83 Approaches to anticipatory governance in West Africa 3 AMMA-2050 process assessed probabilistic future processes, which is associated with approach 1. The process seeks to develop a science-based understanding of climate adaptation strategies, which is approach 1 action with language borrowed of 2. The aim is to reduce future risks, also associated with approach 1. This hybridity is an important finding, as it indicates that the fundamental assumptions underpinning the approaches are mixed. The three examples illustrate that anticipation processes can start from one conception of the future (probable or plausible) to inform actions in the present that combine approaches 1 and 2, and sometimes also to realize such combined aims. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to formulate actions in a more technocratic way – as shown by the dominance of approach 1 over approach 2, and absence of approaches 3 and 4. This absence is the second key insight. 3.5.1. Conflicting assumptions within hybrids of approaches 1 and 2 The hybrid approaches thus recognized the deeper uncertainties and complexities of futures to some extent, but predominantly propose linear and technocratic forms of actions to reduce future risks as most viable and desirable intervention in the present (approach 1). For example, actions to build capacities focused on supporting institutions to ‘get the science right’ - seeing capacity building as a vehicle for better knowing and managing climate risks (see e.g. AMMA-2050, n.d.; USAID, 2017) rather than for a better navigation of diverse uncertain futures, as associated with approach 2. Fundamental uncertainty is reduced to risk – which assumes that a more objective and calculable account of the future is possible (Maechler & Graz, 2020). This clashes with the principles of the plausibilistic tradition (approach 2), which depicts future uncertainty as incalculable, and in demand of some form of subjective judgement (Andersson, 2018). The actions proposed for the present assume that the future can be made partially knowable and manageable – which conflicts with recognizing deep uncertainty. Language is thus used of approach 2 but its principles are abandoned. The role of stakeholders in participatory processes also epitomizes the dominance of approach 1 over approach 2 in the hybrids. Most projects had a participatory component but the dialogue about future possibilities was relatively closed. For example, the WABiCC process aimed to transfer knowledge from experts to policymakers. This relates more to approach 1 than to approach 2, which would be more of an open dialogue and knowledge exchange about possible futures (Wiebe et al., 2018), or approach 3, which would be the co-creation of alternative futures, or an approach 4 type of critical examination of anticipation. The participatory scenario exercise by Climate Analytics and AMMA-2050 sought to improve policymakers’ scientific understanding of climate change (approach 1). Thus, participatory approaches to anticipation do not necessarily aim to give participants agency over how and what futures are imagined, as associated
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw