AO1: There are a range of longstanding and well-established agencies and institutions which carry out global economic governance in support of poverty reduction from the IMF to World Bank, WTO and G20. AO2: There is almost complete global engagement with these agencies and global recognition of the role they play in bringing about economic growth and development which helps to reduce poverty AO3: . We may evaluate that as states have a long-term and well-developed commitment to economic growth and prosperity compared with the relatively new concern for the environment where major differences exist between, for example, economically developed and developing states, that there is a greater concern for poverty reduction than protecting the environment AO1: The United Nations developed the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 to accomplish eight anti-poverty goals and, in 2015, 17 Sustainable Development Goals were created with goal No.1 being a commitment to end poverty and goal No.2 to end hunger. AO2: The United Nations as the most significant global political institution has launched numerous initiatives to tackle poverty and has several organisations in operation over many years to monitor the progress that has actually been made in eradicating or at least reducing poverty AO3: . We may evaluate that poverty is seen as a more immediate concern and that progress has been measured by a number of bodies in contrast to the continued degradation of the environment AO1: There are significant divides between the developed and developing states over environmental degradation resulting from poverty reduction, between deep and shallow ecology and between the major powers over responsibility and actions for resolution. AO2: The significant divides between developed and developing states over environmental global governance makes progress limited and ensures that degradation continues to take place with targets for action missed or diluted AO3: . We may evaluate that the lack of cohesion and agreement over policy and process has hampered environmental governance and has shown that concern is greater and more focused and effective for poverty reduction AO1: Most states and state leaders are accountable to their electorates, who tend to prioritise more immediate economic growth and development over longer-term concerns like the environment. AO2: State leaders recognise that they are likely to be judged on their economic record rather than on their commitment to managing the environment and will create policy with a focus on economic growth and poverty reduction as a priority AO3: . We may evaluate that policy makers and global governance has a greater interest in resolving poverty through economic growth than in tackling environmental degradation in the short term which is where they tend to operate

AO1: There have been major environmental summits in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, Glasgow etc, the environment is a regular topic of conversation at G7 and G20 meetings, and the IPCC was created in the 1980s to assess the impact of climate change. AO2: There has been a huge increase in the number of global conferences dedicated to global environmental governance in recent years, the creation of numerous treaties and agreements resulting from these meetings indicates a serious concern for the environment AO3: . We may evaluate that the increased focus on the environment with states prioritising the environment over other areas of summit discussion and agreement suggests that the environment is now a greater concern than other areas of governance, including poverty reduction AO1: Social movements, organisations such as Greenpeace and the actions of climate activists like Greta Thunberg have applied increased pressure on politicians over matters relating to the environment. AO2: Social movements and political parties applying pressure relating to the environment ensures that politicians and national leaders have to take action relating to the environment through discussions in global governance institutions AO3: . We may evaluate that global governance institutions, pressured by national politicians and parties of government are clearly having to prioritise the environment over other areas of governance, including poverty reduction AO1: There have been questionable attempts to tackle and resolve global poverty since the creation of the United Nations in 1945 including the Brandt Report, International Financial Institutions, the UN Development Decade and Sustainable Development Goals. AO2: Despite these numerous initiatives there is a view that little has been achieved which suggests that the commitment of economic global governance and other global governance initiatives has been more to generating wealth rather than helping those who face actual poverty AO3: . We may evaluate that global governance has therefore never meaningfully attempted to resolve global poverty and that it clearly isn’t a priority in comparison with other aims which benefit wealthier states like wealth creation or avoiding environmental degradation AO1: Economic growth has taken place in parts of the world, but poverty remains high in certain areas and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. AO2: Africa remains the poorest and most undeveloped continent. The fall in the number of people in extreme poverty in south Asia and in east Asia and the Pacific hasn’t been matched by sub- Saharan Africa, where some measurements have suggested that there has been an increase in numbers living in extreme poverty.There has been economic growth across most parts of the world with global institutions reporting falling numbers of people living beyond the poverty line but rates remain high in sub-Saharan Africa, and the states which suffer from high levels of poverty hold very little power in global governance institutions so are unable to pressure global governance institutions to bring about change, particularly as poverty is less of a concern for the developed world than issues like the environment AO3: . We may evaluate that failure to lift the world’s poorest in sub-Saharan Africa above the poverty line and to allow poorer states a greater representation in IFIs and global governance bodies relating to economic growth implies that global governance isn’t, and is unlikely to be, concerned about poverty reduction in comparison with issues like the environment which impact more directly on wealthier states who are well represented in global governance bodies