Discovering Dams: Education through Experience

Education has traditionally been defined as the transfer of information from the teacher to the student. Universities, even lecture halls themselves are structured so that individuals are presenting “facts” to large numbers of uneducated people. On occasion, the traditional educational model will use field-trips to supplement formal lectures, power-point presentations, and research projects. Is this educational model working for you? Have you felt personally connected to the topics and the issues you have studied thus far in you collegiate career?
   
This past week here at CIEE-Thailand we students experienced emotions and feelings that are all but forgotten at today’s schools and universities. Two distinct, but equally exciting realizations occurred as we completed our study of dams in Northeastern Thailand. First, every student became energized around the idea of changing the current global system that has led to the need for creation of dams for energy and irrigation. Individuals who were not necessarily interested in dams, dam construction, or the effect of dams were still able to seek out what intrigued them, and contributed to group discussions. Every single student ranging from Economists to Environmentalists were charged-up and ready to tackle the issues surrounding dams and the local communities they devastate. 

Along with this newly found desire to be more engaged students here became aware of the positive impact of learning in large groups and utilizing the “group process” educational model. When I say “group process” educational model I am basically referring to studying a subject or theme through the use of a large group. Ideas are circulated amongst individuals, the collective conscious is used, and people learn both from and with each other.

Through collectively visiting and researching dams we as a group combined the interest of 27 people into the overarching ideas of discovery and engagement. Beginning this week, a week we were to be studying dams and river-based communities in Northeastern Thailand individuals in this group of 27 were alone and indifferent. 

Until recently I had never heard the term “group process,” or personally toured a community whose livelihood and culture was destroyed by a dam. Last week, 26 individuals and I experienced education by living with the communities affected by dams, not simply studying them. We had already completed a course that focused on food rights in Thailand; however, our group had no unity, and lectures on dams’ construction had failed to focus the energy of these many individuals. Personal issues were creating animosity within our group, and a lack of interest in the subject matter made large discussions difficult and unproductive. So, we began our five day “field trip” under a cloud of uncertainty. Was this large group education model going to succeed? Does anyone here really care about dams?

One of the first stops on our trip involved interviewing a member of the Electrical Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). The students had practiced their line of questioning, and were mentally prepared to prod this person’s mind to determine the government’s reasoning behind building dams. For me personally, during this interview is when I began to feel creativity and excitement flow from my classmates. One of the defining moments in triggering our group process was when the EGAT official responded to a question about villagers by saying, “If they don’t understand, we make them understand.” In an intermission break, students began to confront each other and share opinions about the EGAT official’s viewpoint. I watched my classmates begin to unite their individual interests around a single topic. What days of lecturing had failed to produce, a quote had done in mere seconds. Twenty-seven minds bounced ideas back and forth like a pinball machine, and our group finally began to learn together. 

Following the EGAT interview we visited local communities, witnessed heated discussions between those benefited and those affected by dams, and viewed government corruption and exploitation first-hand. Members of our group pursued what topics interested them most, but since we were learning together every person was exposed to everyone else’s thoughts. Finishing our 5 day tour that focused on dams, not one single student was left without a strong opinion, or the passion to learn more. The staff at CIEE was forced to form “hot topic” groups to try to capture the overwhelming energy that our group now possessed. Some students even went so far as to give up their 4 free days to return to the communities we had toured in the hopes of learning even more.

I honestly can say that before I came to Thailand I was content with learning through traditional means of education and within the teacher-student relationship. I struggled with the concept of “group process” to the point were I questioned why I had chosen to willingly come to Thailand and subject myself to this form of education. Reflecting on this past week, I am forced to recognize the power of a collective conscious working together and feeding off itself. I know, and can never be convinced otherwise, that books, lectures, and years of formal education cannot generate interests and emotions like hands-on experience. 

I have been able to better understand myself and the issues I have been studying because of my choice to be involved in the previously described “group process.” I have witnessed individuals who truly did not care about dams become so driven to act that they have given up personal time to further research solutions.

I know the concept of group process may seem unclear to you, and you may believe that “field-trips” are the best way to understand an issue. I encourage you to write me and share your stories and opinions that relate to either learning as a group, or building group unity. What experiences have you been involved in that have really pushed you to act and explore? Do you understand what I mean when I say “group process?” Let me know.

Matt Palamara - University of Colorado at Boulder

Building the Environment

He entered the room with a flash of a smile and some pretty words. A brief presentation later, P’Jit Kaiya Ma, in his standard pink polo—complete with Thai national emblem—entertained all of us (CIEE Thailand students) and our questions on the proposed, controversial Ban Koom Dam.  
The grandiose Ban Koom Dam likely to be built on the Mekong River between Thailand and Laos will cost 2.7 billion US dollars according to EGAT (Electrical Generating Authority of Thailand). This is no small sum considering Thailand's GNP stands at almost 70 billion US dollars in total.  
EGAT mentioned that 47 villages’ homes, livelihoods, and culture to be lost to the dam will be compensated in the name of energy. Of those 47 villages the bloo language is unique to the world, found only in Ta Long village. It of course, will be lost to the dismissal of Ta Long residents from their village after it is flooded by the dam.

