Foresight

Scenario building

Atelier GloFoods 27 février 2020

Marie de Lattre-Gasquet, ART-Dev

FREEDOMMany possible futures

Monitor the realities

Look under the radar

Explore

POWERNo choice

or no more the choice?

Imagine different

futures

Will

WILL“There is no fair wind

for one who knows not

whither he is bound”

(Seneca)

Build the future you

wish

The future: something to be created

Past and futures are

multiple and uncertain

Present

Plausible past

Possible futures

Desirable

futures

Desired / normative

futures

What are the facts ?

How do we interpret them ?What is currently changing ?

What could change in the future ?

Attitudes, scenarios and strategies

Attitudes towards the

future

Types of scenarios Types of

strategies

Passive No scenarios Course of

events

Reactive No scenarios Adaptative

Pre-active Exploratory Preventive

Proactive Anticipatory Deliberative

A process to prepare to changes

and facilitate desired changes

Economy

Environnement Society

Qualitative approach: vision, scenarios with narratives, etc.

Quantitative

approach

Models : BAU,

what if

Modèles, par

ex IMPACT,

GLOBIOM,

MAgPIE,

GTEM, etc.

Foresight methods vary and evolve

Two possible methods for

building scenarios :

(a) the 2 x 2 matrix technique and

(b) morphological table +

combination of hypotheses

1. Examples of scenarios

2. Similarities and differences in methods

3. Advantages and shortcomings

2x2 matrix : Special Report on

Emissions Scenarios (SRES)

Source : IPCC, 2000

2x2 matrix : Millenium Ecosystem

Assessement (2005)

How to build scenarios 2 x 2

1. Identify the focal issue or decision

2. Scan internal dynamics (organization and its

environment)

3. Identify driving forces in the environment

4. Rank Driving Forces by Importance and Uncertainty

5. Select the Scenario Logic

6. Flesh out the scenarios

7. Implications

8. Selection of leading indicators and signposts

Millenium Ecosystem Assessement

(2005)

2x2 matrix : Shared Socio-economic

Pathways (SSP)

Source : O’Neill et al., 2017

Escenarios del sistema

agroalimentario Argentino al 2030

Saavedra et al., 2016

Morphological

table +

combination of

hypotheses :

Prospective

Agriculture et

énergie 2030

Source : Vert et Portet, 2010

How to build a morphological table +

combine assumptions1. Identify the focal issue or decision

2. Identify driving forces in the environment

3. Prepare a table with driving forces : from the most influent

to the least influent (or from the most global to the more

specific)

4. Select most representative assumption / hypothesis for

each driver, and then build alternative assumptions

5. Build micro-scenarios per driver

6. Build scenarios by combining micro-scenarios

7. Test coherence of scenarios

8. Compare impact of scenarios

9. Identifiy measures without regrets

10. Work on policy recommendations

Morphological

table +

combination of

hypotheses :

Agrimonde-Terra

(2018)

Healthy scenario

Similarities

2 x 2 matrix technique Morphological table +

combinaison of hypotheses

Need to identify problem / question and time horizon.

Need to define objectives

Participatory

Rigorous and systematic

Identification of drivers and assumptions per driver

Need to write narratives

Possible to illustrate quantitatively the scenarios / link qualitative and

quantitative assumptions

Look at implications and consequences for policymaking

Quantitative

hypotheses for

cropping

systems

Differences

2 x 2 matrix technique Morphological table +

combinaison of hypotheses

Drivers STEEP or DEGEST

Drivers are ranked by

Importance and Uncertainty

axes

Binary approach factors

chosen for the axes should be

“high-impact, high-uncertainty”.

Easier to have a desired /

normative scenario

System with a drivers

connected to each other

Systemic approach large

range of plausible scenarios

(BAU and contrasted).

Coherency is tested

Transparency

The land use and food security system

Advantages

2 x 2 matrix technique Morphological table +

combinaison of hypotheses

Easy it is to implement and

generates highly contrasted

scenarios in a short period of

time.

Systemic approach.

Genereates richer / more

complex scenarios

Shortcomings

2 x 2 matrix technique Morphological table +

combinaison of hypotheses

It does not explicitly take into

account interaction between a

large number of variables.

It does not integrate stable

trends and gradual

developments because it

focuses on key uncertainties

It requires resources and time.

Risk of having a BAU, a rosy

and a dark scenario.

Agrimonde-Terra (2018)

4 scenarios with

agroecological intensification of

cropping systems

Regionalisation

AB

Régionalisation

Households

Households

C D

Régimes sains

Healthy

Coll

a-

pse

A

E

Communautés

Communities

Références• Cornish Edward. 2004 : Futuring : the exploration of the future. Bethesda

(Md) : World Future Society, 313 p.

De Jouvenel Hughes 2004. Invitation à la prospective. Futuribles, 87 p.

Godet M. (1991). De l’anticipation à l’action. Manuel de prospective et de

stratégie. Ed. Dunod, Paris. 390 p.

• Lamblin V. (2018). L’analyse morphologique. Futuribles, Prospective and

Strategic Foresight Toolbox

• Le Mouël C., de Lattre-Gasquet M. et Mora O. (coord.) (2018). Land use

and food security in 2050 : a narrow road. Agrimonde-Terra. Quae,

Versailles, 398 p.

• Rhydderch A. (2017). Scenario Building: The 2x2 Matrix Technique.

Futuribles, Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox