Put more positively, as discussed in detail below, investments to combat the dual crises of climate and inequality for a genuinely just green transition – and to prevent or recover rapidly from future catastrophic events such as natural disasters or health pandemics- provide the best prospects of highest returns and a path to dramatically accelerated growth in most countries, much better than expected outcomes from traditional infrastructure spending. To the degree that these effects are not being demonstrated in debt sustainability analysis, they are being ignored and governments are not being encouraged to mobilise funding to support transformative spending, nor to see how investments in these areas could show a path to greater debt sustainability and borrowing capacity. The BWIs have recognised this in recent years and begun to adapt their DSAs to these needs, but they still have a long way to go. BWI staff interviewed for this study have recognised that much more could and should be done – on which they are in agreement with member government officials, independent analysts and CSOs. In addition, all stakeholders agree that i) such analysis must take account of limited personnel and budgets in the BWIs(and even more limited personnel in member countries); and ii) it must produce clear and transparent findings for all stakeholders, for which governments and the BWIs can be held accountable. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: • Section 2 looks at the broad issue of adapting DSAs to overall SDG spending and financing needs; • Section 3 examines what more can be done to adapt DSAs to take account of urgent environmental crises confronting the planet(focusing on the climate crisis- SDG 13 – but also emphasising biodiversity and the marine environment – SDGs 14 and 15); • Section 4 examines how to adapt DSAs to take account of urgent social crises, as exemplified by the extreme inequality crisis(SDG10), which is perpetuating extreme poverty(SDG1) and undermining attainment of all the other social and environmental SDGs; • Section 5 concludes by drawing together the analysis and prioritising recommendations. The original outline of this paper envisaged a separate section to deal with how DSAs could incorporate the impact of environmental and social"shocks” such as climate-related natural disasters or pandemics on debt sustainability. However, these events should no longer be considered shocks. In the countries most strongly affected by natural disasters, such events happen at least every two years, and with increasing regularity and frequency across almost all affected countries(see Section 3); and the latest forecasts for pandemics indicate that there is a 14-23 per cent chance of another pandemic happening between now and 2030(see CGD 2021 and Marani et al 2022). Therefore, this paper suggests that these“shocks” should be considered as forecastable events and included in the baseline scenarios for debt sustainability analysis. Alternatively, they could be included as“stress tests” on the same basis as other likely events, including commodity shocks, changes in financial market conditions, etc. The types of events and how they can be simulated are discussed in each of the environmental and social sections below. 2. Adapting Debt Sustainability Analysis to the SDGs 2.1 Definition and Background/History of Past Efforts If debt sustainability analysis is to be truly compatible with the SDGs and Agenda 2030, it should involve i) working out at the level of each country how much the SDGs would cost to attain and integrating this fully into government forecasts of financing needs between now and 2030; and ii) working out what financing“terms” governments could afford, to fund these needs while keeping debt sustainable. Series: Debt Sustainability Assessments& Their Role in the International Financial Architecture 2