Fund the first credible answer.
Help test whether a focused local implementation and evaluation organisation can deliver additional public-health value.
The first opportunity is to build a method worth trusting: a feasible intervention, a reliable baseline, independent scrutiny and a clear account of what changed.
Why this problem, why now?
Air pollution remains a preventable health risk. Europe’s revised standards create a reason to strengthen implementation. A local pilot can test how evidence becomes action and whether the result is meaningful for people.
Why this organisation?
Our proposition is a small team that connects local delivery to independent evaluation. The first funding gate is to test that this service is needed and adds value to existing work. Founding funding should purchase disciplined learning, not assume a unique position has already been proven.
The proposed first 18 months
| Stage | What support enables | Decision gate |
|---|---|---|
| Months 0–3 Establish & assess | Validate demand and budget, develop incorporation and governance, review the dossier and compare intervention opportunities. | Is there an unmet need, a credible operating model and an appropriate delivery home? |
| Months 3–6 Design & review | Secure a delivery partner, specify a pilot protocol and comparison, arrange independent science and legal review. | Can a lawful, feasible intervention be evaluated with adequate data? |
| Months 6–12 Baseline & implement | Quality-assured monitoring, community engagement and implementation when the baseline and seasonal design are ready. | Is the baseline sufficient? Can implementation proceed as planned? |
| Months 12–18 Evaluate & decide | Assess delivery and available exposure evidence; publish methods, costs and limitations; plan sufficient follow-up. | Continue, adapt, stop or prepare replication based on the evidence. |
Indicative sequence from programme start, not a promise of a conclusive health result within 18 months. Heating-season coverage or partner readiness may require a longer evaluation period.
What a funding agreement should contain
- A validated operating budget, including independent review and evaluation.
- Milestones and release conditions agreed before delivery.
- Named responsibility for decisions and independently approved spending controls.
- A publication commitment that includes null findings and unexpected harms.
- Clear rules for conflicts, data, intellectual property and termination.
No funding target or secured funding is announced. The target will follow a costed operating plan and governance review. Funding conversations do not constitute a donation commitment, and we are not currently offering an online donation checkout.
If the intervention does not work
We will report the result, test the explanation and recommend whether to redesign, stop or redirect. Continuation should depend on credible expected benefit, not the need to defend the original idea. Unused or redirected funds should be handled under the agreed funding terms.
The route to Europe
First establish a usable method in one setting. Then test transferability with a second context, including local law, pollution sources and delivery capacity. Scale only where evidence and demand justify it; share useful methods even where others lead delivery.
Before a funding commitment
A funder should expect verified legal identity, confirmed governance, a costed plan, reviewed methodology, clear partner responsibilities and signed independence provisions. These are the next substantive pieces of work.
Founding support could come from philanthropic foundations, major donors and individual supporters. Research or European grants may become appropriate when eligibility and consortium requirements are met. Corporate support would require a documented independence assessment.