MAGIC has contributed to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by testing the robustness and the quality of the policy and innovation narratives about the state and trends in the water, energy, food and environment (WEFE) Nexus in Europe.
To this purpose, MAGIC has focused on key components of the EU’s sustainability strategies, showing how they are deeply entangled. Our approach has involved checking the feasibility, viability, security (openness) and desirability of the metabolic pattern of socio-ecological systems as the underlying theoretical concept and doing so across spatial scales, i.e. pan-EU, Member States and selected regions. MAGIC has studied the narratives underlying Nexus policies: i.e. the initial identification and framing of the problem, the choice of models through which variables and data are combined to generate quantitative results, and how these are legitimated, interpreted and used (or not used) in decision-making processes. In this process, MAGIC has developed and tested the method of Quantitative Story-Telling (QST), a co-creation approach for scientists and policy-makers designed to improve the interactions across the science-policy interface.
This appraisal was carried out for 5 policy domains (CAP, energy, water, environment, circular economy) and 7 innovations/policy solutions (biofuels, electric vehicles, shale gas extraction, green bonds, alternative water sources, saving water in irrigation, environmental protection measures). These cases highlighted the challenges of policy integration, the preference for technical “silver bullet” solutions within production systems rather than looking at the need for transformative changes to societal demands, the inadequacy of reductionism when dealing with complex issues, and that assessing sustainability at an EU level omits the EU’s impacts elsewhere.
A key outcome of MAGIC is that many WEFE Nexus issues to a high degree involve “uncomfortable knowledge”, i.e. knowledge that is in tension with or contradicts prevailing narratives currently used to inform the sustainability discussion. Such knowledge is particularly valuable for its potential to guide institutional innovation and change.