activity were not invited to participate. Organizations that support groups affected by mining and/or that express dissenting voices regarding the activity were not duly invited either. In turn, as regards environmental and social matters and impacts, the regional project was categorized under environmental and social risk category “C” (low risk). This implies that, according to the Bank, the project would generate minimal or no negative environmental and social impacts. However, the Bank’s technical cooperation and financing for the development of mining aims to open the doors to future investments and to promote a sector that generates serious environmental and social impacts, has had difficulties in complying with environmental regulations and has been linked to practices that violate rights. Thus, the promotion of the mining sector by the IDB entails increased risks for populations threatened or affected by the activity. Lastly, and as a conclusion, it cannot be overlooked that the preceding analysis shows that the projects financed by the main DFIs in Argentina in response to the pandemic have not focused particularly on those sectors and populations in a vulnerable situation. Thus, no projects have been identified that have as main beneficiaries women, indigenous populations, LGBTIQ + populations, marginalized communities or the poorest sectors of the population, for example. It is true that most of these projects correspond to sectors directly or indirectly linked to the pandemic, such as the Health sector and the post-pandemic economic recovery; and in their objectives they propose in one way or another to provide benefits to sectors that are being impacted by it, such as SMEs and MSMEs. However, it seems that projects specially and exclusively destined for the sectors mentioned above have not been contemplated, when these should be the main beneficiaries of development projects aimed at providing solutions and responses to the impacts of the pandemic, as expressed by the DFIs themselves when reflecting on the work they are doing in response to COVID-19. Likewise, projects specifically oriented to environmental issues have not been identified. It is noteworthy that the current crisis caused by the pandemic is added to previous global and local crises that still continue, such as the climate and ecological crisis (FARN, 2020). Nor can projects be discerned that propose alternative models or some minimal paradigm shift in relation to the current development model promoted in the country and in the region, and whose limitations and inequalities have been particularly evident in the context of the pandemic. In our region, governments still appeal to the overexploitation of nature as a way of joining an increasingly globalized and financialized economy. Progress is being made in the use of environmental goods while plans are being drawn up for the integration of exploited territories with areas and places of consumption. The objective is always the same: to extract and produce faster and faster and at a lower cost, reducing times and distances. Thus, to the multiplication of extractive projects such as large-scale mining, fossil fuel exploitation and deforestation hand in hand with the expansion of the agricultural frontier or large-scale infrastructure initiatives such as hydroelectric dams and major roads, are added new projects that even expand the frontier for extraction, such as unconventional and offshore hydrocarbons. Of course, none of this can happen without first destroying rural or forested lands, substantially changing land uses, and thereby reducing the habitats of hundreds of species of flora and fauna. These activities definitely impact on ecosystems, which, in turn, increases the risks of new crises such as the one we are experiencing (FARN, 2020). In this sense, it is evident that none of the projects analyzed with financing from DFIs in the context of the pandemic in Argentina propose an alternative approach to this type of development model. 29 DFIs FINANCING IN ARGENTINA DURING THE PANDEMIC: COVID-19 PROJECTS AND TRANSPARENCY SHORTCOMINGS