Will the Mekong Achieve the SDGs? Pathways, Transitions, and Futures Beyond 2030

Will the Mekong Achieve the SDGs? Pathways, Transitions, and Futures Beyond 2030

Assistant Professor Maya Dania

International Development Program, School of Social Innovation,

Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, Thailand

Introduction

As the world nears the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), progress varies and is slowing down. Many countries have advanced in health, education, and economic growth, but environmental and social inequalities remain. The concept of future studies, which uses systems modeling, foresight analysis, and transition theory, has become increasingly important for understanding what might happen after 2030 and for planning long-term sustainability.

This article draws inspiration from a study published in Nature Sustainability in 2024, titled "Early systems change necessary for catalyzing long-term sustainability in a post-2030 agenda" (2022). The study used the FeliX global systems model (2022) to simulate how the world might achieve eight SDGs (food, health, education, energy, economy, consumption, climate, and land) under different future scenarios. It conducted 10,000 simulations across five possible global development paths. The results indicate that while human-related goals, such as education and health, are on track in some regions, ecological goals, such as climate action and biodiversity, are far behind and may not be achieved by 2030.

This article conducts a global analysis of the Mekong region, focusing on Thailand and its neighboring countries. Using insights from the FeliX model (Moallemi et al., 2022) and Geels' (2018, 2024) Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions, I examine the barriers to achieving the SDGs and the pathways that can support long-term transformation. I argue that the Mekong's sustainability challenges, such as energy dependence, deforestation, and institutional gaps, can only be addressed through regional cooperation, stronger education systems, and ecological governance that plans beyond 2030.

SDG Predictions by Scenario and Timeframe

The FeliX global systems model (Moallemi et al., 2022) offers an integrated simulation of how progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) might develop under different socioeconomic and climate scenarios. It identifies five distinct development pathways that reflect alternative setups of the world's economy, governance, and technological change. The Business-as-Usual path, aligned with Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2 (SSP2–4.5), assumes moderate economic growth and gradual climate action, keeping the world mainly on its current course. The Green Recovery, or SSP1–2.6, scenario envisions a cooperative, sustainability-focused future with international collaboration, significant investments in renewable energy, and stronger commitments to equity and inclusion. Conversely, the Fragmented World (SSP3–7.0) scenario illustrates geopolitical division and resource competition that hinder collective efforts to protect the planet. The Inequality pathway (SSP4–6.0) predicts growing disparities between high- and low-income regions, while the Fossil-Fueled Development trajectory (SSP5–8.5) anticipates continued reliance on oil, coal, and gas to sustain rapid, but environmentally unsustainable, growth. Together, these five pathways outline plausible short-term (until 2030), medium-term (until 2050), and long-term (until 2100) development futures, demonstrating how current policies and investments will shape the balance between human progress and planetary health.

As shown in Table 1, model-based projections suggest that reaching the 2030 Agenda targets is unlikely under any current development pathway. Although progress has been made in education, health, and economic participation, these improvements are offset by ongoing inequalities, slow energy transitions, and weak climate commitments. In most scenarios, human development continues to advance, but environmental goals, especially those related to climate action, sustainable consumption, and biodiversity, lag significantly behind. This divergence underscores a widening gap between social progress and ecological health, showing that short-term improvements in living standards often come at the expense of long-term planetary stability.

Table 1. SDGs Projections

Across all pathways, except for the Green Recovery scenario, environmental performance remains weak by 2030. This shortfall results from rising global food demand, high meat consumption, and persistent energy-intensive economic growth. Even under Green Recovery, limited progress in SDGs 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action), and 15 (life on land) reflects the inertia of entrenched negative trends such as deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and slow systemic reform. After 2030, however, progress toward the more ambitious 2050 and 2100 goals begin to accelerate, though unevenly across pathways. This acceleration reflects the delayed effects of policy interventions, technological innovation, and social adaptation, creating a nonlinear trajectory shaped by complex feedback over time. Among all scenarios, Green Recovery achieves the strongest long-term results: goals that stagnated by 2030, especially environmental ones, improve significantly by mid-century and continue to advance toward 2100, demonstrating how early and sustained investments in renewable energy, inclusive growth, and ecological restoration can lead to transformative long-term change.

Table 2 outlines the expected long-term progress of key environmental and resource-related SDGs under the Green Recovery (SSP1–2.6) pathway, showing how consistent policies and gradual behavioral changes can lead to significant improvements by mid- and late-century.

Table 2. Long-Term Progress of Key Environmental SDGs

The comparative analysis of global development paths shows different routes toward sustainability. The Fossil-Fueled Development (SSP5–8.5) pathway emphasizes rapid economic growth at the expense of environmental health, with progress by 2100 primarily reflected in socioeconomic indicators. Meanwhile, ecological goals such as SDGs 12, 13, and 15 show little progress. Continued reliance on fossil fuels delays the shift to clean energy (SDG 7) and keeps economies locked into high-emission patterns, despite short-term gains. Conversely, the Fragmented World (SSP3–7.0) scenario predicts decreasing social stability and extensive land-use changes. Many indicators, including SDGs 3, 4, 12, 13, and 15, drop below their 2015 levels by 2100 due to geopolitical division, weak governance, and unsustainable resource competition. The Business-as-Usual (SSP2–4.5) and Inequality (SSP4–6.0) pathways show moderate results: while Business-as-Usual maintains current trends without major reforms, inequality performs slightly better socially but faces challenges from slow energy transitions, persistent emissions, and high land-use pressures. Overall, these findings underscore that early, coordinated, and systemic action is crucial to meet mid- and long-term sustainability targets. Even if short-term progress seems limited by 2030, the nonlinear nature of global systems means early interventions, such as those in the Green Recovery scenario, can trigger delayed but transformative shifts. For example, decreasing population growth and fossil fuel use after mid-century can accelerate advancements in clean energy and climate resilience.

Regional Context of the Mekong Sub-Region

Viewed through Geels' (2010, 2018) Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), the patterns across SDG pathways reveal that true transformation depends on how societal and environmental forces interact with the dominant systems that organize production, energy, and governance. In the Fossil-Fueled Development and Fragmented World scenarios, existing regimes rooted in fossil-based industries, centralized economies, and short-term political agendas remain largely unchanged. Even as global climate and social pressures increase, these systems adapt just enough to survive, relegating cleaner technologies and community innovations to the sidelines. Conversely, the Green Recovery pathway demonstrates how strong landscape pressures, rising climate risks, shifting public expectations, and international cooperation can create space for niche innovations like renewable energy, circular economies, and inclusive policies to take hold and expand. Here, small-scale experiments and policy reforms begin to integrate, gradually transforming the broader regime. Meanwhile, the Business-as-Usual and Inequality pathways linger in transitional limbo: they recognize the need for change but fail to connect emerging innovations to larger structural shifts. From an MLP perspective, the lesson is clear. Lasting SDG progress requires more than technological advances; it demands a reorganization of social, institutional, and cultural systems that make new, sustainable practices normal rather than rare.

In the Mekong Sub-Region (Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam), the patterns of change across energy, agriculture, and governance closely follow what Geels (2010, 2018) describes as the interaction between landscape pressures, regime stability, and niche innovation in his Multi-Level Perspective (MLP). At the larger landscape level, forces like climate instability, regional trade integration, and shifting geopolitical alliances are reshaping long-standing development assumptions. The current regimes, characterized by reliance on hydropower, export-driven farming, and centralized decision-making (Vu, 2024), reflect the slower, path-dependent pathways of the Business-as-Usual (SSP2–4.5) and Inequality (SSP4–6.0) scenarios, where progress remains steady but limited by structural inertia. Thailand's ongoing dependence on fossil fuels and large dams (Okadera et al., 2014), along with Laos's and Cambodia's resource-intensive growth (Phimphanthavong, 2013; Sisowath, 2012), also mirror trends within the Fossil-Fueled Development (SSP5–8.5) pathway. However, across the region, niche innovations are quietly emerging: solar microgrids in border provinces, agroforestry and organic cooperatives in northern Thailand (Nakbanpote et al., 2023), and community-led river food systems that align with the Green Recovery (SSP1–2.6) scenario. These local efforts challenge established systems by combining ecological knowledge with social inclusion. Meanwhile, the Fragmented World (SSP3–7.0) scenario fits with the Mekong's fragmented environmental governance, where competing national interests often take precedence over collective stewardship (Dore & Lebel., 2010). From the perspective of the MLP, the region's sustainability prospects depend on whether increasing landscape pressures, from climate shocks to economic shifts, can be transformed into opportunities that challenge outdated regimes and enable successful niches to expand through cooperation, education, and inclusive policy reform.

