161 Conclusions 6 Approach 3 focuses on the imagining of pluralistic futures in order to mobilize diverse societal actors to co-create new futures. Approach 4 scrutinizes the performative power of future imaginaries in order to interrogate and shed light on their political implications in the present. Methods and tools of anticipation are then mapped onto the four approaches which demonstrates that some methods and tools align with a given approach and others with multiple approaches (figure 2.2 in chapter 2). The chapter ends by explaining how the four approaches provide an analytical lens through which to assess ongoing practices of anticipatory governance in the climate and sustainability realm – and provides the foundation for the theory-driven case studies in the following three empirical chapters. The framework on anticipatory governance is applied for the first time in chapter 3 to analyze how these anticipatory governance approaches relate to practice in a climatevulnerable context in the Global South. It is a single case study of anticipation processes that inform climate decision-making in West Africa and builds on document analysis and interviews. The study finds that in this context probabilistic and plausibilistic forms of anticipation dominate and tend to inform quite technocratic and prediction-oriented anticipatory governance actions and demonstrates how approach 2 often becomes subservient to approach 1. Epitomizing is the finding that much stakeholder deliberation uses expert-based futures to determine adaptation options rather than a more open exploration of diverse and more fundamentally uncertain future possibilities, as associated with approach 2. Furthermore, the widespread absence of approaches 3 and 4 demonstrates a lack of plural and critical futures dialogue to co-create more radically transformative futures and interrogation of the politics of anticipation. This points to missed opportunities for realizing global ambitions for more inclusive and democratic climate futures. Chapter 4 goes on to study these dominant dynamics in a global network of food systems foresight practitioners (Foresight4Food). It connects the analytical framework on anticipatory governance to a framework on transformations (Feola, 2015) to analyze how anticipation steers actions for sustainability transformations. The perspectives of members within the network were examined in a case study design, building on a workshop, interviews, and a survey. The chapter finds that most foresight practitioners use hybrid approaches to anticipatory governance that connect fundamentally different conceptions of the future. Nevertheless, most anticipation processes still produce recommendations that follow more prediction-oriented forms of strategic planning in order to mitigate future risks. The connection to the framework on transformation helps
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw