I want to talk goats. Last Christmas and this, my housemates and I have chipped in to buy a goat and some water for Africa, using Oxfam Unwrapped’s gift scheme. I gather the popularity of the idea – whereby you give the cash for a project in the developing world rather than a pressie – is getting more and more popular each year. And yet, I was a bit miffed to see an article in the papers criticising this as an aid strategy and painting the goat as a pantomime villain, not an emissary of good will and Christmas cheer.
Thanks to those unlikely Bob Cratchets at Private Eye, such scroogeness has been exposed as nothing but humbug. Apparently, there’s not much in their claims that goats will lead to desertification, not salvation, when Oxfam ship them off.
I read in no. 1173 of The Eye that this criticism has been lopped around, since 2004, by Animal Aid and the World Land Trust. It points out that far from being experts on development, Animal Aid is an animal rights group, opposed to the use of animals in farming, as well as the usual absolutism on medical research using animals. Hence, they dislike the promotion of goats as a food source in Africa! Indeed, they seem to be supporters of the new Animal Rights Party launched this month.
Meanwhile, the Wolrd Land Trust seems somewhat more respectable, with Sir David Attenborough a patron, but are promoters of their own “buy an acre of rainforest as a gift” scheme, in opposition Oxfam’s goat-giving programme. Hence, as the Eye intimates, they are basically Oxfam’s competitors.
Has the Eye got it right on this one? Anyone reading, let us know which of these charities is using fact-based research, and which is peddling the development equivalent of Conservative environment policy.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
14 Comments
Not sure about whether the claims of desertification are valid or not. When this was brought up on the Today programme, the Oxfam spokeswoman seemed either not to understand the fine detail of the claims against the goats programme, or was delibertly ingnoring them to get her pre-prepared message across. Either way it didn’t look good.
There are no goats on my (well OK our) wedding list but Oxfam have plenty of other things in the unwrapped catalogue. Well actually other types of project because as they say they don’t promise the donation will be spent on the exact item that represents the gift.
It may not provide a complete answer to this particular question, but for general information on any charity in England and Wales you can use this site:
http://www.guidestar.org.uk
There are several letters in this weeks Private Eye in reponse to the piece. However I still believe that the two organisations have other motives.
Your criticism, and that of Private Eye, seem to amount to ad hominem attacks. Only the motives and credibility of the organisations involved are criticised. The substance of there message is casually avoided.
There are simple facts here, such that to feed an animal requires food, and that in turn requires land. This land could be used to grow crops directly for humans.
Goat proponents seem to base their case on the claim that goats are only used where crops cannot be grown – in areas of low rainfall. But other charities are having great success farming in low rainfall areas using a variety of innovative techniques.
Goats do cause desertification, on this there is scientific consensus. If you buy a goat for a developing family, you’ll likely be doing them more harm than good.
What would Lloyd George think?
The substance of there message is casually avoided.
Well I actually think Richard is pretty clear that it is the credibility of the anti-goat message that is being criticised, and he is quite open in asking for an unbiased view on whether goats actually do cause desertification.
The only sources I’ve seen either way seem to originate in the two named organisations, in the lack of credibility of the two organisations, and in people quoting the facts of desertification as received wisdom.
“Let me out”?
Yes, as Simon says, I was asking for more information!
I don’t share Animal Aid’s moral opposition to all forms of animal farming; I’m interested in this purely as a sustainable development issue.
Therefore I do think it is relevant that the other organisations have their own interests, and aren’t simply commenting on this as a development question, which the newspaper articles based on their comments suggested.
There was an extremely good article in (of all places) the Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago. If you’re genuinely interested, you could give their offices a call and ask for them to send you a copy.
They sent a correspondent to a family which had been sent animals by the charity Send-a-cow. It was a complete mess, the family had to work very hard to bring the goat enough food and water. Even so, both the animals and the family were in ill health. To compound the madness, the only goats in evidence were male – so no milk could possibly be obtained from them!
And before you criticise the Mail for cherry picking only the worst conditions: they went to the very family that Send-a-cow posts on its website as exemplary. The comparison of extracts from their website and the Mail correspondent’s first hand account made very interesting reading!
Thanks for the information.
Here’s Send A Cow’s reply to the Mail article:
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=3390
And the original Times story that interested me generated these replies:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2482006,00.html
Dont give up the day job….
I won’t, not even for a goat.
There is plenty of evidence for the links between goats (camels, donkeys and other domestic stock) and desertification. The websites of UN-FAO, and UNEP give plenty of leads. There is nothing against goats per se, but when it is claimed that they are the only animals suitable for grazing extreme arid environments with little vegetation, this is where they cause maximum environmental damage, and also die off first when there is a drought. I do no know of any reputable environmentalist or conservationist who would argue otherwise.