Stairway to excellence : country report: Malta.
Date: 2015-09-21
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, Malta, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, innovation, organisation of research, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, research and development, research policy, scientific research

Stairway to Excellence 
Country Report: Malta 

Author: Brian Warrington 

Editor: Mariana Chioncel 

2 0 1 5  

Please replace with an image illustrating your report 
and align it with the bottom edge of the cover. Make sure the 
blue JRC footer reaches the bottom of the page. Please remove 
this text box from your cover.  

Report EUR 27422 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 
Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies  

Contact information 
Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 
E-mail: JRC-IPTS-S2E@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954488318 
Fax: +34 954488300 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/institutes/ipts 

Legal Notice 
This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

All images © European Union 2015 

JRC97415 

EUR 27422 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-50848-6 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2788/137775 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

© European Union, 2015 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Abstract 

In the frame of the Stairway to Excellence project, complex country analysis was performed for the EU MS that joined the 
EU since 2004, with the objective to assess and corroborate all the qualitative and quantitative data in drawing 
national/regional FP7 participation patterns, understand the push–pull factors for FP7/H2020 participation and the factors 
affecting the capacity to absorb cohesion policy funds. This report articulates analysis on selected aspects and country-
tailored policy suggestions aiming to tackle the weaknesses identified in the analysis. 

The report complements the complex qualitative/ quantitative analysis performed by the IPTS/KfG/S2E team. In order to 
avoid duplication and cover all the elements required for a sound analysis, the report builds on analytical framework 
developed by IPTS. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 2 

1 

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 

2  Quality of the governance ................................................................................................................................ 8 

3 

Factors that support or limit participation in R&D calls funded by ESIF ............................... 13 

4  Push – pull factors for R&I performers to participate in FP7/H2020...................................... 18 

5  Policy instruments facilitating the participation in FP7 / H2020 / ESIF ................................. 22 

6 

7 

8 

Evaluation and monitoring mechanisms ................................................................................................ 24 

Enhancing or limiting the synergies? ........................................................................................................ 26 

Take-up of public sector research results ............................................................................................. 28 

9  Country tailored policy suggestions .......................................................................................................... 29 

10 

11 

Regional analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 31 

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................... 31 

References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Malta  is  the  smallest  EU  state  with  a  total  land  area  of  just  over  300  square  km.  In  2014  its 
population  stood  at  just  over  425,000  inhabitants,  equivalent  to  just  0.08%  of  the  EU  total 
population. GDP per capita in PPS was 86% of the EU average in 2014. 

R&D expenditure in Malta has seen a strong positive trend in recent years, but in spite of this stood 
at just 0.85% of GDP compared to an EU average of 2.01% in 2013,  

Recent years have seen a number of positive developments in the R&D landscape, with expenditure 
increasing from 0.53% of GDP in 2008 to 0.85% in 2013. In spite of this Malta still ranked twenty-
first in the EU in terms of R&D intensity in 2013, and is still far from reaching its target target of 
2% of GDP by 2020. The business enterprise sector is the largest R&D performer, accounting for 
54% of GERD  in 2013, followed  by the higher education sector at 36% of GERD. Malta has only 
one public university, the University  of Malta, which is the main research performer in the higher 
education sector and a key organisation in Malta in terms of research capacity. R&D expenditure by 
government and public research organisations is 9% of GERD and is one of the lowest in the EU. 
This is not surprising considering that Malta has only one public research organisation, the Malta 
Aquaculture  Research  Centre,  which  accounts  for  most  of  the  research  expenditure  in  the 
government sector. 

Malta  enjoys  a  simple  and  stable  R&I  governance  structure  centred  around  three  public  bodies 
having  well-defined  responsibilities  and  operating  at  a  national  level.  R&I  policy  is  guided  by  a 
multi-annual R&I strategy incorporating the national smart specialisation strategy developed on the 
basis  of  widespread  consultation  with  stakeholders.  A  detailed  R&I  action  plan  which  will 
complement  the  strategy  is  under  development  and  is  scheduled  for  completion  in  September 
2015.  

On  the  other  hand  political  championing  of  R&I  has  always  been  rather  weak  and  Malta  lacks  a 
parliamentary  sub-committee  or  similar  body  with  overarching  responsibility  for  R&I.  Although  a 
steering group and core group were established in 2014 with the main objective of drafting the R&I 
action plan, these do not have a formal mandate and do not fulfil the function of a high-level R&I 
coordination unit. 

ESIF governance is highly centralised with the Ministry for European Affairs being responsible for 
preparing  the  operational  programmes  (OPs)  and  for  managing  the  ESIF  programmes,  including 
responsibility for administrating the calls, evaluation of proposals and monitoring of progress. It is 
assisted in these functions by a number of ESIF Monitoring Committees.  

With reference to the ESIF evaluation procedure, a single  Project Selection Committee chaired by 
the  head  of  the  relevant  managing  authority  evaluates  all  proposals  related  to  a  particular 
programme,  and  in  the  case  of  ERDF  is  responsible  for  assessing  proposals  on  a  diversity  of 
themes ranging from R&I to environment to transport. Ad hoc experts may be invited to support the 
deliberations of the committee, but it is not clear how often this possibility is availed of. This setup 
can create a bottleneck and may occasionally lead to some delay in processing of proposals. The 
evaluation  process  follows  many  of  the  international  peer  review  principles  such  as  excellence, 
impartiality, confidentiality, and integrity. However, the programme regulations do not specify the 
composition of the selection committee or the qualifications necessary for eligibility to perform this 
role,  and the members  of  this  committee  are  appointed  directly by  the  Parliamentary  Cabinet.  In 
spite  of  these  shortcomings,  however,  beneficiaries  did  not  express  any  major  concerns  with  the 
evaluation process during interviews conducted as part of this study. One possible explanation for 
this is the high success rate of proposals. 

During  the  previous  programming  period  the  managing  authority  regularly  organised  information 
events in conjunction with each call to guide potential beneficiaries regarding the regulations and 
guidelines for submission of proposals. Preparation of project proposals was facilitated through the 

2 

 
 
possibility  of  charging  consultancy  costs  related  to  this  activity  to  the  project.  Beneficiaries 
interviewed  by  the  author  reported  that  proposal  preparation  was  relatively  straightforward  (for 
example, in comparison to the FP7 application procedure) and was not a cause for concern. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  beneficiaries interviewed  criticised the  high  administrative  workload in the 
implementation  of  the  project,  especially  in  relation  to  preparation  of  reimbursement  claims. 
Management  and  control  requirements  for  structural  funds  are  part  of  a  common  set  of  rules 
applicable  to  all  types  of  actions  for  all  sectors,  imposed  by  EU  and  national  rules.  In  some 
instances,  notably  in  the public  and  higher  education  sectors,  the  administrative  burden  could  be 
handled through the allocation of appropriate human resources. In the case of private industry and 
of  SMEs  in  particular,  however,  financial  constraints  and  the  lack  of  adequate  administrative 
capacity proved to be a major obstacle.  

Another common complaint voiced by beneficiaries was the lack of flexibility and the requirement 
to rigorously adhere to the original proposal during the project implementation. This is not always 
practical  given  the  duration  of  the  submission  and  implementation  process,  the  rapid  pace  of 
technological change, and the uncertainties associated with R&D work. While it is understandable 
that changes to the planned project activities cannot be undertaken at the project leader’s whim, it 
would  be  advantageous  to  have  a mechanism  whereby  changes  could  be made  following proper 
justification by the project leader and authorisation by the managing authority.  

During  the  previous  programming  period  (2006-2013)  a  significant  allocation  of  ERDF  and  ESF 
funding  was  used  to  provide  much-needed  resources  for  R&I  in  Malta.  Key  initiatives  included 
development of research infrastructure at the University of Malta (€17.6m), grant schemes for R&I 
in industry (€7.8m), national research infrastructure initiatives (part of total project cost of €20.0m) 
and  a  postgraduate  scholarship  scheme  which  also  funded  doctoral  studies  (€9.1m).  However, 
structural  funds  were  not  used  to  finance  academic  research  or  to  develop  Public  Research 
Organisations, despite a severe shortage of national funds in these areas. In general, there was a 
high level of complementarity between national and structural funding instruments with very little 
overlap in the various schemes.  

The  limited  availability  of  national  funding  resulted  in  a  high  level  of  stakeholder  interest  in 
utilisation  of  structural  funds  for  R&I,  and  all  available  funds  were  successfully  committed. 
Availability of co-financing did not present any problems since such funding was provided up front 
by the Ministry for Finance. 

During  the  previous  programming  period  no  real  attempts  were  made  at  policy  level  to  develop 
synergies between the various European and national  funding programmes.  SF, FP7 and national 
funding programmes operated completely independently of one another. Nevertheless, there were 
a  few  instances  where  synergies  did  develop,  where  different  sources  of  funding  were  used  by 
beneficiaries in loosely-coupled initiatives. An example of ‘upstream sequential combination’ can be 
found in the use of structural funds for capacity-building (e.g. developing University research labs, 
PhD  grants),  which  is  expected  to  improve  the  University’s  chances  of  participating  in  H2020  in 
coming  years.  Another  more  specific  example  of  the  ‘parallel  funding’  type  regards  the  Health 
Biotechnology  Laboratory  at  the  University  of  Malta,  where  ERDF  funding  was  utilised  for 
purchasing of gene-sequencing equipment while the University was also a partner in an FP7 project 
which  prepared  the  way  for  integrating  diverse  European  bio  banks  into  an  integrated  European 
federated system. 

