82 Chapter 3 a participatory scenarios workshop to improve “policymakers’ understanding of climate science for better long-term science-based decisions” (Interview, 19 April 2019). The Secretary General of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development underlined the policy relevance of the project in a public video (PAS-PNA - Science-Based National Adaptation Planning in Senegal, n.d.), but at the time of research low institutional capacities were delaying the mainstreaming of outcomes into national, sectoral, and regional policies. Ultimate aim: AMMA-2050s aimed to identify climate vulnerabilities and reduce climaterelated risks. 3.5. Discussion and conclusions In this article, I analyzed anticipation processes in a climate vulnerable context of the Global South – West Africa. These processes are examined through an analytical framework that identifies four approaches to anticipatory governance in the social science and interdisciplinary sustainability sciences (Muiderman et al., 2020). Each of the four approaches in the framework embed a different: a) conception of the future; b) implication for actions in the present; and c) ultimate aim to be realized with anticipatory governance. The framework further illustrates that some methods and tools of anticipation generally align with a given approach and others with multiple approaches. Two key findings emerge from the analysis that are discussed here. The first insight identified is that the anticipation processes often complement multiple methods and tools of anticipation aligning with approaches 1 and 2. Quantitative scenarios and visioning processes are most often used to imagine futures, as well as a few participatory scenario exercises. These methods and tools are used in combination with diverse participatory processes (such as policy workshops) to discuss impacts and adaptation options. The two dominant approaches are used in several hybrid forms, as illustrated by the three examples examined in detail. The first WABiCC process is fundamentally probability-focused and conceives future uncertainty as something that can be reduced to arrive at a most likely future, as associated with approach 1. The intended actions in the present are building institutional capacities for planning under scientific uncertainty, which is approach 2 in service of 1. The ultimate aim is to increase resilience to future climate risks, which combines the aims of approaches 1 and 2. The second CCAFS process explored plausible futures, as associated with approach 2. The actions for the present and the ultimate aim also aligned with approach 2 from the practitioner’s perspective, namely to strategize robust planning processes to navigate future risks more reflexively. However, from the policy perspective anticipation informed strategic planning to reduce future risks, as associated with approach 1. Finally, the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw