Finding 1
Collaboration is improving and the needs have shifted
The clearest positive shift between 2024 and 2026 is in how the field experiences collaboration. In 2024, no respondent described field-wide collaboration as effective, and 21% said they didn’t know how to characterise it.
0% → 15%
describe field-wide collaboration as effective
2024 vs 2026
66% → 77%
describe it as moderate collaboration
Small orgs may experience this differently
57%
say the field is more coordinated than 12 months ago
13% say less; 30% about the same
The drop in “I don’t know” responses, from 21% to 2%, may be the most telling number. In 2024, a fifth of the field lacked the visibility or confidence to assess collaboration. By 2026, almost everyone has a view.
Open-text responses point to three drivers: increased funding availability, the Global Methane Pledge raising expectations, and coordinating bodies.
What the field most needs to collaborate on has changed
20242026
This is not a small shift. The responses indicate that the ecosystem has moved past asking how to make the case for super pollutants towards how to execute together.
Finding 2
Shared language is spreading; shared strategy is uneven
In 2024, 36% of respondents said they never used the terms “super pollutants” or “short-lived climate pollutants.” By 2026, that figure is 4%. Among NGO/CSO respondents only, the population most comparable to 2024, it drops to 3%.
36% → 4%
never use “super pollutants” or “SLCP” terminology
Comparable subset: 36% → 3%
43% → 61%
use the terms often or always
Always: 14% → 26%
21% → 35%
use the terms sometimes
Still deciding how to frame their work
Shared language is a precondition for shared strategy. The field cannot coordinate on “super pollutants” if half of it talks about methane, HFCs, and black carbon as separate issues.
These findings indicate that shared language is growing within the ecosystem, which is a useful precursor to shared identity and agenda setting.
But shared strategy is mixed within pollutants
Share of respondents reporting a somewhat clear or clear shared strategy.
20242026
The N₂O finding is the most significant signal in the dataset. In 2024, 24% of respondents reported some or clear shared strategy on N₂O. In 2026, that moved to 10%, with 37% saying they don’t know whether a shared strategy exists. This may reflect a genuine fragmentation of the N₂O field following changes in funding, or that many 2026 respondents are newer to this work and don’t yet have visibility.
The slight decline for methane is likely a maturation effect. With more funders, geographies, and sub-sector strategies, the sense of a single shared strategy naturally fragments. That isn’t necessarily bad, but it means the coordination challenge is evolving.
Finding 3
The field is growing, but remains financially fragile
Two facts sit uncomfortably next to each other in the 2026 data, and both are true at the same time.
Positive signalRisk or declineStill developing
Growth66% say their work grew
Most respondents report their work and capacity expanded in the past 12 months. Only 6% report contraction. The main drivers are funding availability and rising policy attention, especially around the Global Methane Pledge and Kigali momentum.
Fragility35% are financially precarious
On a 1–5 scale of financial sustainability, 20% rate themselves at 1 and 15% at 2. Only 11% rate themselves at 5. More than a third of the field is growing on uncertain foundations.
A field in formationHalf are newly funded
First funding years cluster in 2021–2024. More than half the field received its first dedicated super pollutant funding in the last five years, and six respondents have not yet received any.
What would unlock moreFunding, and flexibility
68% say multi-year unrestricted funding is what they most need; only 21% cite project-specific funding. Asks of funders are consistent: longer timelines, flexible use, less administrative burden, and trust-based partnerships.
How respondents rate their financial sustainability
1 = weakest · 5 = strongest
35% precarious (1–2)
1 · Weakest23–45 · Strongest
Ratings 3 and 4 are shown together (54%, the remainder) because the survey report doesn't break them out.
“Multi-year unrestricted funding would change everything. Right now we spend as much energy on grant applications as on programme delivery.”Survey respondent, 2026
“The most important thing funders could do is commit for five years, not three. Three years is not enough to build the policy relationships that make change stick.”Survey respondent, 2026
Finding 4
Respondents point to needs outside of their organizations’ current focus areas
We asked which super pollutants your organisation focuses on, and where additional philanthropic resources should go. The gap between the two shows where the field itself thinks investment is most needed.
Currently focusing on itSay more funding is needed
Gap = share saying more funding is needed minus share currently focusing on it. A positive gap flags under-investment.
N₂O again stands out as an interesting finding: more respondents say N₂O needs more philanthropic resources (40%) than currently work on it (26%). The field is already telling us that N₂O is under-resourced relative to its potential.
Emerging priorityFood and agriculture: 55%
55% say food and agriculture should be a priority for additional resources, the second-highest area after methane. It wasn’t a category in 2024’s resource priority question. Its prominence reflects practitioner interest in both agricultural methane and N₂O from soils.
The regranter gap57% have experienced it
57% say they have experienced gaps in the regranter or intermediary ecosystem, or areas where no intermediary organisation covers their work. Open-text responses locate these gaps primarily by geography (Global South coverage) and by pollutant (N₂O, ozone, and black carbon outside major markets).
Finding 5
The Global South gap is structural, not incidental
2026 was the first year our survey reached a meaningfully global respondent pool. What those respondents told us about their experience of the field was consistent and specific.
Barriers Global South respondents described
- Funding arrives through too many intermediaries, increasing transaction costs and reducing local ownership.
- Organisations are often excluded from strategic decisions made by Northern coalitions, even when those decisions directly affect their regions.
- Language barriers remain real. Grant applications, technical dialogues, and coalition communications are primarily in English.
- Local regranting mechanisms are sparse. Most international philanthropy reaches Global South organisations through Northern intermediaries, not regional ones.
- High administrative burdens fall hardest on smaller, Southern-based organisations with limited compliance capacity.