The new programming period provides an opportunity for improving upon the previous one in the 
utilisation of ESIF funding for R&I. The Operational Programmes finalised in March 2015 mention 
the objective of developing synergies between different funding sources in the preamble, but fail to 
follow up such intentions with any concrete measures or metrics in later sections. The National R&I 
Strategy  2020  published  in  2014  also  makes  a  brief  reference  to  the  development  of  synergies 
between ESIF and other funding sources and proposes a few possible mechanisms to achieve this 
aim.  However  this  document  does  not  include  any  specific  lines  of  action,  and  any  planned 

3 

 
measures  will  only become  clear  once the  rolling  R&I  action plan  currently  under  development is 
finalised in September of 2015. 

Industry-academia collaboration and commercialisation of research have been a policy imperative 
since the development of the first Maltese national strategy for R&I in 2007. While there are no 
instruments specifically designed to promote uptake of public sector research results, there are a 
number  of  initiatives  which  do  support  this  activity.  The  Commercialisation  Voucher  Programme 
(part  of  the  FUSION  Programme)  which  was  introduced  in  2012  and  is  managed  by  the  MCST 
finances  a  suite  of  activities  related  to  commercialisation  of  research  results  including  market 
research, IP checks and patent applications. The programme is open to both academia and to the 
private  sector.  More  recently  the  TAKE-OFF  Seed  Fund  (introduced  in  2014)  managed  by  the 
University  of  Malta  provides  funding  for  early-stage  and  start-up  development  to  help  develop 
promising ideas into commercial products and services. This initiative has been a great success and 
after only one year of operation, beneficiaries had succeeded in raising €0.5m of external funding 
to finance their continued growth. While the Fund is open to innovative start-ups from both within 
and outside the University, it can also be leveraged for commercialisation of University research. It 
also  includes  a  ‘proof  of  concept’  award  restricted  to  academic  staff  to  assist  them  in 
commercialisation of research conducted at the University.  

The main conclusions of the report are as follows: 

1.  During  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  structural  funds  were  successfully  used    for 

R&I in amounts which exceeded national funding levels; 

2.  Structural  funds  were  used  primarily  for  developing  national 

infrastructure,  for 

infrastructure in academia, for promoting industry R&I and for HR capacity-building; 

3.  Structural  funds  were  not  used  for  funding  academic  research  or  public  sector  research, 

despite very limited national funding in these areas; 

4.  All  allocated  structural  funds  were  fully  taken  up,  indicating  that  there  are  no  issues  of 

absorption capacity; 

5.  During the previous programming period, no real attempt was made to develop synergies 
between  various  national  and  EU  funding  (structural  funds,  FP7,  national  funds).  A  small 
number of weak synergies developed spontaneously rather than as a result of any design 
or planning on the part of policy-makers.  

6.  With  reference  to  the  new  programming  period  2014-2020,  the  concept  of  synergy  is 
touched  upon and established as an objective in both the National  R&I  Strategy 2020 as 
well  as  in  the  Operational  Programmes.  However  the  documents  do  not  translate  this 
objective into any specific targets or concrete measures, and there is a real fear that that in 
the absence of such targets, these intentions will fall between the cracks.   

With  reference  to  the  new  programming  period  2014-2020,  the  following  recommendations  are 
being proposed with the objective of developing synergies between the various funding sources. 

1.  Establish  a  task  force  involving  the  three  key  policy-makers  (MCST,  Parliamentary 
Secretariat for EU Funds, Malta Enterprise) with the mandate to analyse and take decisions 
on what funding synergies can be developed in the short, medium and longer term. 

2.  The MCST should embed specific objectives and targets backed up by concrete measures 
for  developing  synergies  in  the  Action  Plan  supporting  the  National  R&I  Strategy  2020, 
while  the  Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds  should  do  the  same  in  the  ESIF 
Operational Programmes. 

4 

 
3.  Serious consideration should be given to developing a scheme for funding H2020 proposals 
which achieved high scores but did not get funded (alternative funding). This will have the 
additional benefit of encouraging participation in H2020, as well as reducing the workload 
of the local evaluation teams. 

4.  Assess the possibility of developing ESIF schemes for exploiting the results of previous FP7 

/ H2020 projects (downstream sequential combination). 

The report concludes with a number of recommendations having a broader context and a long-term 
perspective in order to address weaknesses in the existing R&I regime as follows: 

1.  The Parliamentary Secretariat for EU Funds should ensure proper involvement of relevant 

players in the ESIF OP development process. 

2.  The  Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds  together  with  the  MCST  should  explore  the 

possibility of utilising ESIF for funding academic R&I. 

3.  Due consideration should be  given to the utilisation of ESIF funding for developing public 
research  centres  such  as  the  Malta  Aquaculture  Research  Centre,  or  research  centres 
catering for Malta’s distinctive characteristics e.g. in agriculture, in construction;  

4.  Due consideration should be given to the utilisation of ESIF funds for developing centres of 

excellence in selected S&T areas. 

5.  The  Manufacturing  Research  Platform  pilot  project  undertaken  by  the  MCST  should  be 
followed up (most research in Malta relates to manufacturing) with similar projects leading 
to  increased  expertise,  improved  prospects  for  attracting  FDI,  increased  competitiveness 
and prospects for economic growth. 

6.  The Parliamentary Secretariat for EU Funds, if necessary in conjunction with the EC, should 
seriously  evaluate  the  possibility  of  relaxing  ESIF  administrative  controls  in  the  case  of 
smaller projects, for example those having a budget not exceeding €1m. 

7.  The local managing authority should endeavour to the maximum extent possible to reduce 
bureaucracy, allow more flexibility during project implementation, and focus monitoring on 
result achieved rather than on the process of getting there.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 

The  author  is  indebted  to  Mariana  Chioncel  from  JRC-IPTS  for  her  valuable  help  and  guidance 
during the preparation of this report. The contributions and comments from various policy-makers, 
programme managers, beneficiaries (academia, public sector and private sector) and DG-REGIO are 
also gratefully acknowledged.   

Disclaimer    

Copyright  of  this  document  belongs  to  the  European  Commission.  Neither  the  European 
Commission,  nor  any  person  acting  on  its  behalf,  may  be  held  responsible  for  the  use  of  the 
information  contained  in  this  document,  or  for  any  errors  which,  despite  careful  preparation  and 
checking,  may  appear.  The  report  does  not  represent  the  official  opinion  of  the  European 
Commission,  nor  that  of  the  national  authorities.  It  has  been  prepared  by  independent  external 
experts, who provide evidence based analysis of the national Research and Innovation system and 
policy.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION 

Background of Stairway to excellence project   

The European Commission Framework Programme (FP)  for research and technology development 
has  been  vital  in  the  development  of  European  knowledge  generation.  However,  there  is 
considerable disparity across EU countries and regions in terms of FP participation and innovation 
performance. 

Horizon  2020  will  continue  to  provide  funding  on  the  basis  of  excellence,  regardless  of 
geographical location. However, it will also introduce novel measures for "spreading excellence and 
widening participation" by targeting low Research & Innovation (R&I) performing countries  - most 
of whom are eligible for innovation funding under Cohesion Policy for the period 2014-2020. 

In  addition,  the  new  regulations  for  ESIF  aim  to  use  funds  more  effectively  to  build 
regional/national excellence and capacities. By doing so, the key funding sources (ESIF and Horizon 
2020) can complement one another along the entire innovation process. 

Objective of S2E 

The Stairway to Excellence (S2E) project is centred on the provision of support to enhance the value 
of  the  key  European  Union  (EU)  funding  sources  for  research,  development  and  innovation: 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  Horizon  2020  but  also  the  Competitiveness  of 
Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (COSME),  Erasmus+,  Creative  Europe, 
European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation ("EaSI") and the digital services 
part of the Connecting Europe Facility by actively promoting their combination.  The S2E project is 
funded  by  the  European  Parliament  and  entrusted  by  DG-REGIO  to  JRC-  IPTS  and  has  two  main 
objectives, namely: 
•  Providing of assistance to regions and countries that  joined the EU since 2004 in closing the 

innovation gap, in order to promote excellence in all regions and EU countries; 

•  Stimulating  the  early  and  effective  implementation  of  national  and  regional  Smart 

Specialisation Strategies. 

Main purpose of the document  

In  the  frame  of  the  project,  complex  country  analysis  is  performed  for  all  13  EU  MS  with  the 
objective  to  assess  and  corroborate  all  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  in  drawing 
national/regional  FP7 participation patterns, understand the push–pull factors for FP7 participation 
and  the  factors  affecting  the  capacity  to  absorb  cohesion  policy  funds.  This  report  articulates 
analysis  on  selected  aspects  and  country-tailored  policy  suggestions  aiming  to  tackle  the 
weaknesses identified in the analysis.  

The report complements the complex qualitative/ quantitative analysis performed the IPTS/KfG/S2E 
team.  In  order to  avoid  duplication  and  cover  all  the  elements  required  for  a  sound  analysis, the 
report builds on analytical framework developed by IPTS.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
2  QUALITY OF THE GOVERNANCE 

Introduction 

Malta  is  the  smallest  EU  state  with  a  total  land  area  of  just  over  300  square  km.  In  2014  its 
population was just over 425,000 inhabitants, equivalent to just 0.08% of the EU total population. 
GDP per capita in PPS was 86% of the EU average in 2014 (Eurostat, June 2015). 

R&I Governance 

The R&I governance system is centred around three public bodies all operating at a national level. 
These are: 

1.  Malta  Council  for  Science  and  Technology  (MCST)  (www.mcst.gov.mt).  This  is 
responsible for research and innovation  strategy and policy, and for managing the FUSION 
Programme which is the main R&I funding programme based on national funds. The MCST 
is  not  authorised  to  manage  funding  schemes  utilising  ESIF  funds.  It  was  the  national 
contact  organisation  for  the  EC  framework  programme  for many  years,  but  responsibility 
for this programme has now passed on to the Parliamentary Secretariat for EU Funds. The 
MCST is still performing a caretaker role until the Parliamentary Secretariat for EU Funds is 
able to take on this responsibility. The MCST has a workforce of about 35 individuals, and 
reports to the Parliamentary Secretary for Research, Innovation, Youth and Sport within the 
Ministry for Education and Employment. 

