Global Air Quality Funding Trends: Insights from the 2026 Report

The Crossroads of Air Quality, Health, and Development

Air quality is a matter that transcends borders, significantly impacting climate, health, and development initiatives. This intersection makes it essential for international development funders to engage in efforts aimed at enhancing air quality.

To effectively direct the increasingly scarce resources available for air quality improvement, an understanding of funding sources, areas of support, and existing gaps is vital.

About the Report

The annual State of Global Air Quality Funding report, published by the Clean Air Fund and compiled with input from the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), offers a big-picture overview. It tracks international development funding related to air quality, assessing how money is allocated across different geographies, sectors, funding sources, and financial instruments. The report strives to provide clarity in an area often clouded by confusion and competing priorities.

The report’s eighth edition hones in on international development funding related to air quality from 2020 to 2024, detailing:

• Funding dedicated to improving outdoor air quality as a primary goal.
• Projects that address air quality benefits while pursuing other objectives.
• Indicators of funding that prolong fossil fuel usage, providing context for development finance alignment with air quality goals.
• Inclusion of funding for super pollutants like black carbon and, for the first time, tropospheric ozone and its precursors.
• A breakdown of funding by country, region, sector, funder, and funding mechanism.

Positive Signals Amidst Ongoing Challenges

Year-on-Year Funding Shows Some Progress

The report highlights notable advancements in 2024, with outdoor air quality funding rising by $1.7 billion compared to 2023, nearly reaching the preceding year's peak. This uptick is promising, but it still represents less than 1% of total international development funding. The scale of the challenge remains daunting, questioning whether these investments are adequate against the backdrop of the severe health and environmental implications of poor air quality.

In a notable shift, funding that prolongs fossil fuel use nearly halved. It dropped from about $9 billion in 2023 to $4.7 billion in 2024. This development improves the ratio of air quality funding to fossil fuel-related funding to a balanced 1:1. But here's the thing: while this suggests a positive trend toward discouraging fossil fuel reliance, the fact remains that roughly equal investment in such harmful activities poses considerable risk to global air quality efforts.

Interestingly, projects aimed at improving air quality without explicit climate goals surged from about $4.4 billion to $7.9 billion. This surge hints at a newfound focus among funders on addressing air quality issues independently of broader environmental objectives. If you’re working in this space, this could be indicative of a shifting mentality in donor priorities and perhaps an opportunity for more tailored interventions.

Long-Term Trends and Gaps in Funding

Long-term Trajectory Raises Concerns

Despite the recent uptick, total air quality funding has increased only 9% over the last two five-year periods—from $113.8 billion (2019-2023) to $124.6 billion (2020-2024). This growth sounds decent at first glance but quickly loses steam when you consider that total funding sunk to $28.7 billion in 2024—the first downturn in five years. Alarmingly, 84% of this funding derived from projects with only co-benefits for air quality, rather than targeted resources. This reliance on ancillary funding fails to adequately address the pressing need for substantial investments directly aimed at air quality improvement.

Funding Concentration and Misalignment

Funding is Heavily Concentrated and Misaligned

Analysis from 2020 to 2024 reveals that:

• 62% ($77 billion) of total air quality funding stemmed from transport sector projects.
• Three countries received over half of all outdoor air quality funding.
• Four funders were responsible for three-quarters of all outdoor air quality funding.
• 89% ($110 billion) of total funding was delivered through loans.

Yet, seven of the ten countries with the worst pollution levels attracted less than 1% of the total air quality funding in 2024. This misalignment underscores a pressing need for finance that correlates with actual requirements rather than domestic capabilities. The concentration of funding in a few areas raises questions about equity and the effectiveness of these strategic investments. Can the countries most in need truly make headway with the scant resources they receive?

Missed Opportunities in Addressing Super Pollutants

Super Pollutants Represent a Missed Opportunity

Despite their significant impacts on air quality and climate, super pollutants remain largely unaddressed in international development funding. For instance, funding for primary black carbon constituted less than 1% of total air quality funding between 2020 and 2024, with virtually no funding for tropospheric ozone tracked in 2024. Such neglect represents a critical oversight, as the targeting of these pollutants could offer substantial air quality and health benefits. Addressing them could prevent exacerbating climate change, illustrating a broader failure in strategic funding allocation.

For further insights, read the full report.

Implications and Future Outlook

The patterns identified in funding allocation not only shed light on current priorities but also forecast potential outcomes for air quality improvement initiatives. The tendency to favor larger, established funding sources while neglecting small but impactful projects could stifle innovation and localized solutions. If disparities continue in funding distribution, countries with the most dire air quality issues may remain trapped in a cycle of inaction.

Additionally, as the climate crisis intensifies, the significance of addressing air quality can't be overlooked. This is more significant than it looks; worsening air quality can amplify health crises and strain healthcare systems. The interplay between funding for air quality and other developmental goals needs reevaluation. It's high time that strategic funding aligned more closely with true needs rather than political or economic convenience.