Global funding explicitly targeting outdoor air quality rose by $1.7 billion in 2023-24 to reach $4.7 billion, nearly matching its 2022 peak.
For the first time, outdoor air quality spending matched fossil fuel-prolonging funding, after the latter fell by 48 per cent in 2024.
Despite this progress, targeted clean air funding remains less than 1 per cent of total international development aid.
The report warns that polluted low-income regions, heavily indebted countries and high-impact super pollutants such as black carbon and ground-level ozone remain severely underfunded.
International clean air funding during 2023-24 showed a dual win for global public health, as targeted clean air investment rose while fossil fuel subsidies declined. With a year-on-year increase of $1.7 billion, global funding explicitly targeting outdoor air quality reached $4.7 billion, nearly matching the peak level recorded in 2022.
For the first time, the ratio of outdoor air quality spending to “fossil fuel-prolonging” spending dropped to 1:1 in 2024. This was because fossil fuel-prolonging funding fell by 48 per cent to $4.7 billion, while outdoor air quality funding increased to $4.7 billion.
Non-climate-related air quality grants also increased, indicating that clean air was being treated as a standalone public health priority rather than only as an incidental outcome of climate action. Despite this progress, targeted clean air funding still represents less than 1 per cent of total international development aid, leaving the world’s most toxic airsheds dangerously underfunded.
It is also a matter of concern that countries with weaker financial systems or limited capacity to design ‘investable’ projects face huge hurdles when applying for international finance, regardless of how toxic their air is. As much as 89 per cent of all clean air funding between 2020 and 2024 came as loans rather than grants. For heavily indebted nations, taking on even more debt to fund air quality projects is often a serious financial challenge.
These critical findings are from the newly released The State of Global Air Quality Funding 2026 report, published by the Clean Air Fund in partnership with the Climate Policy Initiative. It is the world’s only comprehensive tracker of international development finance dedicated to clean air.
By systematically analysing financial flows across sectors, regions and funding instruments, the report exposes major gaps, the persistent underfunding of polluted low-income regions, and the neglect of high-impact super pollutants. It also provides a baseline for consistently pushing air quality interventions. The report offers significant insights into what ails clean air funding globally.
While short-term year-on-year clean air funding increased during 2023-24, long-term trends show a decline. Total air quality finance grew by 9 per cent across rolling five-year periods, expanding from $113.8 billion between 2019 and 2023 to $124.6 billion between 2020 and 2024. But that medium-term growth masks a sudden 6 per cent decline in 2024, marking the first annual drop in clean air funding in five years.
Broader climate and infrastructure investments that improve air quality without explicitly targeting it fell by 13 per cent in 2024 after three years of growth. Because these indirect investments make up the vast majority of clean air finance, their decline risks reducing total global flows. At the same time, the climate-related share of outdoor air quality funding fell from 86 per cent to 83 per cent between the two five-year periods.
Worse still, these figures do not yet account for the large cuts to official development assistance seen in 2025. According to the report, as international aid budgets continue to shrink, year-on-year gains may erode. Donors therefore need to embed explicit air quality goals across all climate and development portfolios.
The regional distribution of funding remains uneven. South Asia received almost one-third of all global air quality finance between 2020 and 2024, driven by large urban transit and industrial transformation initiatives. Only Sub-Saharan Africa maintained continuous year-on-year growth in total air quality funding from 2020 through 2024, although it started from a lower baseline. In Latin America and the Caribbean, regional development banks have taken on a larger share of project underwriting for clean transport and urban health initiatives.
International funding for clean air is failing to reach the places where people need it most. The report states that in 2024, half of the world’s 10 most polluted countries received less than $2 per person in total air quality funding. There is a massive gap between pollution severity and financial support.
International climate finance is neglecting ‘super pollutants’ such as black carbon and ground-level ozone, which can fast-track health protection and cooling.
While black carbon-related funding rose to $7.5 billion in 2024, most of it was incidental to broader energy or transit projects. Less than 0.1 per cent of funds between 2020 and 2024 explicitly targeted black carbon reduction as their primary objective.
Ground-level ozone received just $111 million in indirect support in 2024 — a meagre 0.4 per cent of total air quality funding. Direct funding to eliminate ozone-forming pollutants remained virtually non-existent. International donors are therefore missing a low-cost opportunity for near-term health and climate gains.
This assessment shows that donors need to move away from incidental clean air benefits by explicitly integrating air quality targets and measurement metrics into overall project design.
They also need to adapt their financial tools — concessional loans, grants, blended finance and flexible regional models — to help heavily indebted and high-risk nations access capital without adding to their debt burden.
Funders should prioritise high-impact super pollutants such as black carbon and ground-level ozone, which can deliver rapid, cost-effective health and warming reductions. International aid must be redirected to the most exposed communities and most polluted countries to align capital flows with human need.
This annual tracking of clean air funding holds strategic lessons for India. To address chronic underfunding, national policies and funding strategies must integrate clear clean air indicators across all sectoral budgets while actively tapping new financial sources. This convergent model can ensure additionality, making every rupee spent more purposeful, effective and efficient in delivering measurable air quality gains.
A major takeaway from the National Clean Air Programme is that the absence of a rigorous and comprehensive metric to track clean air indicators often leads to wasteful and biased spending on ineffective measures. This diverts critical resources away from major combustion sources such as industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, open burning and household solid fuels.
Scaling up regional airshed financing models that pool financial risks across borders is necessary. Dedicated funding lines must be allocated for air pollution and super pollutants such as black carbon and ground-level ozone precursors, paired with technical interventions.
To maximise impact, India needs a cohesive budget-tagging system that aligns all sectoral programmes with strict clean air indicators, ensuring that resources flow towards effective, source-specific interventions.
