The international climate change policy domain has in recent years seen a plethora of forums outside the UNFCCC process where climate change and closely related issues are discussed. Many of these minilaterals, like the G8 or the Major Economies Meetings, are ‘softer’ or more limited in scope compared to the UNFCCC process. Some work has been done on analysing the influence of these processes, and their normative legitimacy. However, it is the sociological legitimacy of these forums in the eyes of decision-makers, the global public etc. that provide one element of their influence (effectiveness). This paper uses elite debates in the media as one analytical entry point to such sociological legitimacy.
The empirical basis is a large sample of articles of the media coverage of 16 separate minilateral and multilateral climate change meetings, from June 2004 to December 2009. From the large sample 537 articles from nine leading newspapers in seven different countries (Finland, India, Laos, Norway, South Africa, UK and USA) that commented on these meetings were analysed. Quantitative analysis was made of how much coverage each forum received, as an indication of how strongly they featured in national debates. The focus of the qualitative analysis was on arguments raised around the legitimacy, or lack of legitimacy of these forums. Through this we identify what components of legitimacy are raised for global climate governance and the forums where it takes place and if they differ between countries. We can also describe how the media coverage of the non-UNFCCC forums refer to the UNFCCC process and vice-versa, is it seen as undermining the UN climate process, leading to fragmentation and forum shopping or can it lead to synergies and the potential salvation of a bogged down process?
