How we see the effectiveness of the protocols depends on what we expect from them. With little administrative or real authority, the protocols increase government concern, improve the contractual environment and increase capacity by transferring assets. But as long as sovereignty is intact, environmental protocols will not have an impact on changes in relation to public or public apathy, guarantee national measures or materialize overnight. The progress of international environmental law could be, as wiener suggests, like the turtle, slow but constant.  The World Trade Organization participated in the ACCORD negotiations because of the trade impact of the agreements. The organization follows trade and environmental policies that promote the protection and preservation of the environment. The aim is to reduce trade barriers and coordinate trade actions with environmental policies.  Because MEAS protects and protects the environment, they can help ease trade restrictions.  THE WTO principles are based on non-discrimination, free trade by removing trade barriers and fair competition, and THE MEAs have been rejected because they are not in line with the organization`s principles. The WTO collaborates and implements more than 350 MEAS worldwide.
[Citation required] Most of the agreements cover five key countries working to improve the environment and free trade.  WTO members are legally bound to respect the negotiated removal of trade barriers.  However, conflicts have arised as a result of trade restrictions.  Finally, countries may not be motivated to change their environmental policies because of conflicts with other interests, including economic prosperity. If environmental protocols cause economic hardship or damage to one country, it may escape protocols, while other countries comply with them, resulting in a classic problem of parasitism. In addition, environmental protocols can be criticized for scientific uncertainty or, at the very least, for a lack of synthesis of scientific information that can be used for “conflicting interests and disaster”.  This can now be seen as an excuse defined as skepticism about climate change.