1.The Discussion of the Joint Working Group on Water Resources of Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (herein after referred to as ‘the Discussion’)was held in Nongkhai province, Thailand on 10th August 2019. The Discussion was co-chaired by Dr. Somkiat Prajamwong, Secretary General of Office of the National Water Resources, Head of LMC Joint Working Group for Thailand, and Dr. Yu Xingjun, Consult of Department of International Cooperation, Science and Technology, Head of LMC Joint Working Group for China. It was attended by the participants from 4 Member Countries.

2.Thailand welcomed LMC participants to the Discussion which was co-hosted by Thailand and China and attended by JWG for Thailand, China, Myanmar and Viet Nam. Thailand stated the incident of extreme events occurring throughout the world especially on climate change, flood and drought in Lancang-Mekong basin. Consequently, they caused an impact to the downstream countries whose daily lives were depending on water utilization including riverbank agriculture, fisheries and related activities. Thailand, also, took this opportunity to seek ideas and share information from Member Countries in responding to the mentioned issues to be in coping with the drought or any risks of water crisis under the LMC framework.To this end, Thailand expressed its gratitude to all participants for devoting the time to attend this Discussion and wished to see constructive, fruitful and successful discussions so on.

3.China thanked the delegates for joining the Discussion and stated that the main objective of the meeting was to address the drought situation and flood at the same time in the Lower Mekong Basin. China also appreciated that the LMC Cooperation had been in progressing well with joint collaboration in accordance with the Five-Year Action Plan on Lancang- Mekong Water Resources Cooperation.

4.Thailand emphasized the situation on severe drought in the wet season was elevated which was not an abnormal situation ever. Thailand explained how the Thai Water Act prescribed pre-season forecasts, monitoring during the period of a season and also the end-season evaluation. Pre-wet season started in March according to long-term average rainfall forecasts. This year, the forecast had been corrected in terms of the trend but the actual situation had gone beyond that.  The forecast of May-July was 25 percent below the average. If it were 10-25 percent of drought comparing to normal situation, there still was the capacity to manage the drought situation.Therefore it was a challenge if it got worse. Drought in the Mekong sub-basins in Thailand (Khong, Chi and Mun) was 40 percent which caused less water level than it should be and nationally the figure was 32 percent.

2. The upgraded situation requires more intensive measures and closely monitoring. Water level in dams was really low and this was two years running plus this year there was an El Niño Phase. Wet season in Thailand started with water level in dam sat dead storage. There were 2-3 months left for this season. If there was not enough rainfall, the situation would be worse in the next year. In the north-eastern region,water level was at 30 percent which affects poor quality of drinking water.

6.The Meeting adopted and went through the agenda items as proposed by the Secretariat of Thailand. The significant issues were discussed as follows:

7.Current situation and projection from drought in Lancang-Mekong Region:Thailand presented the overall situations of the Lower Mekong Basin and current drought in Thailand.

8.Thailand was of the view that rainfall in this year had water level at the same period lower than the previous years. It meant that less rainfall was less water in dams. Due to lower water contribution from China and also Lao PDR was testing the Xayaburi dam, there was an occurrence of water fluctuation and drought in the wet season.In this connection, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and Royal Irrigation Department (RID)were concerned agencies that had to review water management in some areas. The aforesaid problem was found in the North-East of Thailand. Moreover, Thailand requested Member Countries to provide positive suggestions to cope with this situation. If the Mekong got lower then there were less water in tributaries and also groundwater recharged.

9.China noted the detailed information from Thailand and the analysis on the drought. China believed that the drought was mostly the result of climate change. This was also the case in China. Precipitation in the Lancang basin was lower than the minimum level as well as the increase of temperature as resulted in lower runoff at 70 percent comparing to normal situation.

10.Viet Nam shared its view that they faced the same impacts from climate change and agreed with findings of significant less rainfall. This could be seen in the lower quantity of rainfall for only 10–20 percent and at the same time of Jinghong had reduced its releases.

11.Myanmar stated that it had no impact from flood and drought. The only impact was from climate change which caused the lack of drinking water. Myanmar had also been preparing the drought forecasting in lower part of Myanmar.

12.Regarding the concerns on the drought situation in the wet season. China informed the meeting that there had been preparing to predict the rainfall for gaining more accurate and comprehensive information. However rainfall prediction was quite difficult to perform.

13.Thailand further commented that more information was supposed to be shared among Member Countries. This would be useful for the stakeholders in order to make preparedness and protect from the damage that might be occurred. In addition, Thailand requested that information sharing on flow release from the upstream (China) should be informed to the people living in the Lower Mekong Basin in advance preferably at least2 weeks ahead in minimum. The record of water fluctuation and relevant existing information were also useful for the Member Countries’ learning which could be minimizing the potential impact caused by climate change. Thailand suggested that there should be mechanism added up in the current Action Plan for use of information to update the stakeholders the happening situation.

14.To the topic of flow release affecting the downstream countries, China pointed out that Jinghong Dam was quite far from Nongkhai province. Also it did not seem to be the cause of an impact on water fluctuation because the water level in the operation at Jinghong was lower than the expected level. Nevertheless, China would do an analysis on the impact of flow release from Jinghong to the downstream.

15.Viet Nam viewed that the existing data on flow release was not enough for sharing among Member Countries. Therefore, supportive data/ information was necessary to be shared, especially in both flood and dry seasons. Moreover, it proposed China to focus on drought assessment deliberately as well as taking the tributaries section into account for further cooperation.

16.Myanmar agreed with the modification of the existing mechanism. It also shared its view with Thailand that it was needed to have more information sharing on flow release and coming up with mechanism to resolve the flood and drought situation in the Action Plan as Thailand proposed.

17.China posed questions on how Lower Mekong countries share information through the MRC system i.e. the extent of info-sharing. “For LMC it is really important.”With the impacts from climate change to study at the basin scope it would be necessary to use a bottom-up approach. The Joint Studies concerning the information sharing should be further conducted namely:1) Study on the need and mechanism of information sharing in whole basin; 2) Study on the impact of existing mainstream dams to each stretch of Lancang-Mekong river; 3) Study on the significant impact of reservoir operation and dredging along the Lancang-Mekong river.

18.China agreed with the riparian countries that currently information sharing should be taken into account not only on the upstream but also all downstream countries. It viewed that the JWG was an existing channel for discussions and the main channel for cooperation and a platform of data sharing. Regarding to the request of in-advance flow release information to be notified within 14 days, China noted to reconsider on the duration of notification in timely manner.However, in the current practice China sought the possibility of at least 5 days notification to LMC Countries. In addition, China paid attention to dam safety. Nonetheless, China was still willing to fully cooperate with all Member Countries and would try to response all concerns raised in the Meeting.

19.In emergency basis, China suggested LMC countries to convey any official requests directly to Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and keep informing Chinese Ministry of Water Resources accordingly.

20.The provincial authorities of Thailand thanked to China and other LMC Member Countries for the good progress of cooperation on information sharing and emphasized the utmost appreciation to China for its advance notifications of water releases from Jinghong dam. The notifications enabled the provincial authorities and people living along Mekong to promptly response to water situation. Finally, they anticipated that the collaboration in LMC framework would be enhanced further and proposed China to consider the extension of the longer period of in-advance notification for water release.

21.In the Discussion program, Thailand organized a field visit to Ban Due aquaculture village and Nongkhai hydrological station.

22.The delegates expressed their appreciation for the kind arrangement and hospitality of Thailand as the host country of the Meeting.

23.The discussion was recorded in English in Nongkhai Province, Thailand on 10th August 2019.