, it refuses to recognise the full picture.

In the context of climate change, it is relevant to consider the total demand generated by each country’s consumer economy, not only emissions within its national boundaries. 

When a country’s economy benefits from sectors not accounted for in the national emissions accounts, such as shipping, consumer products, and other services like electricity, it is essential to account for their emissions when examining the environmental impact of Malta’s economic activity. 

Given Malta’s consumption emissions place closer to the EU average, its wide shipping industry, growing air travel, and increasing external electricity production, Minister Dalli’s statement that Malta is among the least polluting countries in the EU is misleading, especially when considering that one in three people in Malta have reported exposure to pollution, the highest in the EU.

This is especially true in the context of measures to rein in climate change, which include phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

The EU’s Biodiversity Strategy contains a target of protecting 30% of the EU’s seas. Officials say that Malta is currently protecting about a third of its waters. International sources show much lower numbers, under 10%.

What’s behind the discrepancy?

In a recent statement at an international event, Environment Minister Miriam Dalli said that “Malta protects more than 30% of its maritime zone, through Natura 2000 sites, scientific monitoring, and a €2 million conservation programme.” 

The Environment & Resources Authority (ERA) also made claims in 2021 that it “designated over 35% of Malta’s waters as Marine Protected Areas.” Ambjent Malta, a government department, also cites the same figure.

In June, Alicia Bugeja Said, Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Animal Rights, referenced the over 30% figure of the Fisheries Management Zone as protected areas in a speech.

Meanwhile, the EU’s Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) states that only 5.5% of Malta’s marine waters are covered by protected areas.

The same figure appears on a dashboard managed by the EU’s Joint Research Centre. The UN Environment Programme’s Protected Planet website uses yet another figure: 7.83%. The same figure is used by the Marine Conservation Institute.

This major discrepancy can make it confusing to understand whether Malta is on track with its marine protection targets.

Although the government and international sources roughly agree on the size of Malta’s protected areas, they divide this figure by different reference areas. In mathematical terms, they use different denominators. The smaller the denominator (the territory by which the protected area’s size is divided), the larger the result of the division will be.

How does Malta protect its sea?

Marine territory can be protected under the Natura 2000 and/or national frameworks. The BISE website shows that the two largely overlap.

The designated territories aim to protect specific habitats and species. Natura 2000 sites are not nature reserves – human activities like fishing or tourism are allowed, as long as protected species remain in good condition.

Protection coverage of what, exactly?

In her recent statement, Minister Dalli quoted an audit that said that more than 30% of Malta’s ‘maritime zone’ is protected.

Both Ambjent Malta and ERA use the Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ) as the denominator.

The EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive defines a country’s marine waters as coastal waters and “waters, the seabed and subsoil on the seaward side of the baseline from which the extent of territorial waters is measured extending to the outmost reach of the area where a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights, in accordance with the Unclos [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]”.

This UN convention provides the following definitions:

• Territorial sea – up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, making it the smallest unit;
• Contiguous zone – up to 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured;
• Exclusive economic zone, adjacent to the territorial sea – up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

The convention further defines that in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has jurisdiction with regard to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

Malta’s environmental jurisdiction in this zone is confirmed by the Exclusive Economic Zone Act. The UN’s Protected Planet website, the Marine Conservation Institute and the Marine Regions website consider that Malta’s exclusive economic zone is just under 53,000 km², but EU websites state it is over 75,000km².  

ERA’s spokesperson questions the use of exclusive economic zone for these calculations. “The [EU-wide] assessments citing 5.5% follow a much broader definition of “marine waters”, which makes the extensive Maltese MPA [marine protected areas] network look far smaller in percentage terms,” the spokesperson explained in response to Amphora’s questions.

In a research paper, the University of Malta’s marine geologist Aaron Micallef has called Malta’s large continental shelf, which is the size of the exclusive economic zone, “Malta’s largest single natural resource”.

However, when it comes to calculating the extent of protection, he shares ERA’s view. “For the purpose of evaluating national protection targets under strategies like the EU Biodiversity Strategy or the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the FMZ-based denominator is likely more appropriate, because it reflects Malta’s actual capacity and legal mandate to implement conservation measures,” he said.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is a UN framework. It sets a target to “Conserve 30% of Land, Waters and Seas”. Here, countries submit their own targets, and Malta’s target reflects the language of Malta’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to 2030:

“By 2030, 30% of Maltese land and 30% of the Maltese Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ) are legally protected and form part of the comprehensive and ecologically representative National Ecological Network.”

In comparison, Croatia sets the target as “By 2030, protect 30% of marine areas under national jurisdiction.” The Spanish target mentions alignment with EU strategies and aims to protect 30% of the country’s marine surface. Italy speaks of “marine area under Italian jurisdiction” and France speaks of “maritime areas”.

Ireland, which also has a large marine area, has the lowest protection coverage in the EU, and Malta is third-worst performer.

What is the protected area?

Government sources state that the area of the “FMZ is approximately 11,480 km²”. Malta has managed this extended fisheries zone, measured at 25 nautical miles outwards, since 1971. This is larger than the contiguous zone, but much smaller than the exclusive economic zone.

Legislation allows the government to designate an exclusive economic zone that coincides with the continental shelf, which is of similar size to the area used by the EU.

An EU dashboard, which also uses the 5.5% protected area coverage figure, specifies that the figures are provided to the European Environmental Agency by member states. This suggests Malta must and does submit the larger reference figure when reporting progress towards the EU’s 30% target.

Why is the Fisheries Management Zone area used locally?

One clue comes from a 2024 strategy document, which states that “Most of the laws of Malta currently only apply up to the territorial waters and therefore it is necessary to extend the applicability of certain laws to exclusive economic zone areas or environment protection areas”.

“The 35% figure is misleading if it’s meant to represent Malta’s total marine jurisdiction. The fisheries management zone is only a part of Malta’s seas,” says Jacob Armstrong, ocean policy manager at the World Wildlife Fund for Nature’s European Policy Office. 

A spokesperson of the European Environmental Agency confirmed to Amphora Media that the area reported by Malta to the European Commission under various legal frameworks aimed at protecting Europe’s seas is indeed 75,715 km² – the largest of the figures used, which is up to “200 NM [nautical miles] from the coast,” the spokesperson explained, which confirms that Malta uses this figure for EU frameworks.

Data shows that some protected areas are criss-crossed by intensive vessel traffic, and environmental stress is likely despite protection. Protected habitats experience pressures from fishing, pollution and water sports activities. This is allowed in Natura 2000 sites, but must be monitored and managed.

Where Malta is free to choose the denominator, the extent of its marine protection coverage is correct. Malta uses FMZ coverage nationally and internationally, where it can formulate its own targets. However, this is somewhat arbitrary.

But for international accountability purposes,  Malta’s “over 30% protected seas” claim is misleading.

By international standards, the figure is under 10%, and we did not find another European Mediterranean country calculating its protection coverage with a fisheries management zone or contiguous zone (similar size) as a denominator.

The FMZ is slightly larger than the contiguous zone and much smaller than the exclusive economic zone. It is a large area in comparison to Malta’s land mass, but it is not the area to consider when tracking Malta’s progress towards EU targets.

Since this portion of the Mediterranean Sea is assigned to Malta, no other country will step in to ensure protection. If Malta does not step up, it will leave gaps in Mediterranean protection coverage.

Flaunting the “more than 30%” figure, when the EU target is 30%, makes it look like Malta has already exceeded its EU commitment. However, according to international standards for calculating protected area coverage, Malta is far from fulfilling its commitment.

In this context specifically, the use of this figure to claim that Malta protects a large part of its seas is misleading.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.