2.  Malta  Enterprise  (www.maltaenterprise.com).  This  is  the  national  development  agency 
and  is  responsible  for  the  growth  and  development  of  the  Maltese  business  sector.  It 
operates a number of schemes promoting R&I in the private sector, utilising both national 
and ESIF funds. Malta Enterprise has a workforce of about 250 individuals and falls under 
the responsibility of the Ministry for the Economy, Investment and Small Business. 

3.  Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds  (eufunds.gov.mt)  within  the  Ministry  for 
European Affairs and Implementation of the Electoral Manifesto (MEAIM) is responsible for 
management  of  all  EU  funding  programmes.  It  will  be  taking  over  as  national  contact 
organisation  for  the  Horizon2020  Programme  which  was  previously  the  responsibility  of 
the MCST. 

R&I policy is guided by a multi-annual R&I strategy (MCST, June 2014) incorporating the national 
smart  specialisation  strategy  which  was  developed  on  the  basis  of  widespread  consultation  with 
stakeholders.  A  detailed  action  plan  is  under  development  and  is  scheduled  for  completion  in 
September 2015.  

While both the Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) and Malta Enterprise possess the 
requisite  R&I  knowledge  within  their  workforce,  the  EU  Funding  units  depends  on  input  from 
external organisations for such expertise. 

The table below summarises the scope of responsibility of the three organisations. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Organisation 

Policy responsibility 

Administer 
national 
R&I funds 

Administer 
ESIF Funds 

Scope of 
responsibilit
y 

R&I 
expertise 

MCST 

National R&I Strategy / Smart 
Specialisation Strategy 

Malta Enterprise 

Develop R&I schemes for 
industry 

yes 

yes 

no 

all sectors 

yes 

yes 

industry 

yes 

Parliamentary 
Secretariat EU Funds 

ESIF operational programmes 

no 

yes 

all sectors 

no 

Table 2.1: Responsibilities of R&I governance bodies 

ESIF Governance 

ESIF governance is highly centralised within a single organisation operating at national  level. The 
Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds  is  responsible  for  preparing  the  operational  programmes 
(OPs)  and  for  managing  the  ESIF  programmes,  including  responsibility  for  issuing  of  calls, 
evaluation of proposals and monitoring of progress. It is assisted in its functions by four Monitoring 
Committees, one for each of the programmes ERDF/CF, ESF, EAFRD and EMFF. 

The Parliamentary Secretariat for EU Funds comprises of the following divisions: 

1.  The  Planning  and  Priorities  Coordination  Division  (PPCD),  which  is  the  Managing  Authority 

responsible for Structural and Cohesion Funds (ERDF/CF and ESF); 

2.  The  Funds  and  Programmes  Division  (FPD),  which  is  responsible  for  all  other  funds  and 
programmes  including  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF),  European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  EU  Territorial  Programmes,  EU 
Educational Programmes, etc. 

The  Operational  Programmes  (OPs)  for  the  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes  were  developed  by  the 
Ministry  for  European  Affairs  (MEAIM)  with  the  help  of  sectoral  sub-committees  and  with  the 
participation  of  relevant  policy-makers  and  stakeholders.  However,  interviews  conducted  by  the 
author with some of these policy-makers indicated that they were not totally satisfied with their 
level of involvement in the consultation exercise. While they were asked to provide input during the 
initial stages of the OP development process, their involvement in later stages was inadequate in 
view of their policy mandate.  

The  National  R&I  Strategy  and  complementary  action  plan  will  depend  heavily  on  the  ESIF 
programmes  as  sources  of  funding  for  proposed  activities.  Ideally,  the  action  plan  should  have 
been  developed  prior  to  or  in  parallel  with  the  OPs  in  order  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  coherence 
between these documents. Delays in the finalisation of the action plan may introduce constraints 
since R&I funding for different objectives has already been ring-fenced in the ESIF OPs. 

Synergies between FP7/H2020 and ESIF  

In previous years there were no measures or instruments aimed at developing synergies between 
FP7 and other EU funding programmes.  

9 

 
 
 
Looking towards the future, the National R&I Strategy 2020 (MCST, June 2014) briefly addresses 
the objective of developing synergy between ESIF funds and the H2020 programme, and states the 
following:  

“opportunities for combining different funding sources will be explored and, where 
possible,  exploited.  Such  opportunities  may  include,  inter  alia,  the  utilisation  of 
national  and  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  to  build  capacity 
and  critical  mass  to  better  participate  in  Horizon  2020,  the  funding  of  above 
threshold proposals submitted under Horizon 2020, as well as the use of ESIF and 
national funds for the commercialisation of Horizon 2020 project outcomes.” 

However,  the  national  strategy  is  a  high-level  document  and  does  not  include  any  specific 
measures promoting synergy. The strategy will be supplemented by a rolling R&I action plan which 
is currently under development and is scheduled for completion in September 2015. It is expected 
that any concrete measures for developing synergies between the various funding sources will be 
included in this document.  

With  reference  to  ESIF  funding  policy,  Operational  Programmes  I  and  II  (Ministry  for  European 
Affairs, March 2015) were approved by the EC in March 2015 and both include a brief reference to 
the objective of developing synergies between the ESIF and Horizon2020. However, this idea is not 
developed further and there are no specific details, instruments or metrics related to this objective 
within the documents. 

SWOT Analysis 

One of the strengths of the R&I governance system in Malta is the simple and stable governance 
structure centred around three public bodies having well-defined responsibilities and operating at a 
national  level.  It  also  has  a  multi-annual  R&I  strategy  incorporating  its  smart  specialisation 
strategy developed on the basis of widespread consultation with stakeholders and is in the process 
of developing a rolling R&I action plan to complement the strategy. 

R&I has shown a strong positive trend over the last five years, with R&D intensity increasing from 
0.53%  of  GDP  in  2008  to  0.85%  in  2013.  Structural  funds  were  used  to  develop  national  and 
higher  education  research  infrastructures,  for  promoting  industry  R&I  and  for  funding  doctoral 
students. 

On the other hand, the Maltese R&I governance framework suffers from a number of weaknesses. 
Political championing of R&I has always been rather weak, and remains so despite the appointment 
of a Parliamentary Secretary for Research, Innovation, Youth and Sport in 2013.  

The lack of a parliamentary sub-committee or similar body with overarching responsibility for R&I 
means  that  any  interaction  between  the  various  public  bodies  relevant  to  R&I  governance  takes 
place on a voluntary basis rather than being institutionalised, and coordination may not always be 
at  optimal  levels.  In  2014  an  inter-ministerial  structure  (consisting  of  core  group  and  steering 
group)  was  set  up  to  oversee  the  development  of  the  smart  specialisation  implementation  plan 
under the stewardship of the Malta Council for Science and Technology. However, these two groups 
do not have a formal mandate and their link to the political level is rather tenuous. 

Although  sectoral  strategies  for manufacturing  (MCST,  Dec  2011)  and  Health  (MCST,  2013)  were 
published  in  recent  years,  these  were  not  followed  up  by  concrete  action,  thus  eroding  the 
credibility of the policy-making institutions.  

National funding for R&I is very low, with a single funding programme branded FUSION (MCST, June 
2014)  which  has  an  annual  financial  allocation  of  just  €1.6m.  There  are  no  funding  instruments 
dedicated to academic research. 

10 

 
 
 
Expenditure on public sector research is one of the lowest in the EU, and Malta has only one PRO, 
the  Malta  Aquaculture  Research  Centre.  This  has  limited  autonomy  and  lacks  a  specific  research 
budget. The public centre in general has a very weak scientific culture. 

A detailed SWOT analysis of the R&I governance in Malta may be found below. 

Strengths 

  Simple and stable governance structure; 
  Documented national R&I strategy and smart specialisation strategy; 
  Strategy development process based on extensive consultation with stakeholders; 
  Development of an R&I Action Plan underway; 
  Positive  developments  in  R&I  intensity,  capacity-building  and  funding  schemes  in  recent 

years. 

Weaknesses 

General 

  Absence of strong political championing of national R&I strategy development; 
  Absence of a parliamentary sub-committee or similar body with overarching responsibility 

for R&I; 

  Lack  of  follow-up  of  thematic  or  sectoral  strategies  developed  in  previous  years,  e.g. 

manufacturing strategy, health strategy; 

  Very  weak  level  of  interest  by  public  sector  –  only  one  PRO  operating  in  the aquaculture 
sector and no development plans despite aquaculture being identified as one of the areas 
in the RIS3; 

  Low levels of public funding for R&I; 
  Lack of evidence base, analytical studies, ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of policies; 

ESIF 

  ESIF managing organisations have limited knowledge and expertise of R&I ecosystem; 
  Limited range of policy instruments e.g. ESIF funding not utilised for academic research; 
  Lack of ongoing coordination with R&I policymakers; 
  ESIF managing authority have ivory tower mentality; 
  No initiatives to date to promote synergy between H2020 and ESIF. 

Opportunities 

  Malta’s  expertise  in  the  aquaculture  industry  presents  an  opportunity  for  development  of 

the only Maltese PRO; 

  There  is  a  need  and  an  opportunity  for  developing  public  research  capacity  to  cater  for 

Malta’s distinctive characteristics e.g. in agriculture, in construction;  

  Manufacturing research platform pilot project could be followed up (most research in Malta 
relates to manufacturing) leading to increased expertise, a more attractive package for FDI, 
increased competitiveness, economic growth; 

  Opportunity  for  MCST  to  take  a  lead  in  organising  research  initiatives  in  a  number  of 

sectors such as health; 

11 

 
  Significant investments in the University’s infrastructure facilities in recent years constitute 

a solid foundation for further growth; 

  Opportunity for developing action plans involving industry & academia, ME etc. 

