consultations required for certain projects had to be adapted to virtual modalities, in some cases they haven’t obtained effective results, as reflected in the examples mentioned above. In this way, the findings obtained raise serious concerns about whether the development projects financed in the context of the crisis represent viable, sustainable and effective options to face the main economic, social and environmental impacts associated with the pandemic. At the same time, they raise the need to demand that both the financing granted by financial institutions and the actions of the national government itself be more responsible in terms of transparency, public participation and accountability, taking into account the role that multilateral banks and national governments are playing in adopting measures to overcome the pandemic. In this sense, it is important that DFIs and governments promote projects that especially focus not only on those populations in a vulnerable situation, such as women, indigenous and LGBTIQ+ populations, marginalized communities or the sectors in greater need, but also on commonly underestimated sectors, such as the environmental and climate change sector. Nobody disputes the foremost urgency, which is one and is clear: to strengthen, through inputs and human and other resources, the public health system. But if as human beings we intend to continue enjoying a healthy life on this planet, we need the urgent not to overshadow what is important: the relationship between health deterioration and that of the environment (FARN, 2020). DFIs should also take the initiative to foster important changes in the development models they finance and promote, the limitations and inequalities of which have been particularly evident in the context of the pandemic. 31 DFIs FINANCING IN ARGENTINA DURING THE PANDEMIC: COVID-19 PROJECTS AND TRANSPARENCY SHORTCOMINGS