ACMECS and green development challenge in Lower Mekong flow

At the Consultation Workshop “Promoting Solutions For Preventive and Mitigation of Environmental Issues in the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS)” held on November 7 in Hanoi, experts and regional research institutes pointed out a paradox: rapid economic growth in the Mekong subregion is making the very rivers that sustain tens of millions of people more fragile than ever.

Speaking at the event, Nguyen Trung Thang, Deputy Director of the Institute of Strategy and Policy for Agriculture and Environment (ISPAE), emphasized that ACMECS, which includes Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam, is not merely an economic space but an interconnected ecosystem bound by water. Major rivers, such as the Ayeyawady, Chao Phraya, and Mekong, form the lifeline of the region, providing energy, food, and sustaining the fast-growing agricultural and industrial systems. Yet, alongside this growth, environmental pressures have intensified, particularly in the form of water pollution and plastic waste, issues that transcend administrative boundaries.

According to a report by the Mekong Institute in Thailand, within a decade, the number of hydropower dams on the Mekong River and its tributaries has increased from about 60 to more than 150, drastically altering hydrological regimes, reducing dry-season flow, and cutting sediment discharge to the Mekong Delta by up to 90%. The loss of sediment not only deprives the delta of its “natural fertilizer” but also accelerates erosion, subsidence, and ecosystem degradation.

Agricultural expansion, urbanization, and mineral extraction have brought short-term economic benefits but have also generated wastewater, heavy metals, and emerging pollutants that exceed the capacity of current treatment systems. Meanwhile, environmental monitoring networks remain fragmented, with little data sharing among countries. The more the subregion develops, the sharper the question becomes: how to “trade off less” when electricity, fish, land, and water are all essential.

Kademanee Suthum, representative of the Mekong Institute in Thailand, noted that plastic pollution has emerged as another “silent crisis.” It is estimated that the Mekong River alone discharges between 22,800 and 59,900 tons of plastic waste into the ocean each year, placing ACMECS countries among the world’s largest contributors of riverborne plastic. She emphasized that plastic waste in the region operates through a “supply chain” pattern, Thailand and Viet Nam serve as import and recycling centers, while Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar act as “transit points” and informal dumping sites. As waste and goods flow intersect, the boundary between development and pollution becomes increasingly blurred.

Beyond threatening aquatic life and marine resources, plastics infiltrate food chains and pose health risks to communities. “Every disturbance in one part of the river affects the entire basin,” warned Guohua Liu from the Mekong Institute in Thailand, calling for stronger cooperation among governments, communities, the private sector, and international organizations to “protect our shared river and shared future.”

The workshop went beyond warnings, as scientists presented proposals to define specific directions, emphasizing that ACMECS should evolve into a functional environmental coordination mechanism rather than remain merely an economic cooperation framework.

According to Nguyen Thi Ngoc Anh from the ISPAE, ACMECS countries have made significant policy progress, issuing laws, decrees, and programs to reduce plastic waste, promote source segregation, implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and move toward a circular economy. However, current measures remain fragmented, lacking cross-sectoral coordination and transboundary information sharing. “A river cannot be protected if each country only focuses on the water flowing through its territory,” she remarked.

Ms. Anh argued that what ACMECS needs now is a transition from commitment to institutionalization. At the national level, each country must invest heavily in monitoring systems and water and plastic data, viewing these as the “infrastructure of infrastructure.” At the regional level, ACMECS could serve as a bridge linking science, policy, and finance, coordinating with the Mekong River Commission (MRC) and existing frameworks such as the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) and the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), while expanding the ACMECS Development Fund into a green and blue investment mechanism supporting environmentally friendly infrastructure projects.

For plastic waste, it is necessary to establish a regional working group on plastics and the circular economy, build a transboundary monitoring framework, harmonize data standards and investment criteria, and align taxation policies, single-use plastic bans, and roadmaps for reducing plastic leakage. ACMECS, therefore, could become the platform for a circular Mekong economy, where trade, investment, and environmental stewardship align under a unified development vision.

From an international perspective, ACMECS holds a unique advantage, as it sits at the intersection of the East-West and North-South economic corridors, directly connecting to Asia’s major economies. Therefore, the spillover effects of ACMECS’s transboundary environmental initiatives could generate regional and even global impacts.

As experts from the Mekong Institute noted, “there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs that must be managed wisely.” The benefits of hydropower must be balanced with food security and community livelihoods; industrial growth must align with recycling and waste management capacity; and national development must go hand in hand with regional stability. When policy and investment converge toward shared goals, the challenges of water and plastic can become catalysts for cooperation and innovation.