Threats 

  Failure  to  capitalise  on  recent  investments  and  achievements  could  lead  to  waste  of 

resources; 

  Failure  to  maintain  momentum  in  recent  developments  and  improvements  could  stall 

progress and jeopardise the future. 

Figure 2.1. Organogram – governance of R&D funds (including structural funds for R&D)  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
3  FACTORS THAT SUPPORT OR LIMIT PARTICIPATION IN R&D CALLS 

FUNDED BY ESIF  

R&D in Malta 

R&D expenditure (GERD) in Malta has seen a  strong positive trend in recent years, but in spite of 
this stood at just 0.85% of GDP compared to an EU average of 2.01% in 2013, ranking twenty-first 
in the EU in terms of R&D intensity. It has set an R&D target of 2% of GDP by 2020 (Eurostat, June 
2015). 

Figure 3.1: R&D expenditure of the different sectors as % of GDP in 2013 (Eurostat June 
2015) 

The business enterprise sector (BES) is the largest R&D performer, accounting for 54% of GERD in 
2013. In 2012, 66% of business R&D expenditure was incurred by enterprises employing less than 
250 employees, which is the third highest percentage in Europe (Eurostat, June 2015). 

Malta has only one public university, the University of Malta, which is the main research performer 
in the higher education (HEI) sector. Higher education R&D stands at 64% of the corresponding EU 
average, while both the business and government sectors stand at just 36% of their corresponding 
EU figures. 

R&D expenditure by government and public research organisations is 9% of GERD and is one of the 
lowest  in  the  EU.  This  is  not  surprising  considering  that  Malta  has  only  one  public  research 
organisation,  the  Malta  Aquaculture  Research  Centre,  which  accounts  for  most  of  the  research 
expenditure. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2007-2013 Policy cycle  

In 2006 Malta published its first R&I strategy (MCST, July 2006). The relevant institutions had no 
experience and limited knowledge of how ERDF and ESF could be used for R&I at the time, and the 
operational  programmes  were  limited  in  detail  as  to  what  measures  and  instruments  would  be 
utilised. 

Over the course of the programming period, preliminary ideas were developed further and project 
proposals  were  prepared.  The  University  of  Malta  was  successful  in  obtaining  funding  for  its 
research  infrastructure,  purchasing  of  equipment  and  upgrading  of  laboratory  facilities.  Malta 
Enterprise  obtained  funding  for  two  schemes  for  industry,  one  financing  R&D  (Malta  Enterprise, 
February  2012)  and  another  targeting  innovation  (Malta  Enterprise,  February  2012).  Malta 
Enterprise  was  also  successful  in  obtaining  funding  for  construction  of  and  equipping  the  Life 
Sciences Centre (www.lifesciencespark.com) and the Digital Hub (Investing in Your Future website, 
ERDF  331:  The  Development  of  a  Digital  Hub).  The  National  Commission  for  Higher  Education 
obtained  funding  for  a  postgraduate  (including  doctoral)  scholarship  scheme  through  the  ESF 
programme  (Ministry  for  Education  and  Employment.  STEPS:  Strategic  Educational  Pathways 
Scholarships website). 

Absorption of 2007-2013 Structural Funds 

Malta  has  only  one  public  university  and  only  one  PRO,  resulting  in  lack  of  competition  for 
structural  funds  and  therefore  high  success  rates in  acceptance  of  proposals. Lack  of  alternative 
funding sources means that there was great interest in applying for funds, and all available funds 
were successfully committed. 

Availability of co-financing was not an issue, since the Ministry of Finance allocated the necessary 
funding  and  public  sector  entities  did  not  have  to  find  the  co-financing  from  their  own  financial 
allocation.  In the  case  of NGOs, the  government  established  a  special  fund through  which it  was 
possible to obtain the necessary co-funding.  

Although  administrative  capacity  to  prepare  proposals  and  manage  projects  was  initially  a 
challenge, over the course of the programming period most institutions successfully geared up for 
the task and this did not interfere with successful absorption of structural funds. 

R&I  schemes  for  industry  managed  by  Malta  Enterprise  attracted  sufficient  applicants  and  all 
available  funds  were  committed.  However,  during  execution  of  the  projects  there  were  some 
savings  and  not  all  allocated  funds  were  used    as  planned.  Excess  funds  were  reallocated  and 
utilised for other R&I initiatives. 

Assessment of Policy Instruments 

Official figures on the expenditure of structural funds for R&I purposes are not available, and R&I 
statistics  compiled  by  the  National  Statistics  Office  do  not  include  separate  figures  for  such 
expenditure.  The  2013  SF  annual  implementation  report  (MEAIM,  June  2014)  provides  some 
indicative  figures  and  states  that  just  over  €45m  were  committed  to  RTDI  and  ICT.  The  MEIAM 
website  (www.investinginyourfuture.gov.mt)  provides  details  including  finances  on  the  individual 
projects, and this information has been used by the author in the analysis below. 

14 

 
The  main  R&I  policy  instruments  developed  under  the  2006-2013  period  can  be  categorised  as 
follows: 

  University of Malta research infrastructure initiatives – managed by the University itself; 
  National research infrastructure initiatives – managed by Malta Enterprise; 
 
  STEPS postgraduate scholarship scheme – managed by the Ministry for Education; 
  Manufacturing Research Platform involving outsourcing of manufacturing research projects 

Industry R&I schemes – managed by Malta Enterprise; 

– managed by the Malta Council for Science and Technology. 

Policy instrument 

Commitment €m  Comment 

ERDF: University of Malta research 
infrastructure initiatives 

17.6 

14  projects  with  individual  allocation 
ranging from €0.4m to €4.3m. 

ERDF: 
infrastructure initiatives 

National 

research 

20.0 

Life Sciences Centre - only a part of this 
qualifies as R&I expenditure. 

ERDF: Industry R&I grant schemes 

7.8 

ESF: STEPS scholarship scheme 

ERDF:  Manufacturing  Research 
Platform 

9.1 

0.6 

R&D  Grant  Scheme  (€2.2m),  Innovation 
Actions Grant Scheme (€5.6m). 

Scholarship  scheme  for  masters  and 
doctoral studies 

Outsourcing 
of 
research projects 

3  manufacturing 

Table 3.1: Utilisation of ERDF and ESF funding in 2006-2013 programming period 

While the structural funds were used in a variety of instruments, one shortcoming was the failure 
to  utilise  these  funds  to  finance  academic  research.  The  MCST,  which  manages  the  national  R&I 
funding  programme,  does  not  enjoy  the  status  of  intermediate  body  and  was  unable  to  use  SF 
funds for this purpose. The Ministry for Education and Employment would be able to utilise such 
funds but does not consider the management of research funding schemes for academia as part of 
its remit. 

Another  criticism  relates  to  the  failure  to  make  use  of  EC  funds  to  develop  Public  Research 
Organisations.  For  example,  Malta  has  a  well-established  PRO,  the  Malta  Aquaculture  Research 
Centre, which has the potential for development into a centre of excellence in this field. In spite of 
this,  however,  no  attempt  was  made  to  utilise  EU  funding  for  this  purpose,  possibly  since 
aquaculture was not identified as one of the thematic priorities in the national R&I strategy (MCST, 
July 2006), However, in recent years a national aquaculture strategy has been published (Ministry 
for  Sustainable  Development,  June  2014)  which  advocates  research  in  this  area,  and  the 
operational  programme  for  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (MEAIM,  March  2015) 

15 

 
 
 
 
provides indications that funding will be allocated to this research centre (Ministry for Sustainable 
Development, June 2014). 

Complementarity of Funding Schemes  

The  table  below  summarises  indicative  annual  funding  availability  through  national  funds  and 
structural funds during the previous programming period. This shows that there is a high level of 
complementarity with very little overlap in funding.  

Category 

National funds 
annually 

Structural 
funds annually 

comment 

General R&I 

€1.6m 

None 

– 

€0.7m 

None 

National R&I funding programme open to 
industry, academia, public sector 

Approximate  annual  allocation  of  0.7m 
from University of Malta internal funds 

- 

None 

€2.5m 

€17.6m averaged over 7-year period 

Academia 
research 

Academia 
infrastructure 

Industry – research / 
innovation 

National 
infrastructure 

None 

€1.1m 

€7.8m averaged over 7-year period 

None 

€2.9m 

€20m  over  7-year  period,  although  only 
part qualifies as R&D expenditure 

PRO development 

None 

Postgraduate 
studies 

€0.9 

None 

€1.3 

National 
undergraduate 
allocations. 

funds 

include 

both 
postgraduate 

and 

Table 3.2: Comparison of national and structural annual funding during the 2006-2013 
programming period 

Experience of Beneficiaries  

Beneficiaries  reported  that  the  proposal  stage  was  relatively  straightforward  and  the  workload 
involved  was  less  that  that  involved  in  an  FP7  application.  The  guidelines  were  clear  and 
beneficiaries expressed only minor issues or concerns with the evaluation process. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  beneficiaries  reported  a  very  high  administrative  workload  in  the 
implementation  of  the  project,  especially  in  relation  to  preparation  of  reimbursement  claims. 
Management and control requirements for SFs are part of a common set of rules applicable to all 
types of actions for all sectors, imposed by EU and national rules. In the case of the University of 
Malta, the negative impact of this was mitigated by virtue of the University’s Projects Office and 
allocation  of  Project  Officers  to  SF  projects.  In  the  case  of  private  industry  and  of  SMEs  in 
particular, however, their lack of adequate administrative capacity proved to be a major headache.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Another common complaint was the lack of flexibility and the requirement to rigorously adhere to 
the original proposal during the project implementation.(based on interviews with R&I performers) 
This  is  not  always  practical  given  the  duration  of  the  submission  /  implementation  process,  the 
rapid  pace  of  technological  change,  and  the  uncertainties  of  R&D  work.  For  example,  one 
beneficiary who was interviewed reported that during project implementation, equipment became 
available  which  was  superior  to  and  less  expensive  than  that  which  had  been  specified  in  the 
proposal. Nevertheless, the programme regulations meant that it was not possible to purchase the 
newer  equipment  in  place  of  that  which  had  been  specified  in  the  proposal.  While  it  is 
understandable that changes to the planned project activities cannot be undertaken at the project 
leader’s whim, it would be advantageous to have a mechanism whereby changes could be made 
following proper justification by the project leader and authorisation by the managing authority.  

