68 Chapter 3 3.1. Introduction The adoption of the Paris Agreement served as a catalyst for many countries to gain support for addressing their climate futures (Jordan et al., 2018; Sova et al., 2015a). Many anticipation methods and tools are used to explore climate futures below a 1.5-degree temperature increase (Mason-D’Croz et al., 2016; Vervoort et al., 2014; Riahi et al., 2017). Anticipation is a broad term for processes that explore futures and guide actions in the present (Muiderman et al., 2022) and is commonly associated with formal foresight (see for existing typologies Bradfield et al., 2005; Sardar, 2010; van Notten et al., 2003; Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008). Foresight typically includes model-based scenarios (van den Berg et al., 2016), participatory scenarios (Hebinck et al., 2018), back-casting (Quist et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2011), and formal visioning processes (Wiek & Iwaniec, 2014). But methods such as vulnerability and impact assessments, cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis and technology assessments are also used to explore futures and inform action in the present (Muiderman et al., 2020; Turnpenny et al., 2015). With the growing focus on anticipation is parallel concern is growing of the extent to which the future is subject to steering (Vervoort & Gupta, 2018). Anticipation practitioners often do not specify their conceptions of the future and how they hope to intervene in governance contexts (Henrichs et al., 2010; Muiderman et al., 2022). However, futures are neither determined, nor fully open (Urry, 2016); assumptions about the future shape how we visualize the future and decide upon the future in the present, such investments in certain sectors and prioritization of groups (Vervoort & Gupta, 2018; Granjou et al., 2017). Consequently, acting on some futures can have destructive effects on other futures (Paprocki, 2019). Examples include the image of a desiccating Sahel that slowed down international responses to the extreme rainfall and floods in 2010 (Tschakert et al., 2010; see also Hulme, 2001; Batterbury & Warren, 2001), or policies promoting biofuels that resulted in land grabbing in Ghana (Tsikata & Yaro, 2011). Futures work has also been criticized for maintaining dominant belief systems (Andersson, 2018; Urry, 2016), particularly those of the Global North (Appadurai, 2013; Escobar, 2020; Sardar, 1993). It is thus important to examine how conceptions of the future steer actions in the present, particularly beyond the Global North. The lens of anticipatory governance allows for such scrutiny. Anticipatory governance means, most broadly, the governance of uncertain futures in the present (Vervoort & Gupta, 2018). Consequently, it takes an explicit future-orientation in sustainability governance debates. A research agenda on anticipatory governance is growing but has largely ignored the Global South (Macnaghten et al., 2014; Vervoort & Gupta, 2018). More generally, global sustainability governance has remained western-oriented (Sénit & Biermann, 2021) and countries in
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw