The role of port cities and networks : reflections on the World Ports Climate Initiative

This paper explores how port cities and municipal networks can contribute to reducing the climate and environmental impacts of shipping. Specifically, the paper reflects on the process of developing the World Ports Climate Declaration during 2007-2008 and the work of the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) in subsequent years. The Declaration was a voluntary undertaking, adopted by 55 of the world’s largest ports, to individually and jointly work to reduce the climate and environmental impacts of port operations, the global shipping industry and related sectors. To do so, the Declaration highlighted a number of themes. The International Association of Ports and Harbours adopted a resolution in support of the Declaration and committed to long-term work on implementation through the WPCI, with thematic working groups and support tools including biannual conferences and a dedicated website. These working groups have subsequently not just implemented measures with regard to particular topics (e.g. installed onshore power supply systems or hybrid cargo handling equipment, or adopted an index for green shipping), but also developed guidance documents and provided support to other ports attempting to begin work with such measures. The impetus for the initial Declaration came from the City of Rotterdam and their engagement in the C40 Large Cities Group. The author will reflect on the origins of the initiative and his personal involvement in development of the Declaration, in order to assess the progress made by participating WPCI ports in subsequent years. Moreover, the author will consider the questions: where did the cities go? What role can port cities and municipal networks play in further developing and expanding the scope of the WPCI or similar initiatives? How can municipalities work together to transform ports and shipping whilst avoiding first mover problems? Paul Fenton – Shipping in a Changing Climate – Liverpool 18-19 June 2014 Introduction Ports operate at the nexus of the world economy and are vital nodes in the countries and regions in which they are located, facilitating and enabling flows of information, materials, resources and peoples within countries, between countries, and across seas and oceans. Ports have traditionally been located in close proximity to urban areas and played an important role in the consolidation and growth of many port cities, not only in economic terms, but also with regard to culture, ideas and people. The urban life of port cities is often rich and unique in its character, contestations and diversity (OECD, 2013; Fusco Girard, 2013; Jacobs et al., 2010; Sassen, 2010). Whilst port operations have enriched – in multiple senses – the quality of life in many urban areas, ports also present challenges for the cities in which they are located, e.g. in terms of issues such as local air pollution from ships or inland transport, traffic and congestion, colocation of risky or polluting industrial facilities around ports. Such challenges interact with related urban dynamics and impact upon urban planning and other sectors, e.g. in terms of “upstream” investments in new infrastructure, changes to labour markets, or influxes of workers to informal settlements located in close proximity to ports (Inoue, 2012; OECD, 2013; PIANC, 2013). The shifting, dynamic nature of such challenges means many problems are considered in isolation, as atomised, context-specific issues requiring local action and resolution. Nonetheless, some challenges have global implications and require the overcoming of barriers that create “first-mover” problems in multiple contexts. Few individual ports have the economic independence to refuse customers or dictate their terms to global markets when operating in isolation; the majority of ports are, to varying degrees, dependent on each other to solve complex, global challenges (OECD, 2013; PIANC, 2013). Climate change is an example of an emerging global challenge with profound implications for ports, port cities and maritime transportation (Eyring et al., 2010; OECD, 2011; Smith et al., 2014). Climate change is a multi-faceted challenge, innately linked to the patterns of urbanisation, population growth and human impacts of the industrial age (UN-Habitat, 2011; UN 2010). The complexity of mitigating and adapting to climate change has stimulated a diverse range of experiments in communities around the world (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; Feldman, 2012). Many ports and port cities, as well as other stakeholders, have joined or formed networks focusing on climate change and/or related topics, such as sustainable development (e.g. EcoPorts, WPCI, ICLEI). Network governance through Transnational Municipal Networks, it is assumed, provides opportunities for knowledge transfer and capacity-building among diverse groups of stakeholders, whilst providing the opportunity for collective or synergetic actions, or the mobilisation or representation of common agendas. Becker et al. (2012) Paul Fenton – Shipping in a Changing Climate – Liverpool 18-19 June 2014 consider such collective, participatory enterprise essential for ports in the fight against climate change. This paper explores the role of port cities and municipal networks in efforts to reduce the climate and environmental impacts of shipping. To do so, the paper presents an overview of discussions on Transnational Municipal Networks and network governance in municipalities, before describing the development of the World Ports Climate Declaration and its subsequent implementation through the World Ports Climate Initiative. This informs a Discussion on challenges and opportunities for the WPCI and similar initiatives, and Conclusions on possible future possibilities for cooperation between municipalities, ports and other stakeholders to combat climate change and tackle environmental problems. Transnational Municipal Networks Climate change and the need for sustainable development are discussed in an extensive body of literature, much of which emphasises the role of municipalities as participating actors in multi-level governance (see e.g. Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007; Kern and Alber, 2009). In recent decades, various transnational municipal networks (TMNs) have been formed to facilitate municipal work for sustainable development and, in recent years, such networks have given significant emphasis to efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change (Niederhafner, 2013: Kern and Bulkeley, 2009; Keiner and Kim, 2007). TMNs usually have multiple objectives and fulfil a range of roles, which Bouteligier (2013b, p. 251)) categories as “(1) to exchange information, knowledge and best practices; (2) to increase cities’ capacity; and (3) to voice cities’ concerns in the international arena”. Feldman (2012, p. 789) offers a variation, stating “Networks perform three vital functions in regard to environmental problems: (1) generating and diffusing information; (2) undertaking effective policy evaluation strategies; and (3) initiating local response efforts without waiting for national efforts” (both formal and informal)”. TMNs may be considered as “quasi-governmental” entities, with strong links to conventional, top-down models of government (Bulkeley et al., 2003); as flexible and dynamic alternatives to such hierarchies (Bouteligier, 2013b); or as “governing from the middle” (Román, 2010) and mediating boundaries between other stakeholders. TMNs may be global or regional in scope, addressing multiple or single themes, or be formed of specific categories or type of member (e.g. C40 Large Cities Group, Eurocities, Eurotowns). Typically, TMNs are associations to which member municipalities pay subscription fees in return for a range of services, including e.g. networking, knowledge transfer and capacity-building, the Paul Fenton – Shipping in a Changing Climate – Liverpool 18-19 June 2014 coordination of interests and representation in international processes such as the UNFCCC, participation in events or projects, promotion or dissemination of information. Hakelberg (2014) highlights the capacity of TMNs to enable “governance by diffusion” in an “increasingly fragmented, polycentric and transnational” system of global climate governance. According to Feldman (2012), the convening power of TMNs (as a platform and a forum) can “empower local levels of governance to develop the capacity to manage problems, prompting what we term “glocal” cooperation”, with “broad diffusion of experience” an inevitable consequence. In a similar vein, Giest and Howlett (2013) note that “TMNs are the institutional foundation for a concerted effort in climate change within and between countries”, whilst recognising that TMNs provide added value when working in specific regions and with the support of national governments (a similar point is made by Aall et al., 2007). In other words, TMNs may provide an opportunity to provide a framework for municipal climate change action, yet the framing context will influence the extent to which those frames are filled with content. TMNs may thus provide a potential forum for coordination of interests, knowledge transfer, experimentation and other collaborative action concerning climate change. Despite this, TMNs are sometimes perceived as representing the “usual suspects” (Fenton, 2014; Bouteligier, 2013b; ICLEI, 2012) or as consolidating or over-emphasising particular types of cultural or institutional context, themes or solutions. For example, Acuto (2013) and Bouteligier (2013b) note the presence of a “core-periphery” dynamic in the internal geography of the C40 Large Cities Group, both in terms of representation, activity and thematic focus. McFarlane (2010), Robinson (2011) and Ward (2010) note that certain categories of cities and municipalities tend to be over-represented, or dominate, TMNs. A large group of cities are not represented or are under-represented in TMNs. These “invisible cities” can be variously interpreted as being silenced in TMN agendas, less active than prominent TMN members, or in some cases, as “free riders”. Others challenge the supposed benefits of TMN activities to disseminate information and transfer knowledge. For example, Dolowitz et al. (2012) challenge proponents of “governance by diffusion” (e.g. Hakelberg, 2014; Feldman, 2012) by contending that when moving from inspiration to implementation, U.S. municipalities tend not to draw upon international or high-profile examples. Rather, when identifying policies options, “instead of a directed and purposeful search occurring, leading to the best possible policy being borrowed... searches were less about best practice and more about convenience and perceptions of similarity” (Dolowitz et al, 2012). Posing the question “Why don’t cities learn?” in a global study, Campbell (2009) suggests that in the best cases, “deliberate and systematic” collection of hard and soft data occurs and facilitates municipal learning. Thus, 