Beneficiaries  also  commented  on  delays  and  difficulties  arising  from  public  procurement 
procedures.  This  is  supported  by  the  OPI  Annual  Implementation  Report  for  2013  (Ministry  for 
European Affairs, June 2014) which states the following: 

Notwithstanding the experience acquired in the last years, public procurement remains 
a  major  bottleneck  and  takes  a  substantial  toll  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Programme.  The  centralisation  of  the  procurement  process,  albeit  providing  quality 
assurance,  inevitably  causes  delays  to  the  implementation  of  the  programme  on  the 
ground. 

Of particular interest is the Malta Enterprise R&F Grant Scheme funded through ERDF, which was 
the  only  instrument  whereby  private  enterprise  could  benefit  from  SF  funds  for  R&D.  While  this 
was an excellent initiative and provided a much-needed boost to funds available for promoting R&I 
in  industry,  beneficiaries  complained  about  the  administrative  burden  related  to  the  structural 
funding  programme.  Apart  from  onerous  reporting  requirements  for  financial  matters,  other 
bureaucracy  included  the  necessity  for  a  detailed  justification  that  new  replacement  employees 
were  of  the  same  calibre  and  competence  as  those  who  had  left  the  company.  Delayed 
reimbursements  by  the  national  authority  were  a  major  issue  and  one  beneficiary  who  was 
interviewed reported that payments are still outstanding 2 years after the project came to an end.  

2014-2020 Programming Period 

The new programming period provided an opportunity for improving upon the previous one, and the 
Partnership  Agreement  (Ministry  for  European  Affairs,  October  2014,  pp  75)  lists  a  number  of 
‘lessons  learned’  which  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  new  cycle.  However, this  was a 
generic exercise and although there are some useful observations there was no specific reference 
to the utilisation of ESIF funds for R&I. 

The National R&I Strategy 2020, which also incorporates the smart specialisation strategy, makes 
passing  reference  to  the  development  of  synergies  between  ESIF  and  other  funding  sources  and 
mentions the possibility of funding of above threshold proposals submitted under Horizon 2020, as 
well  as  the  use  of  ESIF  and  national  funds  for  the  commercialisation  of  Horizon  2020  project 
outcomes.  The    Steering  /  Core  Group  is  working  on  an  action  plan  scheduled  for  completion  in 
September 2015 but at this point in time there is no information regarding such plans. 

17 

 
 
 
4  PUSH – PULL FACTORS FOR R&I PERFORMERS TO PARTICIPATE IN 

FP7/H2020 

FP7  represented  an  important  source  of  funding  for  Maltese  organisations,  which  were  allocated 
about  €21m  through  the  FP7  programme  (EC  JRC-IPTS,  2015)  representing  an  average  of  €3m 
annually  which  exceeds  the  level  of  national  public  funding  for  R&I.  In  comparison,  the  Fusion 
programme which is the key source of national research funds, had a financial allocation of €1.6m 
in 2014 (http://www.mcst.gov.mt/fusion-ri-programme). The scarcity of local funding is a significant 
factor behind the interest in participating in FP7. 

Participants in FP7 expressed a high level of satisfaction with the experience (MCST, January 2015). 
As key benefits of participation, they cited great networking opportunities, increased opportunities 
to join projects, commercial collaboration with overseas companies and changes in accounting and 
purchase management procedures. 

As a general comment it can be said that there is a high level of awareness as well as a high level 
of  interest  to  participate  in  the  framework programme in  academia  and the public  sector (MCST, 
January 2015). This is largely the result of several years of dedicated effort by the national contact 
organisation (MCST) through the organisation of numerous events and stakeholder meetings. In the 
private sector there is a mixed picture, with varying levels of awareness and interest.  

Analysis of Participation 

On a projects per capita basis, Malta has one of the highest levels of participation in the EU (MCST, 
2015). However, the average funding received per project is very low with the result that funding 
per capita is €51, well below the EU average of €79 (EC JRC-IPTS, 2015). 

Malta’s participation pattern in FP7 is very different from the norm, as shown by the images below 
(EC JRC-IPTS, 2015). The graphs show the percentage distribution for Malta or for the whole of FP7 
as  the  case  may  be.  Careful  interpretation  is  required  since  the  figures  do  not  provide  a  direct 
comparison  between  Malta  and  the  other  FP7  participants.  For  example,  in  Figure  4.1  the  high 
percentage for Malta in the Capacities programme does not mean that it received more funding on 
a per capita basis than the FP7 average, but rather that it received a higher percentage of its total 
funding under this programme. 

An  important  consideration  is  that  due  to  the  small  size  of  the  country,  the  total  number  of 
participations  is  very  small  (only  189),  and  the  activities  of  a  single  organisation  can  cause  a 
significant effect on the global figure. For example, the MCST accounts for about 44 participations, 
and the University of Malta accounts for 46. 

1.  Financial contribution by programme  

Figure 4.1 shows that the proportion of funding Malta received through the Capacities 
programme is four times the FP7 average, while that received through the Cooperation, 
Ideas  and  People  programmes  are  all  below  the  EU  average.  In  particular,  the 
proportion  of  funding  through  the  Ideas  programme  is  less  than  one-fifth  of the  FP7 
average.  

18 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1: Distribution 
of FP7 EU financial 
contribution among 
specific programmes 

The reasons for this are as follows: 

  Cooperation  Programme  –  Malta’s  low  level  of  GERD  (0.85%  GDP  compared  to 
2.01%  for  EU  in  2013)  and  limited  research  base  constitute  a  barrier  to 
participation  in  collaborative  research  projects  which  are  the  mainstay  of  this 
programme,  negatively  impacting  participation  levels.  Nevertheless  there  were  a 
number  of  participations  by  industry,  by  academia  and  by  the  public  sector.  The 
figure is also boosted by the number of NCP networking actions undertaken under 
this programme. 

 

Ideas  Programme  –  this  is  the  programme  where  Malta  fared  most  poorly 
compared  to  the  rest  of  the  EU.  The  programme  is  aimed  primarily  at  academia, 
and the University of Malta experienced difficulty in participating in this programme 
due to the absence of proper research teams at the University. 

  People Programme – once again this programme is aimed mainly at academia, and 
the  University  of  Malta  found  it  difficult  to  attract  overseas  researchers  to  make 
use of the programme to conduct research in Malta. In fact most of the instances 
of participation in this programme relate to the Researchers Night support actions 
rather than to research projects. 

  Capacities Programme – the relatively high level of participation in this programme 
is primarily  the  result  of a  high  participation  rate in  the  SME instrument (refer  to 
more detail below).  

2.  Participation by instrument  

Figure 4.2 shows that Malta has relatively high participation levels in projects based on 
the  CSA,  SME  and  Infrastructure  instruments,  with  relatively  low  participation  in 
collaborative research, ERC and Marie Curie actions. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2: Distribution 
of FP7 participations 
by funding instrument 

The reasons for this are as follows: 

  Collaborative research projects  – as explained above, the limited research activity 
in  Malta  acts  as  a  barrier  to  participation  in  collaborative  research  projects  by 
Maltese entities. 

  CSAs – the high proportion of collaboration and support action projects include the 
NCP  networking  projects,  science  in  society,  researchers  night  and  international 
cooperation.  Due  to  the  small  number  of  Maltese  participations  in  FP7,  such 
projects have a disproportionate impact on participation patterns. 

 

Infrastructure – despite the lack of national research infrastructures and of related 
national  funding,  the  University  of  Malta  participated  in  a  limited  number  of 
projects in this category. 

  ERC – refer to earlier comment on the Ideas programme. 

  Marie Curie - refer to earlier comment on the People programme. 

  SME  instrument  -  66%  of  R&D  activity  in  Malta  is  conducted  by  enterprises 
employing not more than 249 employees, which is one of the highest percentages 
in Europe (Eurostat, June 2015). Consequently, a high level of industry participation 
in FP7 is through the SME instrument rather than in collaborative research projects. 

Push-pull factors - Public Research Organisations 

A severe lack of research capacity in the public sector constitutes the main barrier to higher levels 
of participation in the framework programme. Malta has only one small PRO with just a handful of 
researchers, and government expenditure on R&D is the lowest in the EU, standing at just 0.09% of 
GDP in 2013 compared to an EU average of 0.25% (Eurostat, 2015).  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most of the instances (63%) of participation in FP7 by the public sector involve the MCST, which as 
the  national  contact  organisation  participated  in  numerous  NCP-related  coordination  and  support 
actions. The MCST also has a track record of participation in foresight and policy-related projects.  

Malta’s  only  PRO,  the  Malta  Aquaculture  Research  Centre,  was  quite  successful  in  FP7  and 
participated  in  2  projects  despite  being  a  very  small  organisation.  Other  public  sector  entities 
sometimes  get  invited  to  join  project  proposals  with  relatively  little  or  no  effort  from  their  side, 
sometimes on the basis of their institutional responsibilities. 

