As Andresen points out, their quasi-legal or soft status renders intergovernmental groups legally powerless in general. Thus, intergovernmental groups need to bolster their efficacy by linking more strongly with local and state law enforcement organizations. Another weakness of intergovernmental environmental organizations that Biermann points out in "The Case for a World Environment Organization" is the poor communication and coordination between existing organizations. A plethora of related institutions may be working on the same environmental issue without pooling resources, when it would be far more efficient and effective to tackle global environmental threats in a cooperative manner. Likewise, Biermann cites capacity building as a key aspect of institutional coordination and cooperation.

Perceived legitimacy of intergovernmental environmental organizations is also a major concern, as many developing nations may be viewing the UNEP and other groups as being representative of Western (U.S./European) hegemony (Biermann). How to allocate funding is another critical concern, reflecting the poor coordination of resources among intergovernmental environmental groups. A cohesive body of international environmental law may be necessary to strengthen perceived legitimacy and effectiveness on a practical level.

In "The Case Against a New International Environmental Organization," Adil Najam echoes what Andresen points out about the failures of intergovernmental institutions to implement successful and meaningful environmental policy. However, Najam lauds UNEP for its successes in making the environment a global rather than a localized issue; advancing a global environmental agenda; and legitimizing environmental policy and law. The future of environmental policy and policy related to sustainable development rests in a strengthening of existing institutions and not the creation of new ones.

In fact, Najam notes that the focus on UNEP and other intergovernmental environmental institutions are sometimes diverting resources and media attention away from more important matters. The proliferation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) is also impeding institutional efficacy.
A new international environmental organization would not only be redundant; it would also be just another distraction from the real issues related to environmental integrity and sustainable growth in developing nations. Cooperation among member states is weak, notes Najam. Northern and wealthy nations need to live up to their commitments including those related to technology transfer. Centralization is unnecessary in an effective intergovernmental environmental organization. Instead, coordination efforts must be championed. Greater vertical integration and the shifting of global norms is the primary crucible in which environmental policy will change in the future.

Works Cited

Andresen, Steinar. The effectiveness of UN environmental institutions. Int Environ Agreements (2007) 7:317 -- 336.

Bauer, Steffen and Biermann, Frank. Does Effective International Environmental Governance Require a World Environment Organization? The State of the Debate Prior to the Report of the High-Level Panel on Reforming the United Nations. Global Governance Working Paper No 13. Amsterdam, Berlin, Oldenburg, Potsdam: The Global Governance Project. 2004. Available at www.- glogov.org

Biermann, Frank. The Case for a World Environment Organization. Environment, Nov2000, Vol. 42 Issue 9, p22, 10p

Najam, Adil. "The Case Against a New International Environmental Organization." Global Governance 9(2003): 367-384.