1 For example, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability plays a similar consultative role to the UN as the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH). Paul Fenton – Shipping in a Changing Climate – Liverpool 18-19 June 2014 TMNs face the challenge of assisting the typical municipalities, as observed by Dolowitz et al., to achieve the best practice observed by Campbell. This may require a reconceptualisation of some TMN approaches or activities. As previously noted, Giest and Howlett (2013) argued that the added value of TMNs is linked to the context in which they operate, and a regional (or continental) focus may facilitate action in certain contexts. In the U.S. context, Krause (2012) suggests some municipal networks appear to have stronger leverage power or influence on their members’ actions than others, albeit to a very limited extent. However, the ““leakage” of knowledge and norms” through publicly-available information may “may increase the average GHG relevant activities being taken by all cities, and in doing so, decrease the impact able to be attributed directly to membership” (Krause, 2012, p. 602). In other words, “free rider” municipalities may achieve as much or more as TMN members; however, this interesting question lies outside of the scope of this paper. The contribution of TMNs to network governance in municipalities The practice of network governance and role of collaborative intermediary organisations (CIOs) within municipalities has been studied in recent work (see e.g. Khan, 2013; Hamann and April, 2012). As actors in local-level processes of network governance, municipal organisations and CIOs face similar challenges (in terms of e.g. capacity, resources or representational issues influencing perceived legitimacy) to those of TMNs operating between municipalities and across borders. TMNs, by playing a similar mediating role to CIOs, albeit in a wider context, may be able to increase municipal organisations’ awareness of other perspectives and transform them into participants in (rather than the owners of) local processes. This is important, because municipal organisations have multiple and varying roles, and may be participants in processes, lead processes, control them or be subject to their outcomes; in other words, they may be the regulated or the regulator, the beneficiary or the claimant, and in some instances, these roles co-exist (Kern and Alber, 2009). Developing this point, Porter and Kramer (2006) and Porter and Reinhardt (2007) refer to the importance of “inside-out” and “outside-in” perspectives for organisational strategy. An “inside out” perspective involves organisations attempting to understand the full impacts of upand downstream effects, thereby extending the scope of their analysis (e.g. environmentally, geographically, temporally, but also in terms of partnerships, production and end-use), whereas an “outside in” perspective involves considering the unstable, dynamic operating context and implications of external forces on not only the organisation’s scope or mandate to act, but also its willingness, capacity and resources to act. (Searchinger et al, 2008, propose similar concepts of attributional and consequential life cycle assessment for these purposes). Paul Fenton – Shipping in a Changing Climate – Liverpool 18-19 June 2014 Porter and Reinhardt note that “firms can address outside-in effects strategically if they can manage them in ways that competitors cannot readily match” (Porter and Reinhardt, 2007, p. 26). From a municipal perspective, this reasoning suggests that municipal organisations should attempt to adopt a strategic approach to sustainable development and success in doing so will provide competitive advantages, as well as environmental benefits. TMNs provide a framework and forum for more clearly understanding, integrating and responding to “outside-in” influences. Applying these perspectives may thus help municipalities to think and work “beyond city limits” to extend the scope of municipal processes (Seitzinger et al., 2012) and address the out-of-sight effects of unsustainable development that Seto et al (2012) call “teleconnections”. Table 1. Overview of processes and interactions between municipalities. Process Scope Network governance (Khan, 2013) Strategic perspective (Porter and Kramer, 2006; see also Searchinger, 2008) Intra-municipal Within geographic zone Municipality or CIO as facilitator of local network; TMN as a participant Inside-out (attributional) Inter-municipal Between municipalities; Across borders TMN or CIO as facilitator; municipalities as participants Outside-in (consequential) Table 1 provides an overview of the interaction between municipalities and TMNs in network governance. As we have seen, TMNs may potentially to add value to municipal efforts to combat climate change and improve environmental conditions in urban areas. However, TMNs are not a panacea in themselves, but rather a platform for mediation and exchange which, if used effectively, may generate positive outcomes. Having said that, TMNs are constituencies composed of, and to a large extent reflecting, the experiences of their members. TMNs face multiple challenges, not least with regards to capacities and resources, yet also in terms of issues such as their geographic and thematic coverage. With these issues in mind, we can proceed to explore the experiences of the World Ports Climate Declaration (WPCD) and World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI). The World Ports Climate Declaration