The most beautiful part of P’Jit’s whole performance emerged when the notion of environmental impacts surfaced. To encourage environmental progress he proudly decreed, “We will build the environment!”.

Clearly perplexed at the notion of constructing nature, we prodded for an explanation. In his plan to build the environment, P’Jit alluded to projects of planting plastic under ponds to raise fish in one’s own front yard eliminating the need to fish in the river. The logic in P’Jit’s plan seemed almost too perfect to him as he referenced an informational pamphlet on EGAT’s environmental vision.

Furthering the cause, he proclaimed how the upland villages would then be able to farm rice both in the growing season and in the dry season by pumping water from the man-made reservoir to the dry earth upland. While these farmers enjoy the unusual concept of dual rice seasons, the lower villages’ farms (being submerged in water under the reservoir) can turn to their planted ponds of fish, behind cement dikes.  

As I sat there, I didn’t really know how to respond. Should I pity his poor judgment skills? Should I laugh? Or should I be extremely depressed that he finds this practical and that it will probably be implemented? In Thailand, I find that it’s hard to reconcile these thoughts when it comes to environmental issues and the Thai government. The Thai government has a hard enough time pretending to care for its citizens, how it takes care of the environment is essentially negligible.  

I’m pretty confident that the employees of the Ministry of Agriculture either have minimal knowledge of ecology or they simply don’t care. The use of plastic ponds suggests an impressive disinterest in sustainability. Really though, the striking ecological apathy lies in the concept of dual farming seasons. There is a reason people have never farmed during the dry season in dry areas: it’s too dry and unsustainable. Flooding one area—consequently eliminating all possible farming there—and diverting water to another area that normally survives without it is just silly. Who thought this up and said, “yep, we’ve got a good idea on our hands here” ? Maybe they’re being paid off, too.

Implementation of almost all projects we’ve studied thus far involve crucial bribes in order for the project to be carried out. Altering numbers, impacts, and severity are commonplace “adjustments” made in the name of bribes, according to the villagers and NGOs we spoke with. Maybe we can pay them off to plant some trees?

Christi Heun - Colorado State University

Same Mistake

At first glance, it seems as though Northeastern Thailand is learning how to deal with one of the regions primary problems: scarcity of water. Speckling the tributaries of the Mekong River, dams allegedly provide irrigation to Thailand’s driest parts. However, dam affected communities such as Ban Go and Thalong in the province of Ubon Ratchathani have a different side to share about what Dam’s bring—a side often ignored by those keen on development.

Ban Go is a community of fisherman, farmers, and clay pot makers in Northeastern Thailand. Proudly, the villagers live on the Mekong River, withdrawing fish, water, and clay as they please. Their livelihood depends on the Mekong. Downstream looms the Hua Na Dam, all 14 gates still open, but perhaps not for long. When the doors close parts of Ban Go community will flood, pouring many feet of water over their houses, fields, and clay banks. The sections of the village that do not flood will also lose their livelihoods. The fish will not be able to swim upstream to lay their eggs, and so the people must find another primary food source. The wetlands—an environment wealthy with herbs, food, fish, and grass for cows—will flood. Additionally, the water collected in the reservoir behind the dam may eventually become too salty to use for the Dam’s primary purpose—agricultural irrigation.  

One affected Bang Go villager explains the reality of losing his livelihood, “In Issan [the Northeast], people live off the wetlands. Since before my parents time, we have lived this way- we were taught that this is how you survive. If the wetlands flood, what will we do?” 

A short distance down the Mekong, Thalong is also a community of fisherman. Poor, but well fed by, their livelihoods are also sustained by the Mekong River. Plans for a possible dam named Ban Koum are in the works. If built, the Ban Koum dam would cost 100-billion-baht, span over 460 meters across the Mekong, and flood an estimated 280 households (Watershed Vol. 11, 4).

As a student group we visited Thalong village and spoke with the village headman about the future of his community as compared to the future of communities near Hua Na Dam. When the Thalong headman was asked about the negative effects of dams upstream, including the Hua Na Dam, he answered, “Yes, but we trust the government won’t make the same mistake twice”. 

Upon further research, it seems clear that the government may be on-track to making the same mistake again. Less than two months after the Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej cabinet took office, the Thai government adopted measures to turn plans for Ban Koum Dam into a reality. Many of the Prime Minister’s actions bypassed laws and regulations during this process including: signing an international agreement without parliaments consent, signing an agreement affecting the Mekong without the consent of other countries along the Mekong, failing to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), contracting a developing firm without getting it approved by the designated committee, and excluding civil society from participating in the planning process (Irregularities suspected over push for dam, Bangkok Post).

This sequence of actions by the Thai government only strengthens the opinion that some are willing to ignore a Dam’s size, cost, and impact for the sake of “development”. 
 
However, government officials argue Ban Koum Dam is meant to increase Thailand’s energy supply and contribute to Lao’s income. The Ban Go villagers ask, “at what price?” 

Dr. Carl Middleton, a Mekong Program Coordinator argues, “a healthy Mekong River is priceless” and suggests that “instead of choking the Mekong with dams, it is time that this tired old development model is replaced with one that celebrates the region’s rich cultural and ecological inheritance.” 

Allison Dulin - Davidson College