Living River Siam

The results of the Thai Baan research were supported by several academics, including Niti Pawakapan of Chulalongkorn University.[10] The Ubon Ratchathani University study also recommended keeping the sluice gates open for at least five years. However, the Thai government rejected all of the studies for unclear reasons and instead conducted a three-day opinion poll of a random sample of Thais, after which it decided that the gates would stay closed for eight out of twelve months of the year.[4][6] In 2007, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont decided to close the gates permanently, citing an alleged secret agreement between thousands of villagers and the Internal Security Operations Command.[11]

The response from non-governmental organizations has been more favorable. The Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Programme (MWBP), an international alliance managed by the United Nations Development Programme and World Conservation Union, has published a study on the methodology of Thai Baan research and coordinated their own study in Sri Songkham district in 2004, concluding that it was more useful than top-down styles of village research.[12] The study overseen by the MWBP was cited in an academic journal[13] and submitted to an international conference.[14] Living River Siam's spokesperson Pianporn Deetes was invited to a United Nations Environment Programme conference on dams.[6]

In 2002 the Thai government’s department of irrigation met the demands of Living River Siam and the Assembly of the Poor with a promise to halt all future dam projects, which was accepted with cautious optimism.[15] To circumvent the issue of domestic damming, in 2007 the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) announced plans to build a series of dams on Burma's Salween River along its border with Thailand. Living River Siam opposed this plan, citing the threat of environmental destruction in Burma's Shan, Karenni, and Karen states as well as Mae Hong Son Province.[16]

An example of the Mekong's rapids.

The Mekong River remained free of dams until 1993 because of its complex system of rapids which wreck boats, and the unusual monsoon season which reverses the course of some of its branches.[3] In 2004, the Thai government made an agreement with China to open the river to commercial navigation by destroying rapids, which Thai Baan research had identified as important fish spawning grounds. On the Chinese side, dams were constructed. Living River Siam gathered additional Thai Baan surveys from 146 villagers in the Chiang Khong District, which determined that the blasting of rapids had made the river water unsuitable for drinking and bathing, washed away many local riverside gardens, and decimated the populations of local plants and fish.[17] In response to the 2004 studies, the Thai government suspended blasting on one of the rapids, the Khon Pi Luang.[18]

In 2006, in response to renewed plans for dam construction in Kaeng Sua Ten,[19] Living River Siam released a report on the people of Sa-iap, Amphoe Song, Phrae Province (part of Mae Yom National Park), based on their own experiences and history. It was called Chaobaan research, but the methodology was equivalent to the Thai Baan research. The report examined the ecosystem of the residents of Sa-iap, the vegetables and fungi they subsisted on, medicinal herbs they used, local fauna, wood resources, and their culture.[20]

The report divided Sa-iap history into four periods. Before 1937, the village was self-sustaining and used both farming and gathering for the overwhelming majority of its needs. In 1937, the Thai government allowed private companies to log the forest, destroying part of the villages' infrastructure. In 1957, the villagers entered the employ of the logging companies, causing internal and external conflict as well as increased reliance on unsustainable practices. Finally, in 1991 the villagers formed a conservation group, the Forest Lover Group, which the Chaobaan researchers agreed cut down on conflict. The mood of the villages has returned to one of mutual assistance and traditional customs.[20]

The Rasi Salai Dam was completed in 1994, around the same time as the Pak Mun Dam, and received similar local complaints. The dam's central reservoir was occupied for two years by villagers, until a July 2000 decision opened the sluice gates.[21] From 2003 to 2004, Living River Siam coordinated Thai Baan research in three districts: Amphoe Rasi Salai, Amphoe Rattanaburi, and Amphoe Phon Sai. The report examined village culture, ecology, biodiversity, agriculture, and food and water management. The impact of the closing and opening of the sluice gates was also examined. It was concluded that the dam reduced fish populations, but more importantly, flooded natural salt pits and spread them into rice and vegetable fields, destroying trees and crops.[22] The government has not made a commitment to keep the Rasi Salai Dam decommissioned,[5] but as of 2008 the gates have not yet been closed.[23]

In 2005, and again in 2008, the Mekong River flooded its banks, damaging hundreds of rural villages. Living River Siam joined with other NGOs to form the Thai People's Network for Mekong, which pointed to dams in China as the primary cause of the flooding. An intergovernmental working group called the Mekong River Commission opposed these claims, saying China's dams had little to do with the flood,[24] although they also pressed China for data on the floodwaters.[25] The back-and-forth was covered heavily in Thai press, which gave ample space to the statements of the People's Network.[26]