In  the  public  sector  bureaucratic  barriers  to  recruit  additional  staff  to  work  on  projects  means 
additional workload for the participant combined with lack of recognition and acts as a disincentive. 
Lack of institutional support and administrative tasks are another issue. 

Push-pull factors  - Academia 

The  University  of  Malta  is  the  only  participant  from  the  higher  education  sector  and  is  the 
organisation with the highest number of participations in FP7 in Malta. 

Academics  often  get  invited  to  join  project  proposals  through  their  contacts  with  overseas 
researchers,  on  the  basis  of  their  track  record  and  list  of  publications.  Academics  are  in  general 
eager and incentivised to participate in the framework programme. Although it results in additional 
workload, it provides much-needed funding for research activity and academics also benefit from 
the possibility of recruiting researchers on a fixed-term contract to work on a project. They are also 
offered the required administrative support by the University’s project support office.  

The  University  had  a  broad  base  of  participation  in  most  of  the  thematic  areas  within  the 
Cooperation  programme. Recent  investments  in  research  infrastructure  funded  through  structural 
funds  should  improve  the  chances  of  University  departments  to  participate  in  collaborative 
research projects in H2020. 

However, the University experienced great difficulty to participate in the Ideas programme due to 
the absence of established research teams resulting from dire lack of national funding. Similarly, 
this lack of research capacity coupled with a limited international profile impacted its chances of 
participation in the People programme. 

Push-pull factors  - Private Sector 

In  general  the  low  level  of  research  activity  and  limited  research  excellence  in  the private  sector 
limits the possibilities for participation in FP7, especially in collaborative research projects. 

In 2013 business expenditure on R&D in Malta stood at 0.46% of GDP compared to 1.28% across 
the  EU.  In  2012,  66%  of  business  R&D  expenditure  was  incurred  by  enterprises  employing  not 
more than 249 employees and is the third highest in Europe (Eurostat, June 2015). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  POLICY INSTRUMENTS FACILITATING THE PARTICIPATION IN FP7 / 

H2020 / ESIF 

FP7 and Horizon2020 

In 2007 Malta Enterprise launched the Exploratory Award scheme, which provided cash grants of 
up to €10,000 to SMEs to assist in the preparation and submission of proposals under the FP7 and 
CIP programmes (EC, JRC, Erawatch website). However, this scheme was discontinued in 2013 and 
has  not  been  replaced.  The  grant  covered  60%  of  eligible  costs  which  include  personnel  costs, 
technical consultancy fees, search for partners and travel to consortium-building activities. It could 
be  utilised  for  proposals  in  a  range  of  sectors  including  ICT,  manufacturing,  waste  treatment, 
environment solutions and biotechnology. It is not clear to what extent this scheme was availed of 
and whether it was successful in promoting participation in FP7 and if so to what degree. 

The  Malta  Council  for  Science  and  Technology  operates  the  Brokerage  Events  Support  Scheme 
which awards grants to individuals or organisations to attend overseas FP7 networking events with 
the  objective  of  becoming  involved  in  FP7  proposals.  The  scheme  covers  the  cost  of  the  flight 
together with a financial contribution towards accommodation and subsistence. The scheme has a 
very limited budget and only one application per individual, organisation or academic department 
was allowed. No information is available on the effectiveness of this scheme.  

A survey undertaken by the MCST in 2014 revealed that participation in brokerage events abroad is 
high on the list of support measures requested by local organisations interested in participating in 
FP7 / H2020 (MCST, Jan 2015). Support for preparation of project proposals was also identified as 
a desirable measure, although at a lower priority level. 

The  survey  respondents  also  asked  for  more  targeted  support  from  the  NCP  organisation.  As 
national contact organisation for FP7, the MCST organised information sessions and other events to 
promote the programme on an ongoing basis. Presumably the survey respondents were asking for 
further help in identifying appropriate calls, finding partners and preparing proposals. However, it is 
generally  acknowledged  that  such  services  are  not  the  remit  of  the  NCP  but  would  normally  be 
supplied by expert consultants. 

The  national  R&I  strategy  (MCST,  June  2014)  does  not  address  the  subject  of  facilitating 
participation in the framework programme. 

ESIF 

During  the  previous  programming  period  the  PPCD  regularly  organised  information  events  in 
conjunction with each call to guide potential beneficiaries regarding the regulations and guidelines 
for submission of proposals. It is expected that such events will once again be organised once the 
new ESIF programme gets underway. 

In terms of financial assistance for the preparation of proposals, consultancy costs can be charged 
to the project subject to a number of conditions such as following public procurement procedures 
and  cohesion  policy  publicity  requirements  when  selecting  the  consultant  (Ministry  for  European 
Affairs, May 2009).  

22 

 
 
Apart from this measure, there are no policy instruments facilitating preparation of proposals for 
ESIF.  However,  this  is  not  generally  considered  to  be  a  problem  since  preparation  of  an  ESIF 
proposal generally involved much less work than an FP7/H2020 proposal for a number of reasons. 
For example, the proposal is much less detailed, and proposals are normally submitted by a single 
partner rather than by a consortium thus requiring less coordination. 

23 

 
 
 
6  EVALUATION AND MONITORING MECHANISMS  

Process 

Due to the relatively small scale of operations and limited number of beneficiaries and  proposals, 
the evaluation process is handled internally by the Managing Authority. 

Eligibility and selection criteria are defined beforehand, and include items such as contribution to 
the  programme  objectives,  project  sustainability,  quality  of  the  proposal  and  contribution  to 
horizontal issues. 

There  is  one  Project  Selection  Committee  for  each  programme,  and  this  committee  evaluates  all 
proposals related to that programme. The committee consists of 4 members, with the head of the 
relevant  Managing  Authority  acting  as  Chair.  The  programme  regulations  do  not  specify  the 
composition of the selection committee or the qualifications necessary for eligibility to perform this 
role, and the other three members of this committee are appointed by the Parliamentary Cabinet. A 
single  evaluation  committee  is  thus  responsible  for  evaluation  of  proposals  on  a  diversity  of 
themes ranging from R&I to environment to transport. Ad hoc experts may be invited to support the 
deliberations of the committee, but it is not clear how often this possibility is availed of. The results 
of  the  evaluation  are  then  submitted  to  the  relevant  Monitoring  Committee  for  review  and 
approval. This consists of about 40 members with delegates from the EC, line ministries, etc. 

The  OPI  Annual  Implementation  Report  for  2013  states  that  the  selection  process  is  very  time-
consuming  and  indeed  is  one  of  the  major  challenges  facing  the  Maltese  administration  in  the 
implementation  of  the  ESIF  programmes  (Ministry  for  European  Affairs,  June  2014).  It  states  as 
follows: 

The  selection  process  is  a  time-consuming  procedure  often  compounded  by  the 
fragmentation of submitted proposals. Most of the delays in the process are related to 
the quality of  submissions received,  which inevitably lead to delays in the evaluation. 
Moreover, considering that submissions must be compliant with community legislations 
and must obtain clearance from SAMB, delays in the selections process are also linked 
to procedural issues linked to the process. 

Assessment 

The evaluation process follows many of the international peer review principles such as excellence, 
impartiality,  confidentiality,  integrity,  etc.  However,  it  is  open  to  criticism  on  the  grounds  of  the 
composition  of  the  evaluation  team  and  the  transparency  of  the  process  for  selection  of 
evaluators. For one thing the evaluation team fails to include any international reviewers, and the 
managing authority is not receptive to such an idea since it is of the opinion that foreign evaluators 
would  lack  a  proper  understanding  of  the  local  scenario.  On  a  more  negative  side,  the  same 
individuals are required to evaluate proposals on a broad range of topics thus calling into question 
their technical competence to do so. 

Another  criticism is  that  there is  no  proper  schedule  of  calls,  and beneficiaries  do  not  have  good 
visibility of forthcoming opportunities.  

24 

 
 
In spite of these shortcomings, however, beneficiaries did not express any major concerns with the 
evaluation process during interviews undertaken by the author. A small number of beneficiaries did 
express reservations regarding the limited subject-matter expertise of the evaluators.  

A  contributing  factor  to  the  general  satisfaction  with  the  evaluation  process  is  probably  the  low 
levels of competition and high success rate of proposals, since in most instances there is only one 
potential  beneficiary  in  each  particular  call  category.  For  example,  in  calls  related  to  funding  for 
industry the only possible applicant would be Malta Enterprise.  

One area where there may  be a high level of competition for funds would be that related to the 
remit of the local councils. However this is not relevant to the field of R&I. 

25 

 
 
 
7  ENHANCING OR LIMITING THE SYNERGIES?  

2007-2013 Programming Period 

During this programming period no attempts were made to develop synergies between the various 
European  and  national  funding  programmes.  ERDF/ESF,  FP7  and  national  funding  programmes 
operated completely independently of each other 

Local regulations also stipulated that ERDF funds could not be used to fund parts of projects, but 
that  each  project  proposed  for  funding  must  be  complete  in  its  own  right  (Ministry  for  European 
Affairs, May 2009). This rules out the use of structural funds for achieving certain types of synergy 
(simultaneous  /  cumulative  funding)  where  funds  from  multiple  sources  are  used  to  finance  a 
single project.  

The necessity to avoid double funding may also act as a disincentive to beneficiaries contemplating 
the  use  of  multiple  R&I  funding  sources  because  of  the  difficulty  of  clearly  demonstrating  the 
absence  of  double  funding  in  related  projects.  Local  authorities  rigorously  (and  rightly)  guard 
against  the  possibility  of  double  funding  through  the  Inter  Ministerial  Coordination  Committee 
(IMCC) which includes delegates from the different funding agencies and conducts checks for this 
purpose.  

