to the SESA, only 40 people actually participated in the 5 consultation sessions per region (in two of them, for example, only 3 people participated per session), which represents a very low number in relation to the project size and area, and in relation to its scope, since virtual sessions were held in 5 different regions of the country (Cuyo, Northeast, Northwest, Patagonia and Center). Furthermore, regarding the institutions to which the 40 participants in the consultations belonged, the vast majority (26) belonged to the Ministry of Health (which is the executing agency of the project); 7 of them belonged to health establishments, 2 to a government program, 1 represented an environmental authority and only 1 belonged to a non-governmental organization (NGO). This shows the almost total absence in the consultations of participants from civil society, neighbors, NGOs, women’s groups and, above all, people potentially affected by the project and representatives of indigenous communities and native peoples, among other marginalized groups. Despite the above, in the SESA it is considered that “the consultations were satisfactory in relation to their objectives and the requirements of the IDB, and in accordance with the situation,” although it is mentioned that “some participants commented that they had connectivity problems during the session.” Regarding the participation of native populations and indigenous peoples, the SESA states that the Ministry of Health o was asked to take into account “the need for special protections for indigenous populations” and “that indigenous peoples be involved from the beginning” as well as “emphasizing that the requests for the safeguarding of indigenous peoples must be taken into account, since, due to their conditions and culture, they are one of the most vulnerable communities.” Lastly, the Ministry of Health was committed to “continue informing social actors of the progress of the projects” and to see that during the execution of the project “each jurisdiction would be encouraged to involve the representatives of indigenous peoples during the processes of developing the investment plans.” However, it is not possible to determine, from the available documents, whether this was actually carried out in that way. Thus, regarding the public consultations implemented for this project, the modality implemented leaves many doubts. Although it is understandable that virtual modalities are used in the face of the confinement measures implemented, doubts are raised regarding the effectiveness of the results obtained amid the reduced number of participants. In this sense, it has been difficult to corroborate what was stated in the SESA regarding the fact that the announcement of public consultations was widely disseminated, that information about the project was provided in advance and that the involvement of native peoples and indigenous populations was sought from the beginning. Furthermore, although the SESA mentions the importance of seeking the participation of native peoples and indigenous populations in public consultations, the need to also promote the participation of women and the LGBTIQ+ population in the consultations and discussions concerning the project is not mentioned. Especially considering that these are usually the ones who in differentiated ways suffer not only the impacts of the projects but also the impacts of the pandemic itself. In the case of project T3049: CANEF – Support for the Development of a Regional Extractive Sector Vision for Latin America and the Caribbean, both in the design and in the implementation of the project at the country level there was no participation of groups in a situation of vulnerability, such as local populations and indigenous peoples affected by mining projects. Likewise, the information available from the Bank does not refer to these groups. An extractive activity such as large-scale mining, which has significant environmental and social impacts, with high levels of socio-environmental conflict, requires a broad and diverse dialogue, in terms of content, approaches and representation of voices. In this sense, although private actors, business chambers, trade unions, religious institutions, public bodies, members of the academia and civil society organizations were invited to participate in workshops for the preparation of the first draft of the Strategic Plan, affected groups in vulnerable situations and/or groups potentially affected by the 28 DFIs FINANCING IN ARGENTINA DURING THE PANDEMIC: COVID-19 PROJECTS AND TRANSPARENCY SHORTCOMINGS