Finally, the future of sustainability in the Mekong depends less on new technology or economic growth and more on how people reshape power, knowledge, and responsibility across borders. The region's current development model, which focuses on extraction, centralized control, and short-term gains, has reached a breaking point. Continuing on this path risks increasing inequality and environmental decline, similar to the scenarios of the Fossil-Fueled and Fragmented World. However, a different future is already emerging in the region's everyday practices: through community energy projects, women-led cooperatives, and local networks that share knowledge across borders. These small, grassroots initiatives exemplify the Green Recovery pathway, showing how change can start on the margins and expand upward. The real challenge for the Mekong is to connect these local efforts into a larger regional movement, turning cooperation into policy and resilience into shared governance. If successful, the region's trajectory toward 2050 and 2100 could lead not just to measurable progress but to a redefinition of development, one rooted in environmental care, fairness, and collective survival.

Conclusion: The Mekong's Turning Point

The future of the Mekong is shaped over time (2030, 2050, and 2100), not as a straight line but as a contested landscape of choices. The region now faces a slow crisis, where economic growth still takes priority over ecological restoration. However, as Geels' Multi-Level Perspective suggests, this period of instability can create space for transformation: pressures from climate change and social inequality are beginning to challenge the fossil-based systems that have long defined development in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. The five global scenarios show that time itself is political; early action under Green Recovery yields delayed but accumulating benefits by 2050 and 2100, while the inertia of Business-as-Usual, Inequality, or Fossil-Fueled Development traps the region in irreversible decline. The Mekong's real opportunity lies in nurturing niche innovations like community energy systems, women-led cooperatives, and borderland ecological networks, and scaling them through inclusive governance. What happens in the next decade will determine not only whether the region meets its targets but also whether it can break free from extractive histories and envision a shared future where resilience is built, layer by layer, starting now.

Thanks to Dr. Yuki Miyake, Asian Research Center for International Development, School of Social Innovation, Mae Fah Luang University, for supervising this article.

References

Dore, J., & Lebel, L. (2010). Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environmental Management, 46(1), 60-80.

Geels, F. W. (2018). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science.

Geels, F. (2024). The Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transitions: Background, overview, and current research topics.

Moallemi, E. A., Eker, S., Gao, L., Hadjikakou, M., Kwakkel, J., Reed, P. M., Obersteiner, M., & Bryan, Geels, F. W. (2018). Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective. Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 224-231.

Nakbanpote, W., Srihaban, P., Chokkuea, W., Dungkaew, W., Taya, U., Khanema, P., Munjit, R., Jitto, P., Busababodhin, P., Khankhum, S. and Somtrakoon, K. (2023). Restoring Ecosystems: Guidance from Agroecology for Sustainability in Thailand. Agroecological Approaches for Sustainable Soil Management, 201-229.

Okadera, T., Chontanawat, J., & Gheewala, S. H. (2014). Water footprint for energy production and supply in Thailand. Energy, 77, 49-56.

Phimphanthavong, H. (2013). The impacts of economic growth on environmental conditions in Laos. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 4(5), 766-774.

Sisowath, D. C. (2012). Cambodia's Inclusive Growth Strategy. East Asian Policy, 4(04), 84-93.

Vu, H. (2024). Balancing Environment and Growth: Dams, Air Pollution, and Trade Effects in Southeast Asia (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego).