113 Anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations 4 Many projects in the initiative have the ambition to transform the food system, and consequently quite a few participants positioned themselves within the third approach, without necessarily aiming to radically transform towards new futures. Approach 3 was often mentioned in tandem with Approach 1. For example, one project assessed probable futures to pursue, as part of a wider set of aims, the transformation towards a risk reduced future (e.g., Senses). This hybrid points to the consolidation of present futures instead of a radical transformation. Other projects aim, also as part of a wider set of aims, to co-create transformative futures through plausibility thinking in interrogative spaces; thereby they intersect approaches 2, 3 and 4 (e.g., Sentinel). Two projects identified co-creation of new futures as the sole aim, meaning to realize more desired outcomes in terms of sustainability (The Future of Food and Agriculture and Impact of Faster Productivity Growth). Shedding light on political implications of food systems change was often pursued through probability and plausibility-focused projects (e.g., AgMip at the regional level and CCAFS in Bangladesh). In these cases, such an aim was pursued by scrutinizing scenario assumptions and distributional effects with a group of stakeholders. Such aims were not explicitly related to a belief that future claims have performative power over the present. Apart from these hybrids, no project exclusively pursued an ultimate aim that seemed similar to Approach 4. Summarizing the ultimate aims thus demonstrates that the community works towards an interplay of (on average three) ultimate aims which span the entire analytical framework, based on a smaller set of (on average two) futures conceptions that range from probable, plausible and plural, but not performative futures. While all four aims are equally presented, they are part of interesting combinations in which approaches 1, 2 and 3 are most strongly present. Noticeably projects do not resemble clear connections between the three component elements in ideal-type approaches, but rather merge, blend and omit component elements. 4.4.3. Implications for policy action in the present Finally, the framework identifies four implications for policy and governance choices in the present: strategic planning, capacity building, mobilizing stakeholders and interrogating assumptions. As with the other dimensions of the analytical framework, participants argued that multiple forms of policy action are typically aimed for in a single project. However, informing policy planning stands out. Of the 24 participants, 16 identified informing strategic policy planning as the core policy action in the present; 14 to build capacity and preparedness; only 4 to mobilize stakeholders; and another 4 to scrutinize the political and contested character of futures.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw