115 Anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations 4 The key result here seems to be that the fundamental principles regarding plurality and political action underlying Approach 3 are abandoned when formulating policy action in the present. Participants rarely mentioned that the interrogation of political assumptions embedded in future claims (approach 4) was aspired as action in the present, and if so it played a smaller part within anticipatory governance processes more strongly representing approaches 1 or 2. Examples were seeing trade-offs between future choices as contributing to an informed strategic planning process (e.g. ResULTS, e.g. AgrimondeTerra) which participants classified as being related to approach 4. One project integrated two elements of Approach 4: it identified performative futures as one of its conceptions of the future, and also aspired to shed light on their political implications in the present, yet for an ultimate aim pointed most strongly in the direction of Approach 1 (SUPat). This means that in the few relevant examples in our analysis, the principles underlying Approach 4 were not upheld when it came to guiding action in the present. Summarizing, while perspectives on the ultimate aims vary, approaches 1 and 2 strongly dominate in terms of the how present action based on anticipation is understood. Although examples were found of policy action associated with approaches 3 and 4, these were much rarer. Figure 4.2 illustrates our findings, based on a few randomly selected example projects, which are presented in the figure with numbers 1 - 7. One can see there that, in terms of conceptions of the future, many viewpoints align with Approach 1 (see projects 1, 2, 5, and 7); most with Approach 2 (see projects 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7); fewer with Approach 3 (see projects 2, 4); and rarely with Approach 4 (see project 5). Also, for the policy implications in the present, many viewpoints align with Approach 1 (projects 1, 3, 6): most with Approach 2 (projects 2, 3, 5, 6, 7); one with Approach 3 (project 2); and none with Approach 4. While randomly selected, these offer a sense of how participants positioned themselves within the Foresight4Food initiative, their hybrid approaches, and dominant perspectives. The ultimate aims are not visualized, but their diversity is explained in the narratives on the right side of the figure.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw