135 Opening up or closing down anticipatory governance 5 Figure 5.1 illustrates how the framework on anticipatory governance and the notion of opening up and closing down connect. It illustrates that closing down or opening up anticipatory governance relates to the level of opening up or closing down of future possibilities to different framings and assumptions about the future (horizontal axis in figure 5.1). In addition, it also relates to the level of opening up of possibilities for action or closing down towards existing policy frames (see vertical axis in figure 5.1). Moving from approaches 1 to 4, anticipation processes are increasingly explicit and sensitive to diverse framings and futures assumptions. In terms of their connections to presentday action (the grey arrow), however, they might be understood by incumbent actors (governments, business leadership) as being further away from familiar or common approaches to planning. This does not mean that they are necessarily less actionable – for instance, approach 3 focuses on pluralistic futures but often for the purpose of mobilizing concrete political and transformative action by new groups or coalitions of actors. But classic planning approaches can often be perceived as the most ‘actionable’, compared to the actions in the present envisaged in the three other perspectives. In the context of these four approaches, approach 1 closes down future possibilities through assumptions about probability that may seem to provide a comprehensive image of future risks and thus the most salient form of action. However, many of these assumptions may be challenged for the non-inclusive and limited ways in which they frame the world. Approach 2 opens up to diverse courses of action and involves diverse stakeholders (including also communities affected by measures) but the exploration of uncertainties and complexities typically needs boundaries, a prioritization of drivers, and consensual recommendations, and its technical, systems-based nature can close down possibilities because of its prominence in exclusive and technocratic processes. Approach 3 focuses on pluralistic processes with societal stakeholders where the focus is on agency to bring about change and certainly offers more opportunities for opening up possibilities for action; though this often means creating new organizations, communities, and institutions to realize action. Approach 4 explicitly opens up to issues of power in assumptions and framings of the future, but because of its mostly critical, academic mode, it can disconnect from providing actionable guidance – and thus not lead to more democratic anticipation. 5.3. Methodology 5.3.1. Data collection We selected four diverse regions in the Global South: West Africa, Central America, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. We selected four regions where the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Program, an organization part of the research
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw