In addition, the IMF has made efforts to cost some of the“core” SDGs for a limited number of countries, and to develop a methodology to replicate this exercise across all countries. This has involved doing two rounds of work on detailed country costings for some of the SDGs(education, health, electricity, water and sanitation, and rural roads). The first was released in January 2019, looking at SDG costings for countries with different income levels, and with detailed case studies of Benin, Guatemala, Indonesia, Rwanda and Vietnam to present different country types(IMF 2019). The second major multi-country study, released in April 2021 and updated to take account of the negative impact of the COVID pandemic on SDG progress and prospects, concluding that even more financing is needed. Case studies were also completed for Cambodia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Rwanda(IMF 2021b). However, such costings by the different organisations have not generally been included in the key documents used by governments to push donors to mobilise more funding, or to discuss with their own citizens why more tax revenue would be needed to reach the goals. Efforts were made in some early UNDP-sponsored DFAs/INFFs (Benin, Cameroon) to include such costings and identify funding sources, and by the government of Rwanda to use IMF costings to guide donor meetings, but these have not been replicated more recently because the shortage of funding for all SDGs has dominated discussions. The IMF has also for more than a decade been incorporating second-round effects of investment on accelerating growth into its forecasts of specific economies and policy advice, through separate case studies and model analysis conducted in Article IV 3 documents, Selected Issues papers and other studies. 4 Most of the analytical work conducted with this model has been on the growth impact of large infrastructure project investments but, according to the authors, there is no reason why it cannot also be used to simulate the impact of capital investment, including investment in human capital. What has been missing in all of these analyses is a formal incorporation of their results into the LIC-DSF or the various DSFs for MACs. 2.2 The Way Forward: Integrating the SDGs into DSAs There is therefore a sound basis on which to integrate the SDGs into DSAs. Four further steps are needed: 1. Make the costing methodologies used by the IMF and other UN agencies for each SDG consistent, so that governments can use results with full confidence that they will be acceptable to all agencies; 2. Include all of the SDGs. Costing methodologies now exist for all the SDGs, and it is essential to broaden coverage beyond the five IMF sectors. 3. Incorporate fully the effects of SDG spending on growth and debt sustainability, including spending on human and environmental capital as well as on physical infrastructure(for more, see Sections 3 and 4). 4. Integrate these costs with financing prospects in the LIC-DSF and SRDSF forecasts as an accelerated “SDG needs and impact” scenario. There does not seem to be any lack of willingness among the institutions interviewed for this study(or among independent organisations such as SDSN and DFI) to do more of this work, and in a cooperative joint manner. However, all say funding is lacking for work on methodology to be completed and done comprehensively and routinely in all countries. 3 Article IV of the IMF Articles of Agreement includes reporting obligations and regular inspection missions. 4 A good example of this type of model is the Debt, Investment and Growth(DIG) model developed in IMF(2012), which the IMF is still recommending as the simplest way to model the impact of investments on accelerating growth. Series: Debt Sustainability Assessments& Their Role in the International Financial Architecture 4