Malta’s higher education regulator didn’t get in the EQAR list – what does this mean?

Malta’s higher education regulator didn’t make the European Quality Assurance Registry (EQAR). This is the second time it applied and failed to get clearance, with EQAR citing a lack of independence as one of the reasons (all the appointees are political). But in reality, what does this mean? Are higher education degrees unrecognisable now? If so, why isn’t there more of a flurry?

In reaction to this, BusinessNow.mt reached out to around 20 higher education institutions in Malta with the same question – what does this mean for you? A sparse few got back, saying to refer to a statement issued by the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises which insisted there is no need for panic. This is either true or a way to dampen down panic to safeguard reputation, an understandable stance. 

But what does the decision actually mean? Has Malta been “greylisted” by an education registry?

In a nutshell, not quite. 

Malta’s higher education regulator, the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE), has been denied entry into the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) for the second time, primarily due to concerns over its lack of independence, with all appointees being political rather than autonomous experts. While this is a setback, it doesn’t render Maltese degrees unrecognizable, but it does have implications. 

EQAR serves as a gold standard for quality assurance in higher education, and being listed signals that a country’s accreditation system meets stringent European benchmarks. Without this recognition, Maltese degrees may face closer scrutiny abroad, particularly in countries that prioritise EQAR-registered accreditation for admissions, employment, or further study. However, Malta’s participation in the Lisbon Recognition Convention ensures that its qualifications must still be fairly assessed by other signatory countries, meaning degrees remain valid and recognisable under international law.

The practical impact of this rejection is more about perception than legal validity. Degrees from Malta won’t suddenly be rejected, but the lack of EQAR endorsement could lead to extra verification steps, especially for professional fields like medicine or engineering, where accreditation standards are stricter. Some universities and employers might view Maltese qualifications with slightly more caution, particularly if they rely heavily on EQAR as a trust marker. However, many Maltese institutions have other forms of international accreditation or partnerships, which can offset these concerns. For example, the University of Malta has collaborations with foreign universities and may hold additional recognitions that bolster its credibility.

The muted reaction from Maltese institutions and officials is partly because the Lisbon Convention still provides a safety net for recognition, and outright panic isn’t justified. However, the EQAR rejection does highlight structural issues in Malta’s quality assurance system that could affect its higher education reputation long-term. If Malta wants to strengthen its standing, it may need to depoliticise its accreditation body or encourage universities to seek external reviews from EQAR-registered agencies. For now, students and graduates shouldn’t worry about their degrees being worthless, but they might encounter more questions when applying for jobs or further studies abroad. 

Reaching out to EQAR for comment, it issued a statement clarifying its decision to reject the Malta Further and Higher Education Authority’s (MFHEA) application for registration, following media reports that it claims misrepresented the process.

EQAR emphasised that its role is to assess whether quality assurance agencies comply with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), a framework agreed upon by EHEA ministers. While registration is voluntary, EQAR stressed that rejection indicates a failure to meet these standards, stating: “If an agency applied for inclusion and was rejected, this clearly means the agency was found lacking in its compliance with the ESG.”

The decision followed a rigorous evaluation, including an external review by an ENQA-appointed panel and scrutiny by EQAR’s Register Committee. Although the panel found MFHEA partially compliant with six ESG standards, the Committee identified shortcomings in eight, concluding that the agency did not demonstrate “substantial compliance with the ESG as a whole.” EQAR noted that such divergences in assessment are not unusual, as its Committee ensures consistency across reviews.

EQAR also addressed the implications of non-registration, explaining that while not legally mandated, inclusion on its register affects an agency’s recognition across Europe. Some countries require EQAR registration for QA agencies to operate, while others rely on it for cross-border quality assurance and degree recognition. The statement concluded by reaffirming EQAR’s commitment to “transparency, fairness, and consistency” and invited further dialogue with stakeholders.

The situation is less a crisis and more a wake-up call for Malta to align its quality assurance with Europe’s most trusted standards.