The lack of a schedule of forthcoming ERDF/ESF calls also contributed to the difficulty of achieving 
certain types of synergy where success might depend on obtaining simultaneous funding from two 
sources.  

In spite of the lack of any policy measures to utilise public funding from different sources towards 
the same objective, there were a few instances where such synergies did develop spontaneously. 
Assessing  the  previous  programming  period  with  respect  to  the  different  possible  types  of  joint 
funding, the following conclusions can be drawn: 

1.  Upstream sequential combination: a significant proportion of ERDF and SF funding was 
utilised  for  capacity-building  (e.g.  developing  University  research  labs,  PhD  grants)  and 
these  initiatives  can  be  expected  to  improve  the  chances  of  participating  in  H2020  in 
coming  years,  and  therefore  introducing  some  element  of  synergy  between  the  various 
funds. 

2.  Downstream  sequential  combination:  there  is  a  possibility  that  one  or  more  of  the 
projects funded through the ERDF R&I Grant Scheme for industry built upon work which had 
previously been undertaken through FP7, although no such cases have been identified. Any 
such synergy would be incidental rather than intentional. 

3.  Parallel  funding  (different  projects):  there  are  a  few  instances  of  such  synergy,  but  
once again these were incidental rather than by design. This can easily happen in projects 
of a capacity-building nature since the project  objectives can be quite broad and projects 
do  not  need  to  be  closely-coupled,  as  would  be  the  case  in    research  projects.  One  such 
example  is  the  case  of  the  Health  Biotechnology  Laboratory  at  the  University  of  Malta, 
which  benefitted  from  ERDF  funding  for  purchasing  of  gene-sequencing  equipment.  The 
University  was  also  a  partner  in  the  FP7  BBMRI  project  which  prepared  the  way  for 
integrating diverse European bio banks into an integrated European federated system. 

26 

 
 
4.  Alternative funding: there are no known instances of R&I proposals positively evaluated 
(but  not  selected  for  funding)  under  FP7  which  were  subsequently  funded  under  local 
schemes.  The  possibility  of  developing  such  schemes  is  mentioned  in  the  national  R&I 
strategy, but there are no such instruments to date.  

5.  Simultaneous  /  cumulative  funding:  there  are  no  k  instances  of  R&I  initiatives  being 

jointly funded by ESIF and FP7 / H2020. 

In summary, it may  be said that there was no conscious effort to develop any specific synergies 
between  the  different  programmes.  However,  there  have  been  a  few  instances  but  any  such 
examples would be described as incidental rather than by design. 

2014-2020 Programming Period 

With  reference  to  the  current  programming  period,  there  have  not  been  any  substantial 
improvements  regarding  the  concept  of  utilising  multiple  funding  sources  towards  the  same 
objective.  The  National  R&I  Strategy  2020  (MCST,  June  2014)  briefly  mentions  the  objective  of 
developing synergy between ESIF funds and the H2020 programme, but it is only when the rolling 
R&I action plan currently under development will be finalised that it will become apparent whether 
there will be any specific measures aimed at this objective. 

The  Partnership  Agreement  (Ministry  for  European  Affairs,  Oct  2014)  includes  a  section  on 
coordination between ESIF funds and other EU and national funds, including a passing reference to 
H2020.  However,  there  are  no  details  about  possible  synergies  which  might  be  explored  or 
developed in this regard. Likewise, Operational Programmes I and II (Ministry for European Affairs, 
March 2015) both include a brief reference to the objective of developing synergies between the 
ESIF and Horizon2020 but the idea is not elaborated upon and there are no specific details on this 
point. 

Possible Measures to Promote Synergy  

Some categories of synergy between different funding programmes are difficult to achieve, others 
less so.  

Downstream  sequential  combination,  where  FP7  /  H2020  research  results  are  further  developed 
using ESIF funding could be quite easily achieved using an instrument similar to the previous ERDF 
R&D Grant Scheme for industry managed by Malta Enterprise. 

Alternative  funding  could  also  be  considered,  although  this  would  be  most  easily  achieved  in 
respect  of  H2020 proposals  submitted  by  Maltese  partners  alone  (e.g.  some Marie  Curie  actions, 
ERC  grants,  some  SME  instruments,  other).  For  this  to  work  with  consortia  involving  overseas 
partners there would need to be similar schemes in force in the other countries, as well as requiring 
some degree of coordination in timing of ESIF calls. 

On the other hand, simultaneous / cumulative funding could pose some problems. It is not easy to 
see how a single project could involve both H2020 and ESIF funding – calls would have to be time-
coordinated, and difficulties would arise if the H2020 part was funded and the ESIF part was not, 
or vice versa. 

27 

 
 
8  TAKE-UP OF PUBLIC SECTOR RESEARCH RESULTS 

The first Maltese national strategy for R&I in 2007 was built on the concept of industry-academia 
collaboration and established the commercialisation of research results for economic benefit as a 
key  policy  objective.  More  or  less  simultaneously,  the  University  of  Malta  oriented  itself  more 
closely  towards  industry  and  set  up  a  Knowledge  Transfer  Office  to  nurture  industry-academia 
relations. 

In spite of this, the policy mix does not include instruments specifically designed to promote uptake 
of  public  sector  research  results,  although  there  are  a  number  of  initiatives  which  support  this 
activity  indirectly.  For  example,  the  Commercialisation  Voucher  Programme  (part  of  the  FUSION 
Programme)  managed  by the  MCST  finances  a  suite  of  activities  related  to  commercialisation  of 
research  results  including  market  research,  IP  checks  and  patent  applications.  The  programme  is 
open  to  both  academia  and  to  the  private  sector.  The  commercialisation  programme  was  only 
introduced  in  2012  and  insufficient  time  has  elapsed  for  a  proper  evaluation  of  its  impact.  The 
Commercialisation Voucher Programme in 2014 funded 10 initiatives which are at various stages 
within the Programme and will continue running through 2015 (Ministry of Finance, April 2015).  

The TAKEOFF Seed Fund and TAKEOFF Business Incubator were introduced in 2014 and are managed 
by  the  University  of  Malta.  The  Fund  operates  on  the  basis  of  a  competitive  call  and  provides 
grants  of  between  €2,500  and  €20,000  for  early-stage  and  start-up  development  to  help 
promising ideas changing into commercial products and services. The first call for applications was 
made in April 2014 and received a total of 30 applications of which 9 were selected for funding. 
One year later these projects had succeeded in raising €0.5m of funding to finance their continued 
growth (University of Malta, April 2015). A second call in 2015 received 50 applications of which 
11 were selected. 

While most of the Fund is open to innovative start-ups from both within and outside the University, 
it can also be  leveraged  for commercialisation of University  research. It also includes a ‘proof of 
concept’  award  restricted  to  academic  staff  to  assist  them  in  commercialisation  of  research 
conducted at the University.  

The  Incubator  provides  work  space,  business  support  and  advice  within  a  vibrant  academic 
environment.  The  TAKEOFF  staff  and  mentors  help  the  start-ups  design  the  business  plan,  set 
milestones and achieve independent functioning within 12-18 months. TAKEOFF matches the start-
ups  with  experienced  enterprise  coaching,  and  holds  guiding  workshops  for  the  upcoming 
entrepreneurs. It holds ‘lean start-up development’ seminars and organises regular sessions where 
speakers/domain experts speak at the Incubator every month 

The Malta Aquaculture Research Centre was set up in 1988 with the objective of developing a fish 
farming industry in Malta. It has successfully developed techniques for hatching eggs and rearing 
fish  of  several  species  and  has  been  instrumental  in  the  development  of  the  local  aquaculture 
industry. Although it has been fairly successful in participating in the Framework Programme, it has 
not benefitted from programmes such as the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 

Malta  is  not  involved  in  any  lead  market  initiatives,  and  there  are  no  government  initiatives 
promoting the public procurement for innovation approach. 

28 

 
 
9  COUNTRY TAILORED POLICY SUGGESTIONS 

Conclusions 

The information and analysis presented in the preceding sections may be summarised as follows: 

1.  During the 2007-2013 programming period, structural funds were successfully utilised for 

R&I in amounts which exceeded national funding levels; 

2.  Structural  funds  were  used  primarily  for  developing  national 

infrastructure,  for 

infrastructure in academia, for promoting industry R&I and for HR capacity-building; 

3.  Structural  funds  were  not  used  for  funding  academic  research  or  public  sector  research, 

despite very limited national funding in these areas; 

4.  All  allocated  structural  funds  were  fully  taken  up,  indicating  that  there  are  no  issues  of 

absorption capacity; 

5.  During the previous programming period, no real attempt was made to develop synergies 
between  various  national  and  EU  funding  (structural  funds,  FP7,  national  funds).  A  small 
number of weak synergies developed spontaneously rather than as a result of any design 
or planning on the part of policy-makers. 

6.  With  reference  to  the  new  programming  period  2014-2020,  the  concept  of  synergy  is 
touched  upon and established as an objective in both the National  R&I Strategy 2020 as 
well  as  in  the  Operational  Programmes.  However  the  documents  do  not  translate  this 
objective into any specific targets or concrete measures, and there is a real fear that that 
in the absence of such targets, these intentions will fall between the cracks.   

Suggestions 

Although  the  Operational  Programmes  have  been  finalised  it  is  not  too  late  to  introduce  some 
elements  of  synergy  into  the  ESIF  plans.  With  reference  to  implementation  of  the  National  R&I 
Strategy, the Rolling R&I Action Plan is due to be completed by  September 2015, and although it 
may not be possible to introduce synergy into the first version, the planned approach of updating 
this plan on a regular basis allows the introduction of appropriate measures in future versions. 

The  following  recommendations  are  being  proposed  with  the  objective  of  developing  synergies 
between the various funding sources. 

1.  Establish  a  task  force  involving  the  three  key  policy-makers  (MCST,  Parliamentary 
Secretariat for EU Funds, Malta Enterprise) with the mandate to analyse and take decisions 
on what funding synergies can be developed in the short, medium and longer term. 

2.  The MCST should embed specific objectives and targets backed up by concrete measures 
for  developing  synergies  in  the  Action  Plan  supporting  the  National  R&I  Strategy  2020, 
while  the  Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds  should  do  the  same  in  the  ESIF 
Operational Programmes. 

3.  Serious consideration should be given to developing a scheme for funding H2020 proposals 
which achieved high scores but did not get funded (alternative funding). This will have the 

29 

 
 
additional benefit of encouraging participation in H2020, as well as reducing the workload 
of the local evaluation teams. 

4.  Assess the possibility of developing ESIF schemes for exploiting the results of previous FP7 

/ H2020 projects (downstream sequential combination). 

The  following  recommendations  are  being  made  in  a  broader  context  and  with  a  long-term 
perspective in order to address weaknesses in the existing R&I regime: 

1.  The  Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds  should  ensure  proper  involvement  of 

relevant players in the ESIF OP development process. 

2.  The Parliamentary Secretariat for EU Funds together with the MCST should explore the 

possibility of utilising ESIF for funding academic R&I. 

3.  Due  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  utilisation  of  ESIF  funding  for  developing 
public  research  centres  such  as  the  Malta  Aquaculture  Research  Centre,  or  research 
centres catering for Malta’s distinctive characteristics e.g. in agriculture, in construction;  

4.  Due  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  utilisation  of  ESIF  funds  for  developing 

centres of excellence in selected S&T areas. 

5.  The Manufacturing Research Platform pilot project undertaken by the MCST should be 
followed  up  (most  research  in  Malta  relates  to  manufacturing)  with  similar  projects 
leading  to  increased  expertise,  improved  prospects  for  attracting  FDI,  increased 
competitiveness and prospects for economic growth. 

6.  The  Parliamentary  Secretariat  for  EU  Funds,  if  necessary  in  conjunction  with  the  EC, 
should seriously evaluate the possibility of relaxing ESIF administrative controls in the 
case of smaller projects, for example those having a budget not exceeding €1m. 

7.  The  local  managing  authority  should  endeavour  to  the  maximum  extent  possible  to 
reduce  bureaucracy,  allow  more  flexibility  during  project  implementation,  and  focus 
monitoring on result achieved rather than on the process of getting there.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 

REGIONAL ANALYSIS  

Not applicable. 

11 

ABBREVIATIONS 

ERDF/CF, ESF, EARDF and EMFF  

CF 

Cohesion Fund 

EARDF 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

EMFF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESIF 

FPD 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

Funds and Programmes Division (within MEAIM) 

MCST 

Malta Council for Science and Technology 

MEAIM  Ministry of European Affairs and Implementation of the Electoral Manifesto 

OP 

PPCD 

SF 

Operational Programme 

Planning and Priorities Coordination Division (within MEAIM) 

EU Structural Funds (comprising the ERDF and ESF). 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

European Commission, March 2015. Seventh FP7 Monitoring Report 2013.  

European Commission, JRC-IPTS (2015), Stairway to Excellence Facts and Figure: Malta 

European Commission. 2014. Enabling synergies between European Structural 
and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other research, innovation and competitiveness-related 
Union programmes - Guidance for policy-makers and implementing bodies. Available at: 
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/267027/Guide%20on%20synergies_en.pdf 

European Commission, JRC, Malta Enterprise Exploratory Award FP7, Erawatch website. Available 
at: 
http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/mt/supportmeasure/s
upport_mig_0011?matchesPerPage=5&orden=LastUpdate&searchType=advanced&intergov=all&ta
b=template&index=Erawatch+Online+EN&sort=&avan_other_prios=false&searchPage=5&subtab=
&reverse=true&displayPages=10&query=&country=mt&action=search 

Life Sciences Centre website. Available at: http://www.lifesciencespark.com/ 

Manufacturing Research Platform website. Available at: http://www.manufacturingresearch.eu/ 

Malta Council for Science and Technology website. Available at: http://www.mcst.gov.mt 

Malta Council for Science and Technology. (July 2006) National Strategic Plan for Research and 
Innovation Strategy 2007-2010.  Available at: 
http://www.mcst.gov.mt/files/uploaded/R&Istartegy.pdf 

Malta Council for Science and Technology. (Dec 2011). National Research Strategy for 
Manufacturing in Malta. Available at: http://www.mcst.gov.mt/about-us/events/strategy-launches-
funding-launches-and-other-successes-malta-council-science-and 

Malta Council for Science and Technology. (2013). National Strategy for Health Research and 
Innovation. Available at: 
http://www.mcst.gov.mt/sites/default/files/pa_documents/draft_health_strategy.pdf 

Malta Council for Science and Technology. (June 2014). National Research and Innovation Strategy 
2020.  Available at: 
http://www.mcst.gov.mt/sites/default/files/pa_documents/national_ri_strategy_2020_june_2014.pd
f 

Malta Council for Science and Technology. (January 2015). Survey Report on Assessing Malta’s 
Participation in FP7: Rising to the Challenge of Horizon 2020. Internal report.  

Malta Council for Science and Technology. (June 2014) Fusion: the R&I Programme. Available at: 
http://www.mcst.gov.mt/fusion-ri-programme 

Malta Enterprise website. ERDF Innovation Actions Grant Scheme (Innovation). Available at: 
http://www.20millionforindustry.com/Default.aspx?tabid=115&language=en-US 

32 

 
 
Malta Enterprise website. ERDF Research and Development Grant Scheme. Available at: 
http://www.20millionforindustry.com/Default.aspx?tabid=119&language=en-US 

Malta Enterprise, February 2012, Incentive Guidelines ERDF Innovation Actions Grant Scheme 
(Innovation). Available at: 
http://www.maltaenterprise.com/sites/default/files/support_measures/sm_inno_gdl_v4.pdf 

Malta Enterprise, February 2012, Incentive Guidelines ERDF Research and Development Grant 
Scheme. Available at: 
http://www.maltaenterprise.com/sites/default/files/support_measures/rd_erdf_gdl_v4_0.pdf 

Malta Enterprise, April 2011 , Exploratory Award. Available at: 
http://www.maltaenterprise.com/en/support/exploratory-award 

MEAIM, Investing in Your Future website, ERDF 331:The Development of a Digital Hub, available at: 
https://investinginyourfuture.gov.mt/project/research-science-and-technology/the-development-of-
a-digital-hub-50167817 

MEAIM, May 2009, Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 
Operational Programme I - Investing in Competitiveness for a Better Quality of Life, FAQ Call 4. 
Available at:  
http://eufunds.gov.mt/en/Operational%20Programmes/Useful%20Links%20and%20Downloads/Pag
es/Closed-Calls.aspx 

MEAIM, February 2014, Fisheries Operational Programme for Malta 2007-2013 Version 5. Available 
at: 
http://eufunds.gov.mt/en/EU%20Funds%20Programmes/Agricultural%20Fisheries%20Fund/Docume
nts/Links%20and%20Downloads-
%20Fish/F%20O%20P%20%20v%205%20approved%20by%20Commission%20Decision%20C(20
14)3913.pdf 

MEAIM, June 2014, Operational Programme I, Annual Implementation Report 2013. Available at: 
https://eufunds.gov.mt/en/Operational%20Programmes/Useful%20Links%20and%20Downloads/Do
cuments/AIR%202013/MC.OPI.06.14_AIR.pdf 

MEAIM, October 2014, Partnership Agreement of Malta 2014-2020. Available at: 
https://eufunds.gov.mt/en/Information/Documents/MT%20PA%20-%20October%202014.pdf 

MEAIM, March 2015, Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, Operational Programme I – Fostering a 
competitive and sustainable economy to meet our challenges 2014 - 2020. Available at: 
http://eufunds.gov.mt/en/Operational%20Programmes/Programming%20Period%202014%20-
%202020/Operational%20Programme%201/Documents/Adopted%20OPI(ff).pdf 

MEAIM, March 2015, Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, Operational Programme II – Investing in human 
capital to create more opportunities and promote the wellbeing of society 2014 - 2020. Available 
at: http://eufunds.gov.mt/en/Operational%20Programmes/Programming%20Period%202014%20-
%202020/Operational%20Programme%202/Documents/Adopted%20OPII(f).pdf 

33 

 
 
 
 
MEAIM, March 2015, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, Operational Programme for Malta, 
March 2015. Available at: 
http://eufunds.gov.mt/en/EU%20Funds%20Programmes/Agricultural%20Fisheries%20Fund/Docume
nts/EMFF%202014-2020/Adopted%20OP%20(EMFF)(f).pdf 

Ministry for Education and Employment. STEPS: Strategic Educational Pathways Scholarships. 
Available at: https://education.gov.mt/en/education/myScholarship/Pages/STEPS.aspx 

Ministry for Sustainable Development, Environment and Climate Change, June 2014, Aquaculture 
Strategy for the Maltese Islands, Towards Sustainability 2014 – 2025. Available at: 
http://environment.gov.mt/en/document%20repository/aquaculture%20strategy%202014-25.pdf 

University of Malta, 10 April 2015.  Takeoff turns one year. Available at: 
http://www.um.edu.mt/newsoncampus/features#item_242235 

34 

 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 
EUR 27422 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Title: Stairway to Excellence. Country Report: Malta 

Author(s): Brian Warrington 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 
2015 – 34 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 
ISBN 978-92-79-50848-6 (PDF) 
doi:10.2788/137775 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
B
-
N
A
-
2
7
4
2
2
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2788/137775 

ISBN 978-92-79-50848-6