133 Opening up or closing down anticipatory governance 5 5.2.2. Opening up or closing down governance The focus on stakeholder participation in sustainability governance processes has resulted in new institutions, processes, and tools (Stirling, 2008). Perspectives from outside (of science) are, for example, more often said to be important to legitimately formulate decisions about the future (Ravetz, 1999; Macnaghten, 2009) as doubts persist about the nature and solution of future problems (Esguerra, 2019; Gupta, 2011). As a result, much of the futures work in sustainability governance contexts is at least partially participatory and involves stakeholders such as policymakers, local NGOs, and researchers to balance diverse interests and knowledge. However, processes that involve diverse stakeholders are often still dominated by linear and deterministic notions of technological process and affect policy debates just as much as ‘narrower’ expert-based processes (Stirling, 2008). Stirling points to a tension in the growing calls for stakeholder participation by incumbent interests, who then close down the possible range of possibilities rather than opening them up (Stirling, 2008). This expresses itself, for instance, in implicit and predetermined policy commitments that push for clear, authoritative, prescriptive policy recommendations rather than open-ended political processes (Stirling, 2008; see also Bellamy et al., 2013). Closing down, in short, also happens in processes that aim to open up future possibilities through both deliberate and unconscious actions (Stirling, 2008). More deliberate and strategic choices that contribute to closing down include, for example when knowledge is repackaged to make it attractive to and respond to the needs and political agendas of policymakers (Sarkki et al., 2017). A similar dynamic is at play in the selection of what is considered policy-relevant knowledge (Turnhout et al., 2016). Less conscious forms of closing down can take place when processes educate instead of empowering participants and do not necessarily lead to more democratic prosses and social agency (Stirling, 2008). Another example would be the calibration of a variety of deliberation-generated inputs into consensus and unanimous recommendations for standardized procedures (Turnhout et al., 2016). Closing down is thus shaped by factors generally considered as ‘external’ to analysis and appraisal and therefore not always rendered visible. But it can have a decisive role in determining what actions are considered possible in the potential to realize diverse futures. Contrastingly, maintaining a truly open dialogue means focusing on questions of power. As Stirling (2008) points out, important questions come to the fore. For example: Who determines what futures are included? How are uncertainties interpreted? How are alternative futures are characterized (e.g., as relevant or not)? To what extent are findings justified rather than criticized? Processes that open up possibilities might discuss neglected issues, marginalized perspectives, ignored uncertainties, disputing
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw