13.1 Wzmacnianie bezpieczeństwa wodnego, typ A. Rozwój i bezpieczeństwo działania systemów wodno – ściekowych

Purpose

Energy, environment, infrastructure

R&D relevance

0 of 3

Poland eligible

Yes

Country limit

Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

Region

małopolskie

Consortium

Unclear

Readiness level (TRL)

—

Topics

• Water security
• Water supply systems
• Wastewater systems
• Infrastructure resilience

Machine-classified from the call text; check eligibility at the source. 23 Oct 2026

Typed facts extracted from the source documents by Scindu's grant-data review. Each value keeps its own conditions. Unknown means unstated, not zero or unlimited.

Applicant typeEligible applicants in the current schedule row for FEMP.13.01 competitive call

General applicant classes: public administration, partnerships, public-purpose enterprises and public services. Specific applicant categories in the current schedule: water-management institutions; units acting on behalf of local-government units; local-government units; entities providing public services as part of local-government statutory responsibilities; water and wastewater enterprises; and water companies. The action’s enterprise-size entry says “Duże” (large). This is preserved alongside the listed public-purpose and public-service applicant classes; no broader SME exclusion is inferred beyond the exact current action entry and forthcoming call conditions.

The criteria require compliance with beneficiary types in the FEM detailed priority description in force on the call-announcement date. This applicant list is the current schedule entry, not a determination that every entity in each broad class can apply regardless of that detailed description.

Application restrictionConditional applicant documentation for aid and de minimis aid branches

Where project support wholly or partly constitutes public aid or de minimis aid, the applicant must provide the applicable aid information forms on current templates and, if applicable, financial statements for the three most recent fiscal years prepared under accounting law. This is an aid-conditional application-document requirement, not a project or staff-duration requirement.

Only applies to aid/de-minimis projects and where the criteria specify the relevant form/document applies.

Application restrictionProject assessment and documentary eligibility

The current criteria version is effective 16 October 2026 and evaluation assesses a later-submitted application against call-regulation/SzOP rules and specific evidence. For wastewater investments in agglomerations, KPOŚK status and wastewater-directive compliance are conditional evaluation matters; outside-agglomeration projects face separate requirements. No specific application form or call regulation is established by these criteria alone.

Current criteria are substantive selection rules, but do not replace call application and expense regulations.

Application restrictionCurrent formal, financial and substantive evaluation criteria for the type A call.

The current selection criteria assess applicant and, where relevant, partner eligibility and exclusions; project type, timing, funding-rule compliance and KPOŚK status where wastewater scope applies; preliminary cost/VAT eligibility, cost categorisation and simplified-cost method where applicable; for wastewater-system projects, consistency with the local hazard/needs analysis and continuity of collection or treatment during a crisis; indicators; property rights and planning/environmental/water permits or permitted later-submission commitments; state-aid basis and required forms; financial feasibility, durability and project budget/own-share evidence; and required financial analysis and declarations. The criteria specify a three-year lookback for prior regional-programme agreement termination attributable to the applicant/partner. The partnership economic-capacity threshold and exceptions are recorded separately.

Applicable evidence and conditions are project- and aid-branch-specific. Call-specific form, cost regulation and deadlines remain to be confirmed when published.

Eligible geographyCall programme geography

Małopolskie Voivodeship.

Current official schedule row identifies the competitive call geography.

Eligible project scopeCompetitive type A project scope

Type A: development and security of water and wastewater systems under FEM priority 13, specific objective 2(v), supporting secure access to water, sustainable water management and water resilience.

The 16 October 2026 criteria version identifies the type A competitive procedure; does not by itself provide complete itemized eligible cost rules.

Ineligible project scopeFEMP.13.01 current action eligibility.

Investments intended for municipal sewage-sludge storage and household wastewater treatment plants are ineligible. Water/sewer connections and other individual-user equipment are also ineligible where neither the beneficiary nor an entity authorised to incur expenditure owns them.

Current action exclusions; the ownership condition is specific to individual-user connections/equipment and must not be broadened into a blanket ban on beneficiary-owned connections.

Other conditionFEMP.13.01 action-wide project design and eligibility

Action FEMP.13.01 supports type A projects in water/wastewater system safety and development; plans must arise from whole-municipality hazard and needs analyses and include justified system-protection measures. Wastewater works are only a project component, capped at 50% of eligible costs, and, outside crisis-only safety projects, must comply with the action’s KPOŚK/Directive eligibility. Eligible wastewater investment covers agglomerations from 2,000 to below 15,000 RLM and areas outside agglomerations; agglomerations at or above 15,000 RLM are ineligible. Local treatment plants outside KPOŚK agglomerations require at least 50 RLM. A competitive call allows at most one application per municipality only for projects assigned to one municipality; intermunicipal water/wastewater systems and partnership projects are excepted. The project must maintain crisis access to water at least at physiological survival need (2.5 dm³ per person per day); adequate justified system-security measures are mandatory. The action card states a programme-wide EU allocation of EUR 45,000,000 and total public allocation of EUR 47,368,421; these are action-wide programme amounts, not allocation of this competitive call, a per-project ceiling, or live remaining funds.

These are current action-wide SZOP conditions, not call-specific application instructions; verify each applicant/project against the current call regulation once published.

Other conditionProject-level environmental/DNSH evidence obligations expressly incorporated by the current type A call criteria

The operative selection criterion expressly adopts Annex 2 to Małopolska Board Resolution 33/26 of 8 January 2026 for DNSH assessment. For Priority 13 water/wastewater projects, the annex requires an EIA or screening-duty determination to be identified; for relevant climate-risk cases, assess current/future climate risk and implement needed adaptation measures. For small-scale OZE/cyber-resilience components, support is restricted to OZE biomass/biogas produced under sustainability criteria in Article 29 of Directive 2018/2001; address water, biodiversity, circular material use, construction noise/dust/pollution and Natura 2000/migration concerns; an ornithological expert assessment is required for interventions into building walls/roofs. These Annex 2 obligations are conditional by project component and applicability.

Applied only to the exact listed Priority 13 water-access project types and when the corresponding environmental impact/component is present; these are not Priority 12 dual-use technology rules.

Other conditionConditional wastewater project agglomeration scoring criterion.

Agglomeration-size scoring applies only to projects containing sewerage and/or wastewater-treatment investment: agglomeration at least 10,000 and below 15,000 RLM scores 3; at least 2,000 and below 10,000 scores 2; outside KPOŚK agglomerations scores 1; 0 if none applies, at least 15,000 RLM, or the project concerns only water systems. Scores do not sum; 0 does not eliminate. This scoring rule is distinct from the action-card wastewater eligibility and KPOŚK compliance conditions.

Maximum 3 points, weight 3. Preserve strict 15,000 exclusion in this scoring table and separate action eligibility; 0 is non-eliminating.

Other conditionBudget and cost assessment for the competitive FEMP.13.01 call

Current selection criteria require proposed costs, VAT treatment, cost limits, maximum funding rate and minimum own contribution to be checked against the SzOP and call regulations applicable on the call-announcement date. The criteria file itself supplies no call-specific numeric rate, own-share percentage or cost ceiling.

The call regulations/application and cost annex were not located among the retained/current official materials reviewed; exact cost categories, rates, applicant own share and personnel/service eligibility therefore remain unresolved.

Other conditionSubstantive scoring criterion for comprehensiveness and crisis resilience of water/wastewater systems.

Crisis resilience/continuity scoring has five separate tasks worth 2 points each: diversify water sources; ensure water quality and emergency reserves; ensure energy autonomy and continuity; apply intelligent management and protection from threats; and provide water mobility/distribution outside the network. Scores sum. A project receiving 0 because it implements none of the listed tasks is eliminated from assessment.

Maximum 10 points, weight 1; five independently described 2-point measures; summed; 0 points eliminates. Do not interpret as a funding or cost rate.

Other conditionConditional substantive scoring criterion for crisis-time water supply; partnership scoring and third-order tie-break.

Crisis water-supply scoring: 2 points for a project consistent with the hazard/needs analysis and enabling necessary supply (15 dm3 per person per day); 1 point for enabling minimum supply (7.5 dm3 per person per day); 0 where analysis alignment or at least minimum supply is absent. Scores do not sum; zero does not eliminate. For multi-municipality partnership projects each municipality is checked separately and, where partner assessments differ, the project receives the highest score earned by at least one partner. This criterion is third-order tie-break.

Criterion score maximum 2, weight 2. The 15 and 7.5 supply benchmarks are already typed separately as assessment definitions, not universal output promises.

Other conditionCompetitive FEMP.13.01 type A application window

Current official schedule sets the competitive type A call for 29 October through 17 December 2026. The earlier schedule dates 14 October through 4 December were moved because selection criteria were being changed; by the 20 October schedule update the new dates were included. As of the 23 October retained review, it had not yet opened.

These are scheduled dates, not a determination that applications are currently being accepted or that the future dates cannot change.

Other conditionConditional technical requirement within eligible agglomerations.

For projects in agglomerations of at least10000 RLM, technologies must achieve the required wastewater treatment standards, including enhanced nutrient removal.

A technology trigger, not a minimum agglomeration size for all projects. The separate>=15000-RLM exclusion still applies.

Other conditionScoring of project tree and greenery protection.

Tree and greenery protection scoring awards one point for applying the specified tree/greenery protection standard through design, implementation and project durability, and another point for either no planned tree/shrub removal or, where removal is necessary, native-species replacement planting. These two points are additive. Zero does not eliminate.

Maximum 2 points, weight 1; two additive one-point conditions; 0 non-eliminating.

Other conditionApplicability and trigger for current climate-resilience and climate-mitigation assessment criteria.

The climate-resilience criterion applies only to projects that include infrastructure investments with an anticipated useful life of at least five years. For applicable infrastructure, the assessment addresses climate adaptation/resilience, energy-efficiency-first and consistency with the goal of climate neutrality by 2050. A detailed adaptation/mitigation analysis is required only where preselection indicates that a more detailed check is needed. Climate-mitigation assessment applies where absolute or relative project GHG emissions exceed 20,000 tonnes CO2e per year, positive or negative, estimated across the whole operating life from early stages through decommissioning.

Five-year expected life limits applicability of the infrastructure-resilience criterion. The emissions threshold is strictly greater than 20,000 tCO2e/year over the whole operating life; it is not a general project-emissions cap. Assessment is in relation to the climate-neutrality goal for 2050, and detailed review is conditional on preselection.

Other conditionScoring of municipal population access to water supply network.

Water-network access scoring is based on GUS water-supply coverage of the municipality: below 50% gives 3 points; at least 50% but below 75% gives 2; at least 75% but below 90% gives 1; at least 90% gives 0. Scores do not sum; 0 does not eliminate. This is first-order tie-break: higher points in this criterion rank ahead when substantive totals tie.

Maximum 3 points, weight 3; percentage is GUS population served divided by municipal population. Non-summing; zero non-eliminating; first-order tie-break.

Other conditionProject preparation/readiness scoring and second-order tie-break.

Project readiness is scored 4 points for fully ready with all legally required final decisions/permits or non-objected notifications enabling the whole project; 3 for high readiness with complete technical documentation, planning-document consistency and land rights; 2 for medium readiness under either specified alternative involving planning/land rights and a functional-and-utility programme or complete technical documentation plus one of planning consistency/land rights; 1 for low readiness under either specified alternative involving planning consistency or land rights plus a whole-project functional-and-utility programme, or complete technical documentation without confirmed planning consistency and land rights. Scores do not sum; readiness is second-order tie-break after first-order criterion is insufficient.

Score range 1–4 points, weight 3. Conditions are alternative documentary combinations; score levels are not cumulative. This is the second-order tie-break.

Other conditionCurrent FEMP.13.01 wastewater component prioritisation.

Wastewater investment priority order is: first, agglomerations in the source10–15 thousand RLM band; second, the2–10 thousand RLM band; third, investments outside agglomerations. The source separately excludes agglomerations of at least15000 RLM, so the stated15-thousand band label does not make that boundary eligible.

Preserve the source band wording without inventing an unexpressed allocation rule at the shared10000-RLM boundary. Wastewater remains only a component capped at50% of eligible project cost.

Other conditionConditional water-only municipal-area scoring criterion.

Area-size scoring applies only to water-system development/security projects with no sewerage or wastewater-treatment component. A project implemented in at least one municipality below 10,000 residents scores 3; at least one municipality with 10,000 to below 20,000 scores 2; at least one municipality with at least 20,000 scores 1; 0 if none of these applies or the project includes a sewerage/wastewater component. Scores do not sum; 0 does not eliminate.

Maximum 3 points, weight 3; at-least-one-municipality thresholds; no cumulative scoring. The 0-point result is non-eliminating.

Partner requirementConditional financial-capacity test for the applicant in a partnership project; turnover route and under-one-year asset-value alternative, with explicit public-finance-sector exception.

For a partnership project, the applicant must demonstrate economic capacity: annual turnover at least 75% of that applicant’s average annual expenditure in the submitted project. For an applicant existing less than one year, asset value at least 75% of its average annual project expenditure is an allowed alternative, evidenced by an applicant good-faith asset assessment with accounting-book extract, or an independent appraiser opinion if the extract cannot be supplied. This criterion does not apply when the applicant is a public-finance-sector unit.

Applies only to partnership projects. This is an applicant financial-capacity test, not a grant rate, own-share rule, project staff requirement or salary.

Technical requirement, maximumUpper boundary of KPOŚK agglomeration size for wastewater-investment criteria

15,000 RLM

Strict upper boundary: agglomeration must be below 15,000 RLM for this conditional KPOŚK wastewater criterion; 15,000 is the exclusive boundary, not an inclusive cap. Does not apply to water-only scope.

Technical requirement, minimumSize of KPOŚK agglomeration for eligible wastewater-investment criteria

2,000 RLM

For wastewater-system or treatment investment within a KPOŚK-listed agglomeration, the criteria refer to agglomerations of at least 2,000 and below 15,000 RLM, and require the relevant KPOŚK non-compliance condition. Conditional technical threshold, not general eligibility for water-only projects.

Technical requirement, minimumNecessary crisis water-supply benchmark per resident

15 dm3/person/day

Criteria use 15 dm3/person/day for essential supplies covering all consumers, public utility operation and selected production during limited supply; criterion scoring benchmark, not universal project output.

Technical requirement, minimumDesigned capacity of local wastewater treatment plant

50 RLM

For project investment in a local wastewater treatment plant under the stated outside-agglomeration conditions; not a blanket minimum for all project types.

Technical requirement, minimumMinimum crisis water-supply benchmark per resident

7.5 dm3/person/day

Criteria use 7.5 dm3/person/day as minimum crisis supply for survival needs of people and farm animals; an assessment definition, not a universal project output promise.

Technical requirement, minimumCrisis water-supply volume per resident used in criteria definition

2.5 dm3/person/day

Criteria use 2.5 dm3/person/day to define physiological survival need for crisis-supply assessment; this is a criterion benchmark, not an independently established project output requirement.

Catalogue budget

PLN 161,320,000

Figure as listed by the provider. Whether it is the total allocation or a per-project cap is unverified unless a reviewed condition says so.

Call allocationCompetitive type A FEMP.13.01 call allocation

PLN 163,310,245

Current announced allocation in the 19 October 2026 schedule for the competitive FEMP.13.01 call; not a live remaining balance. The earlier original October XLSX is retained and its row 9, cell H9 amount is PLN 161.32 million. Preserve the later schedule update as a separate source version. Only the provider export upstream transformation lineage remains unknown.

Eligible cost limitWastewater investments as a project component under FEMP.13.01

50 percent of eligible project costs

Wastewater investments are eligible only as part of a project and cannot exceed 50% of eligible project costs.

Funding intensity, maximumMaximum total EU plus national co-financing for eligible project costs under FEMP.13.01

75 percent of eligible project costs

Action description states total project co-financing maximum 75%; any aid-specific or call-specific restriction must also be met.

Indirect cost flat rateIndirect costs for FEMP.13.01 projects

3 percent of eligible direct costs

Action description specifies 3% of eligible direct costs. The separate programme simplified-cost listing elsewhere states up to7%; retain both descriptions and treat project-specific chosen rate/call rules as controlling.

Own contribution, minimumResidual beneficiary own contribution under FEMP.13.01 when maximum total support is 75%

25 percent of eligible project costs

The current SZOP explicitly states a minimum beneficiary own contribution of25% on physical p730. This is not merely inferred as the complement of the75% funding ceiling. Actual aid/project facts and forthcoming call rules remain applicable.

Share of a named budget component, maximumCross-financing within the FEMP.13.01 project budget.

0 %

Current SZOP action entry explicitly permits0% cross-financing. Distinct from own share, funding intensity and the wastewater component ceiling.

Project funding, maximumMaximum EU funding per competitively selected project under FEMP.13.01 type A

PLN 3,000,000

Applies to competitive type A projects; action-wide reference, current call rules may narrow or specify conditions.

• Exact retained provider record JSON, with monthly schedule row metadata

  funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl

• Annex 2 to Resolution 33/26, 8 January 2026: programme DNSH assessment supplement, Priority 13 water access

  fundusze.malopolska.pl

• Current selection criteria for 13.1A competition, amended 16 October 2026

  fundusze.malopolska.pl

• FEMP SZOP version .031 (effective 22 September 2026), action FEMP.13.01

  fundusze.malopolska.pl

• Official notice changing date of competitive 13.1A call

  fundusze.malopolska.pl

• Official notice of 19 October schedule resolution 2298/26

  fundusze.malopolska.pl

• Official regional October 2026 call schedule workbook, Małopolskie sheet row 9 (reviewer transcription)

  funduszeuropejskie.gov.pl

• FEM 2021–2027 application schedule attached to resolution 2298/26, current 19 October 2026

  fundusze.malopolska.pl

Opens

14 Oct 2026

Provider

FE dla Małopolskie

Source

funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl

Checked

24 Oct 2026

Review status

Partial review

Independent QA

No published hold

Reviewed

23 Oct 2026