For starters, their description as non-government organisations seems to disguise a multitude of obscure and not so obscure definitions. If you browse the Internet you will find literally thousands of references to groups espousing women's rights, arms control, landmine disposal, acid rain research, institutions assisting alcoholics, resistance to dam construction, human rights abuses and a mass devoted to environmental issues.

It seems that just about every organisation not associated directly with government can be described as an NGO.

Some are huge, full-time organisations such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace, others may only employ two or three people and exist on a shoestring. In more enlightened societies many have close, if not official status with corresponding government organisations such as the hundreds of UN affiliates.

For every country that tolerates these organisations, there are probably double the number who actively discourage or ban the activities of these NGOs. This is particularly true of the Asean countries with the exception of Thailand.

Governments in most Asian countries have behaved with outrageous arrogance towards their citizens and generally do not tolerate any criticism or freedom to offer alternative points of view. These closed shop attitudes are largely responsible for the current socio-economic mess throughout the region.

But how effective are these alternative lobby groups? Even in countries tolerating a wide range of freedoms, their record is patchy.

Perhaps the two best known NGOs are Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Over a long period of time they have been become large organisations with global feelers and the ability to raise human rights and environmental issues at both the international and national levels.

Although many of their activities are devoted to muckraking and confrontation with the authorities, they have managed to expose many issues which many government sand commercial enterprises are keen to hide: for example, nuclear testing in the South Pacific and the abuse of human rights in countries such as Burma, Chile and China.

The establishment of NGOs in Thailand has developed slowly over the past decade, partially because of indifference and helplessness in the face of the immutable Thai bureaucracy, but mostly because of poor organisation, under qualified staff and a lack of funding.

With some exceptions, a general philosophical thread seems to run through all Thai NGOs and that is "we are right and government is wrong".

Of course, anyone promoting a different point of view or uncovering malpractice is bound to confront the official line. As so many official practices are moribund and unproductive, it is absolutely right that NGOs should take up the cudgels to oppose, reveal and hopefully improve matters.

Too often NGOs approach an issue with as blinkered a view as the officials - their staff do not do their homework on facts, fail to plan their attacks and rarely have any objective beyond being an irritant. This often leads to a head-on clash with officials who raise their difficult-to-penetrate bureaucratic barriers and both sides either end up ignoring each other at best or, at worst, developing serious, long-term antagonisms.

A classic example of this is the long-standing problem with Thailand's largest pulp mill, Phoenix Pulp in Khon Kaen.

Pulp mills everywhere are prime suspects of environmental pollution and there is no doubt that they have been guilty of releasing toxic wastes into their immediate surroundings - Phoenix being no exception.

Local and national NGOs have played their role in exposing these unacceptable industrial practices. However in this case, the company has gone a very long way to address the problems, invested huge sums of money in environmental technology and, through enlightened management policies, provide some form of employment for about 500,000 people.

In this case, educated confrontation with the company and the authorities would probably bring faster results than just the same old gramophone record of "they are always the villain" (I have drunk the yellow-coloured recycled water from the plant, which is biologically inert).

Another classic case involved a commercial company sponsoring an official Chiang Mai University research project on the biodiversity of traditional medicinal plants from the hills of northern Thailand.

Somehow, local and national NGOs took it upon themselves to take the high moral ground and accuse the project of acting as a front for the theft of valuable plants from Thailand for commercial benefit. The fact that this was an approved piece of research entirely for Thailand's benefit and with absolutely no foreign commercial interest escaped the hysterically irate NGOs.

As a result, the company withdrew funding and the country lost a golden opportunity to complete the catalogueing of many fast disappearing plant species and their uses. In this way, ill-directed NGO action, collaborating with self-interested officials, actively damaged the environment rather than encouraging its conservation.

Water, or in other words dams, probably represents the best example of NGOs at their most and least effective.

A decade ago, the construction of the Nam Choam dam was challenged by the media and a well-organised, cooperative effort by NGOs thwarted the government's plans to build a major dam through Thailand's most valuable western border forests.

