in the Mekong countries

of multi-scalar governance with cross-border impact assessments [ Hirsch, 2020 ]. In that way, localized commons and transboundary development projects could be integrated into supranational framings of the commons. Mekong water is a commons pooled resource for all Mekong inhabitants. As an alternative, large hydropower dam projects are located within geopolitical debates about the sustainability of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power [ Tran & Suhardiman, 2020 ]. The sustainability of multi-sited transboundary commons around other river resources, such as wild catch fisheries, should be considered to find better solutions than just large-scale power-generated water infrastructure. Then, at planning level, “proactive regional planning” plays the role of integration, with joint investment projects and measures between countries, actors, and sectors.

Challenges persist in the domination of current pro-growth agendas, that often undermine the democratic ideal of collaborative participation in hybrid environmental governance [ Bakerand Milne, 2015; South, 2018, cited by Miller et al., 2020 ]. The outstanding question concerns the motivations of various actors in making the sector healthier. The fact that the revenue benefits to Laos appear to be positive — and wildly more so than any other development strategy the government could pursue — needs to be considered seriously [ Cronin & Hamlin, 2012 ]. An understanding of the interests and motivations of all actors is needed. As Hirsch (2020) states, governance needs to be based on an understanding of flows of capital and distribution of interests between different social and environmental actors, just as much as on flows of fugitive resources or geopolitical power plays. Specifically, either transboundary regulations or local governmental rules to hold Thai, Vietnamese and Chinese firms accountable for their investments in hydropower, plantations and other entities in neighbouring countries, will improve and reduce the impacts of agrarian and water projects on local communities.

4. For a paradigm shift on the sustainable management of transboundary resources in the Mekong countries

Climate change adds uncertainty to the ongoing environmental and resource-use issues of the Mekong basin. In this context, transboundary governance of natural resources faces challenges from high degrees of uncertainty, contested outcomes, and multiple actors with various interests. Current issues derive mainly from the perspective of national sovereignty and owned business. At the same time, current “undeniable” issues of environmental damage and climate change are a driver for progress. Miller et al. (2020) assert that history has shown that times of crisis, rupture, and displacement create opportunities to enact flexible governance.

Along with institutional trials and practices based on the principles of proactive regional planning, and holistic cross-border assess-

ment and decision-making, transboundary governance is part of the urgent need to move towards a “fair environmental transition”. All in all, the environmental changes linked with the acceleration of climate change, coupled with the management of water and related natural resources, raise the crucial question of interactions with inequalities, the social contract and economic growth at the scale of the Mekong countries. It is urgent to develop actions that tackle issues surrounding environmental transition and inequalities in Mekong countries; in order to respond to this challenge, hereafter four areas of recommendations are proposed in the field of knowledge and capacity-building.

The first is by undertaking an ambitious and extensive production of scientific knowledge on the different dimensions of the inequality-environmental transition nexus. This effort will result in a critical mass of knowledge to contribute to a deeper understanding of the societal changes necessary for the success of the environmental transition in the Mekong countries [ Huynh et al., 2021 ]. This research falls under the umbrella of Sustainability Science. This science of interactions, defined more by the questions it addresses than by any one scientific discipline, focuses on understanding the relationships of ecological and social phenomena studied at all scales, using a methodology based on a systemic approach to the humanity-environment-society triad. Interdisciplinary by nature, Sustainability Science encourages scientists to work with communities and to develop solutions for and with all stakeholders. In fact, in today’s highly complex and difficult Human-environment systems — which associate diverse stakeholders with different interests, uncertainty and embedded injustice — the growing field of sustainability science has adopted a variety of useful approaches (such as co-production of knowledge, and handson testing of interventions with local stakeholders), capable of assisting much-needed transformations [ Messerli et al., 2019 ].

The second and third recommendations are the core elements of an innovative way of doing research. First, it involves systematically linking researchers and their institutions with other stakeholders — policymakers, media, civil society, the private sector — who are directly concerned by and have stakes in the foreseen outputs. This link is expected to enhance the impact of scientific findings through their direct integration, simultaneously with their publication, into concrete actions, collective practices and public policies, which can be promoted through the undertaking of PhDs integrated into an ambitious framework of activities.

Second, based on the connections and network consolidated during implementation of the research, it is a matter of going further and making use of the knowledge produced. This is an important question about the format and visualization that scientific knowledge takes, carried out so that the results of research are understood beyond academic circles alone. The organization of regular and specific events for dialogue and exchange between scientists and other stakeholders will also enhance the impact of the findings. It is by supporting researchers and their institutions in their efforts for dissemination, and using modern means of communication, that scientific progress will be considered by decision-makers at its true value, i.e. indisputable knowledge, resulting from rigorous work, demonstrated and validated by the scientific community.

The fourth, and last axe of recommendation, is an intense capacity-building effort targeting higher education and research institutions

in Mekong countries, to ensure leverage effects and start a virtuous cycle leading to the science-based monitoring of environmental transition. The fundamental principle guiding the programme at this level is the belief that good research — that is, research that solves, or helps to solve, problems — requires skills that go far beyond scientific skills. Project writing, communication, management of financial and human resources, legal and ethical issues, communication and outreach are all essential elements for embodied research. And yet, these skills, which are peripheral to the purely scientific activity of research, are often ignored in higher education and research institutions in Southeast Asia.

Communication and knowledge management are central. Non-academic stakeholders’ opinions and the extended peer community must play a role in monitoring the quality of the research process and results. The knowledge produced should be systematically shaped to be understood and disseminated beyond the academic sector, fuelling societal debates and directing the processes of change towards environmental transition.

This paradigm shift on sustainable development represents a unique opportunity for higher education and research institutions to position themselves as actors of change, by enabling science to influence collective decisions. They will be integrated into an international network committed to a responsible and pragmatic approach to research, leading to connected science. The participation of non-academic actors in the formulation, monitoring, and political and economic enhancement of the findings will ensure the development of close links between partners, producers and seekers of scientific expertise. The long-term impact of these actions will stem from concrete and visible expected outcomes, both in terms of new knowledge and capacity building. They must bring about profound changes in the way research is carried out, and in the use of scientific results by economic and social actors, highlighting their usefulness and relevance to societal challenges. The connected science approach can be replicated in other contexts. The conclusions of the programme, distilled in a white paper that will serve as a roadmap to environmental transition, will contribute to identifying solutions to the most urgent socio-environmental problems faced by humanity.

Finally, the core of these recommendations is to contribute to building the next generation of policymakers for the environmental transition, a network of leading sustainability science experts in the Mekong countries, as well a network of local community actors and non-governmental organizations. Building local interdisciplinary scientific knowledge, guiding evidence-based public policies, and fostering scientific and policy regional coordination will ultimately help bring about the socioeconomic conditions for ecologically resilient economies in the region.