Lowering air pollution in Africa has many economic benefits, according to new research by environmental scientists Chris Malley, Kevin Hicks and Caroline Sawe. They reflect on two reports that <a href="https://www.sei.org/publications/air-pollution-climate-change-africa-full-report/” rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>set out the practical ways that African countries can cut air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at the same time, while saving billions through lower healthcare costs, fewer days lost to illness and greater productivity.
How big is the air pollution problem in Africa?
The 2025 State of Global Air report analysed the air quality and health impacts for countries around the world in 2023. It shows that nearly 1 million people died prematurely across sub-Saharan Africa in 2023 because of the polluted air they breathed. This makes air pollution the second largest risk to public health across Africa, behind only malnutrition.
Generally, air pollution’s health impacts are felt mostly by the elderly and children. The same report says that only 12% of all air pollution deaths globally occur in sub-Saharan Africa, but over half of all child related air pollution deaths occur on the continent.
Most human-made air pollution in sub-Saharan Africa comes from homes that use wood, charcoal and other polluting fuels for cooking. The rest is from industries, electricity production, transport, agriculture and waste management. These major air pollutionuse climate change
This means that tackling climate change globally can improve public health locally.
Our first piece of research, Hidden assets: the economic and health case for climate and clean air action, evaluates a package of 25 proven solutions for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. These solutions span key economic sectors like energy and fossil fuel systems, industry, transport, agriculture and food systems, residential cooking and heating, and waste management.
The findings show that in parts of southern Africa, every dollar spent cutting pollution could deliver about US$26 in economic benefits. This is calculated by comparing how much it costs to cut pollution with the estimated monetary value of the damage those measures could prevent.
For context, childhood vaccination could deliver about US$16 in economic benefits for every dollar spent. Putting all 25 pollution-cutting actions into practice across southern Africa would cost about US$11 billion by 2035, but the benefits could far outweigh the costs.
The financial benefits come from the money that is saved when fewer people are hospitalised for pollution-related illnesses, and are not off sick from work as much. Lowering pollution levels cuts illness and lifts productivity. It also reduces the number of the school days children miss to illnesses such as asthma.
Avoiding these costs means real savings for governments. These savings become even greater if solutions are implemented as a coordinated package. Few development investments offer this combination of financial return and lives saved.
What are the best ways for African countries to cut air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions?
Our second piece of research, Integrated assessment of air pollution and climate change for sustainable development in Africa, identifies 37 areas in which African countries could improve air quality and health and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
These range from cleaner cooking and better public transport to renewable electricity, moving freight from roads to rail and making factories more energy efficient. The measures also recommend that farms stop burning crop leftovers, while towns and cities could make waste collection more environmentally friendly, turn food scraps into compost or biogas, and capture gases that warm the planet from dumps and sewage plants.
Two measures show why this is important for Africa:
-
Switching households from charcoal and wood to cleaner cooking fuels cuts the indoor and outdoor pollution behind many of Africa’s child deaths. It also reduces the short-lived climate pollutants that drive global warming.
-
Investing in affordable, reliable public transport reduces vehicle emissions and urban smog while lowering the cost of getting to work, school and healthcare.
Both measures are already being tested by some African countries. For example, between 2000 and 2021, the proportion of households cooking with wood and charcoal in Ghana dropped from 75% to 54%. The number of households cooking with the less polluting LPG doubled in the same time.
As a result, the death rate from household air pollution in Ghana is estimated to have dropped by about 30% over the same time period. While the absolute number of deaths from household air pollution has increased in Ghana, this has happened to a much lower degree than it would have done without the shift away from polluting fuels that has been achieved in the country.
Why is it so important to connect managing air quality with managing climate change?
Earlier approaches tended to treat air pollution and climate change as separate problems with separate solutions. But both come from many of the same emissions with its expected benefits for air quality, health, the climate and the economy, showing the full value of each
Our research also moved from generalising how Africa could cut pollution to setting out exactly what each sector in different countries could do. Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana have already used this approach. It’s shown that fully implementing their national climate plans would prevent thousands of premature deaths as reduced emissions improve air quality.
Calculating the costs and benefits for each country helps development banks and other funders see how much money is needed, what it would pay for and what improvements it could deliver.
What needs to happen next?
Only around 1% of international development finance goes towards air pollution. Only a fraction of this reaches African countries.
The problem lies in how development banks decide what to fund. Their lending rules often overlook the combined benefits of cutting air pollution and slowing climate change. Air pollution rarely has its own funding category. Projects that address both problems can fall between departments.
Our research argues that development banks should direct low-cost finance to places where it could do the most good and where affordable funding is scarce. Funding decisions should weigh the expected benefits against the costs, rather than favour projects that are easiest to fund. Multilateral climate funds should recognise the benefits of cutting air pollution and greenhouse gases together.
Taking early action on both at once brings greater economic benefits than addressing each separately.