This has been the only case I can recall where the NGOs did undertake very thorough research on the pros and cons of the dam. It must be said that the campaign was spearheaded by a charismatic national figure and dedicated conservationist: Seub Nakasathien.

Dams continue to be a controversial issue with political interests pushing for major projects in Mae Yom, Mae Wong (a Chao Phraya watershed) and even Khao Yai.

The fact that NGOs were far less well organised to prevent the construction of the Pak Moon dam close to the Mekong was partially due to the fact that NGOs only took sides with the about-to-be-dispossessed villagers. If they had looked at the technical details and found that the dam would only ever be effective for about three months of the year, they would probably have mounted a far more effective campaign against taxpayer waste for very little benefit.

To be fair, it requires courageous physical and moral commitment to confront powerful political and bureaucratic financial interests. Very often, NGOs snooping around large projects are physically intimidated and many, quite naturally, ask: "Is it worth my life to continue raising controversial issues?"

The lesson here must be for NGOs to cooperate with each other, plan carefully, verify the facts, keep the media informed and then launch effective campaigns based on logic rather than pure emotion.

Although the Thai bureaucratic and political systems are specifically designed to prevent their citizens knowing the facts, it is possible to obtain information both nationally and internationally by networking and sharing experiences. NGOs, if they are to examine themselves carefully, are often just as self-interested, dogmatic and myopic as the groups they are opposing.

Against this background, there are many examples of NGOs performing noble and effective work.

The Seub Foundation carries out many excellent conservation projects despite the constant hassles it has with the Forestry Department. It is reasonably well funded, hires qualified and motivated staff and continues work based on the high-minded example set by the person after which the NGO is founded.

In the South the Yad Fon Foundation works effectively with provincial government and local villagers to protect coastal mangroves and fishing against the destructive practice of prawn farms and trawl fishing.

In the North the Dhammanat Foundation has achieved significant reafforestation of the vital northern watersheds despite official indifference and sometimes active interference.

The Bangkok-based Wildlife Fund Thailand, headed up by Pisit Na Phattalung, has played an effective role in raising funds for conservation projects and initiating wildlife research.

Other smaller NGOs have helped raise the level of awareness of the domestic elephant's sorry plight and organisations such as the Bangkok Bird Club, with an increasing membership, not only take many people into the wild but help build up a love for nature and bring home the importance of conservation.

On the education front, the Green Foundation has produced many attractive wildlife posters and small nature guides for children and adults alike. Its qualified staff also provide valuable environmental information to the media based on its research and links to the universities.

The fact that many of these NGOs can attract foreign project funding is some indication of their worth. Unfortunately the lack of local funding says something for the lack of esteem in which they are held by official organisations in Thailand.

The private sector has proven a generous benefactor in the past, but as these sources dry up, government must recognise its valuable support by providing some of the NGOs' financial needs. This already exists to a limited extent through the Department of Technical and Economic Cooperation, but will have to increase given government agencies' inability to perform effectively in so many areas where NGOs are strong.

Much of this local effort is boosted by links with international organisations that provide funds and expertise in areas where we are weak, such as equipment, training, research techniques and fund raising.

Despite the shortcomings of many NGOs and the often antagonistic stance taken by government agencies, they (with the media) have helped enormously to raise the level of conservation in the public's mind.

Thanks to their efforts in the 1980s, we may never build more useless, expensive and environmentally destructive dams. Many of their programmes have also assisted government projects become more effective.

We are now in a situation requiring a much higher degree of cooperation if conservation activities are to be effective. This will require tolerance on both sides.

Direct confrontation definitely has its place in the face of malfeasance, incompetence, waste and inaction. NGOs also have to confront reality and, however frustrating it may be to work with the dead hand of officialdom, they must show some tolerance if they are to continue their good work in the field of conserving our last remaining natural assets.

* Nok Nguak is a writer specialising in the natural environment.