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 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.

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.

Still, that hasn’t stopped Malta’s politicians—whether in government or opposition—from making bold claims about their ability or intent to tackle the climate crisis, with Malta’s parliament even unanimously declaring a climate emergency in 2019. 

But have the words translated to long-term, sustained action? Our latest FATTI looks at the details. 

In a recent press release, the Climate Action Authority (CAA), launched in October 2024, said that “Malta [was] at the forefront of planning for climate change adaptation”.

The authority claimed that it was “the first of its kind in the European Union” and was working on an important plan, without providing any further details.

“In the coming weeks, meetings are also scheduled with social partners and civil society to create a realistic, inclusive, and feasible plan,” the statement continued before concluding:

“Malta is sending a clear message: climate resilience is a national priority.”

The Climate Action Authority (CAA) was launched with the promise of implementing a legal framework that would evaluate local policies related to climate-friendliness.

That year, the Climate Action Act was also adopted. It outlines the functions of the CAA, including the requirement “to ensure that all policy and legislation directly affecting climate change is reviewed in consultation with the Authority. The CAA can independently impose administrative penalties but not pass laws itself.

However, strategies and plans to address the climate crisis are not a new development. Malta adopted its first Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in 2012, while the Climate Act was introduced in 2015 and later reformed in 2024 to establish the CAA.

Malta, meanwhile, has agreed to the EU’s Green Deal. However, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana has said that he is sceptical of the ability of member states, including Malta, to reach said targets.

In its first report on climate policies, including CAA, the National Audit Office noted that “infrastructural and greening projects with adaptation-related benefits were generally not being supplemented with climate proofing assessments”. 

The Climate Action Act requires that within each ministry, the permanent secretary acts as a climate action coordinator and submits inputs to the CAA. However, this law does not establish emissions reduction targets.

The CAA has been assigned to implement the EU’s Emissions Trading System, which allocates emissions allowances to polluting companies, allowing them to trade on the carbon market, including through auctions.

Its performance according to the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is low. Malta is ranked 34th out of 63 countries, while the implementation of climate policies is considered “poor”.

The government’s own Research Innovation Unit agrees: “Malta’s slow progress can be attributed to a combination of economic factors, fragmented climate governance, and the underutilisation of the Research Innovation Unit (RIU)”. The unit’s expert insights have remained underused by the central government.

Meanwhile, the “ambitious” and “pioneering” solar and offshore wind plans described by  Minister Miriam Dalli and the Energy and Water Agency remain at the planning stage. A tender has been issued and is still open.

“While the government is congratulating itself on setting up a novel Climate Action Authority, we continue seeing inaction on climate change. A cross-sectoral authority on climate change is an excellent idea – but only if it has real power and the political will backing it, and has the mandate to assess and advise on proposed projects on the basis of their climate impacts,” Friends of the Earth Malta, an environmental organisation, wrote in a statement.

In the 2025 budget speech, the finance minister also promised “Carbon-free economy by 2050”, which is impossible as production and life itself create carbon emissions, so most policymakers use the term ‘carbon neutral’ instead to mean that the carbon emitted is balanced with the carbon absorbed.

Malta has made some progress in reducing emissions, largely due to the switch from fuel oil to liquified natural gas for energy generation and the construction of an electricity interconnector.

Still, between mid-2023 and mid-2024, Malta recorded the fastest-growing emissions in the EU. Growth has since slowed and is now below the EU average, but emissions are still rising.

Meanwhile, despite a temporary dip during the pandemic, transport emissions are growing substantially and are on track to overtake energy generation emissions.

The government has decided to replace the expansion of an electric bus fleet with providing more grants for individuals and companies to purchase electric vehicles. CAA did not reply to questions about whether it was consulted about this.

Waste also contributes significantly, and households continue to burn diesel and gas for heating and cooling.

Despite this, Malta remains somewhat unambitious in its climate commitments. While the EU has committed to a 40% emissions reduction by 2030 under the Effort Sharing Regulation, Malta negotiated a commitment to only 19%. The government considers even that too ambitious and wants to avoid it.

The RIU, the government’s research arm, says that “Malta’s current approach misses the potential of a bottom-up strategy, where local councils and specialised units like the RIU are empowered to act. Local councils, when provided with the right resources, could implement inter-alia: pedestrianisation initiatives, low-emission zones, and urban greening projects—addressing key issues like overdevelopment and car dependence.”

Malta has also committed to achieving only 10% share of renewable energy by 2020, but the expected renewable energy share in 2030 is below EU target. Malta’s share is the third-lowest in the EU, lagging behind Cyprus among others.

Malta’s latest strategy outlines measures like EV grants, more charging stations, shore-to-ship power, and free public transport.

However, it tracks investments and user numbers without measuring reductions in fossil-fuel use or car dependency. Experts told the CCPI that these initiatives often add to, rather than replace, fossil-fuelled trips.

Questions about how CAA spends the Climate Action Fund were ignored. Neither Transport ministry’s spokesperson nor permanent secretary Bjorn Callus did not reply to Amphora’s questions about any inputs exchanged with CAA on transport policy.

Contrary to political statements, Malta is a laggard, not a leader, in the climate transition, with unambitious goals and a lack of vision for transformation.

Amphora Media has not found any evidence that establishing the Climate Action Authority has introduced more ambition or more accountability in climate policymaking.

There is no proof that establishing a government entity or drafting more plans counts as “punching above its weight”, as its CEO claimed, or being at the “forefront”.

An analysis of policies in key areas confirms the National Audit Office’s insights that ownership, timeframes, monitoring and evaluation are lacking.

In other words, wishlists are abundant, but nobody takes on the task of assigning tasks and determining how their success will be measured.

Due to EU commitments and thanks to its funding, Malta is taking some moderate, unambitious steps towards reducing its impact on the climate, and there is no evidence that climate is treated as an emergency when it comes to concrete action.

In this context, political claims that Malta prioritises climate mitigation or leads the way are false.

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.