Rethinking the potential of collaboration for urban climate governance: The case of Hong Kong

Abstract

Collaboration is strongly promoted as an effective means for cities to respond to climate change. While collaboration is perceived to offer opportunities to progress climate action in cities, little is known about how collaboration can enable low‐carbon transformation in practice. Furthermore, while collaboration is largely framed as a positive endeavour, there is a need to more carefully explore the challenges and barriers that may arise. This paper explores the aims, processes, and outcomes of collaboration within urban climate governance. Drawing on a policy review and semi‐structured interviews, we present empirical findings from the case study of Hong Kong. This paper identifies three types of collaboration that are structured by regulations, oriented to policy goals, and emerge as everyday practices within the governance of climate change and the energy system. The forms of collaboration challenge the assumptions that collaboration always brings positive outcomes in mobilising action for climate change. While collaboration opens up different modes of governance within cities, the paper highlights significant barriers in terms of the diverse roles of actors, ongoing power imbalances, and shifting governance spaces for intervention. Given the prevailing interest in working together, it is critical to review carefully how collaboration facilitates cities to achieve their climate goals and create momentum for action.

Mobilising change in cities: A capacity framework for understanding urban energy transition pathways

“…In empirical terms, scholars have highlighted how grassroots energy initiatives and the politics in Hamburg (re‐)shaped the city's energy infrastructure ownership and energy policies (Becker et al, 2016; Becker, Kunze, et al, 2017), as well as actions, relations and local dependencies within the governance of UES in shaping the transition process (Cheung & Oßenbrügge, 2020). Research in Hong Kong has focused on local policies and politics within the context of urban climate governance (Cheung & Fuller, 2022; Francesch‐Huidobro, 2012; Fuller, 2020; Mah et al, 2021), as well as energy autarky and dilemmas creating path dependencies and limited options for change for the city's energy policy and development (Holley & Lecavalier, 2017; Moss & Francesch‐Huidobro, 2016). Whilst we find the emphasis on specific social, political, and infrastructural changes in driving the process of UET useful, we argue that the formation of UET pathways needs to be understood through identifying the key factors, processes, and implications that drive or hinder change within the UES in a more holistic way.…”

“…to ensure electricity supply in the city (Cheung & Fuller, 2022). In a similar vein, one power utility representative also described the collaborative relationship between the government and the utilities and explained the non-adversarial dynamics between stakeholders in "No matter how hardworking the community people are, if their voice cannot be heard, the issue will still be an issue in Hong Kong.…”

“…The city's electricity market is thus a vertically integrated system, in which there are two de facto monopolies in the electricity market – CLP Power Hong Kong and Hongkong Electric Company. Whilst this institutional arrangement has a longstanding record of providing reliable and affordable electricity to the city, it has been repeatedly criticised for creating a rigid system, which achieves the primary objectives but lacks flexibility and constrains innovation (Cheung & Fuller, 2022). The problem became more obvious when improving air quality and combating climate change began to be recognised in the city's energy policy, where achieving environmental sustainability became a competing objective for affordability and reliability of the city's electricity supply (Holley & Lecavalier, 2017).…”

“…Within this rigid energy system, the capacity of whom is characterised by the critical role of the city government and the relationships between the government, the two utilities, and other civil society actors in driving climate and energy policies and practices in Hong Kong. Apart from being the gatekeeper in the SCAs to mobilise the expansion of natural gas usage and moderate the feed in of rooftop solar to the city's electricity system (Cheung & Fuller, 2022), the city government is also responsible for executing the city's Climate Action Plan (CAP), which was first launched in 2017 (Environment Bureau, 2017). Although the city government is considered to be the most influential actor in governing climate change and energy development in the city, it has long been criticised for its lack of commitment to combating climate change and the absence of leadership capacity (Francesch‐Huidobro, 2014; Fuller, 2020; Mah & Hills, 2016).…”

“…The capacity of whom also relates to the dynamics between the government and other stakeholders in driving actions for change in the energy system. Under the SCAs, there is a “stable, long‐term relationship between the government and the two power utilities” (p. 7) to ensure electricity supply in the city (Cheung & Fuller, 2022). In a similar vein, one power utility representative also described the collaborative relationship between the government and the utilities and explained the non‐adversarial dynamics between stakeholders in Hong Kong:

“Compared to places which might have conflicts between political parties and do not achieve the energy objectives smoothly, it is uncommon in Hong Kong to have deputes between stakeholders about why the targets are set like this, or why someone should do something.

…”