The Last Goat

I have just heard my latest broadcast on goats, on BBC Radio 4 Home Planet. Catch it on the internet if you really want to hear it (Tues 28 Feb). Unfortunately, the panel discussing the issue failed to address the issues that particularly concern me, as well as perpetrating several errors. They claimed that goats 'have a light footprint' for instance. Far from the truth in areas where the flora is impoverished, as in these habitats goats will devour almost everything left that is edible.

And then they went on to discuss the keeping of goats in close confinement --which is not related to the issue I was raising. I am sure that the Charities supplying goats in Africa try to ensure reasonable standards of animal husbandry. But I am also sure that many animals are kept in conditions that would not be tolerated in England. The supporters of goats have also consistently failed to address the issue of what to do with the goats in time of drought and famine -- another mouth to feed and water. And no mention was made of the veterinary costs of keeping goats in cages.

In the discussions and newspaper articles that have followed my initial comments I have been aware that many of the defenders of goats appear to have little direct knowledge. I have not only travelled extensively in the arid parts of Africa, Asia, Europe and South America, and seen first hand the effects of a wide range of grazing, I have also kept goats, sheep and other livestock (and still do). I have first hand experience of the differences in the feeding of goats and sheep.

My initial criticism remains: goats are a major cause of poverty in Africa, and should not be marketted as a solution. Individual cases do not justify a high profile campaign promoting the species as a whole.

Part of the problem is that the charities promoting goats and other livestock seem totally committed, and not interested in discussing the issue. ON BBC TV last week, Caroline Nursey, International Director of OXFAM was asked by the interviewer if OXFAM would be reconsidering its position, to which she responded with a clear negative. In the same programme she also stated unequivocally that "goats do not cause desertification". If OXFAM are taking such a hard line stance, flying in the face of all the evidence, it is difficult to see how a constructive dialogue can develop.

As a result of all the publicity and discussion, I have been giving serious thought as to how to address the underlying issues causing poverty in the arid regions of Africa. In my view, one of the most important issues is that of land rights. Where land rights are confused, ill-defined, or often non-existent, there is no incentive for using the land sustainably. Everyone will try and accumulate as large a herd of livestock as possible, otherwise a neighbour will graze the land with his flocks. If aid agencies addressed these issues, it might go a long way to longterm solutions. The problem is that it is not easy to market this to the public -- selling a goat is.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate my position. Individual goats, in carefully controlled circumstances may do little harm to the environment; however, in these circumstances they probably do very little to alleviate extreme poverty either. Promoting goats (camels and other livestock) as a solution to poverty is misguided, and gives the wrong messages to the world at large, as they (goats) are a significant cause of poverty in arid and marginal habitats (where poverty is often widespread). I would also suggest that anyone 'buying' goats should also ask questions about the economic effects of the trade, since livestock such as goats, and particularly camels, are often more important as a wealth and status indicators, than as a major food commodity.

It's a very complicated issue, being misrepresented as a simple solution.

Goats and the news

The Times took up the goat issue, and as a result I was asked to discuss the issue on TV with the International Director of Oxfam. Unfortunately there was not much of a debate, because Caroline Nursey of Oxfam appears to be in denial about the relationship between goats and desertification -- claiming that "There is no connection between goats and desertification". If this really is Oxfam's official position, then the matter is very serious, and they ought to read the website of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). A search on that site of "desertification AND goats" produces over 1750 results. But I hope that was a slip of the tongue -- unfortunate because it was seen by several million viewers.

The trouble with TV and radio is that the debate is always in short, soundbites. One viewer wrote into claim that my criticism of goats was hypocrisy, because we offered consumers the opportunity to buy rainforest. But this is not remotely comparing like with like. One is encouraging people to destroy the environment, while the other is trying to protect it. I did not criticise all the gifts that Oxfam and other agencies offer, only livestock, being used as a means of poverty alleviation. And I am not alone in recognising that in general, the supply of animals, particularly goats to very poor people makes no sense at all -- for a huge range of reasons. And I am far from the first to criticise. Animal Aid have an excellent website, with scathing comments. What has been particularly interesting has been the many letters of support I have received. But more of that next week.

The only reassuring thing about the discussion appears to be that not all the money raised by the various charities selling goats, actually goes on goats -- if you read the small print. And Oxfam stated that not all their goats were involved in poverty alleviation, but were part of other programmes such as conflict resolution.

But Oxfam's claim that goats were good for the locals because were able to cary on feeding in areas so overgrazed by sheep and cattle, that the latter had died in a drought, was a particularly scary concept.

I would suggest that anyone with first-hand experience of goat issues writes to Oxfam.

Species increasing

Not all species are declining. A classic example is the Little Egret, which over the past couple of decades has greatly expanded its range in Europe. It has colonised Britain, and is now breeding in many parts of southern England. Last year driving back and forth between my home office and the World Land Trust office, I saw several prospecting trees along the river bank.

And then last weekend I saw one in our own garden. We have a small copse, which has a rookery with about a dozen nests in it, close to a stream and a pond -- an ideal site for a small heronry -- so parhaps we will have little egrets nesting in our backyard within a year or two. I certainly hope so. It would justify all the effort we have been putting into habitat restoration. Next to our copse is a field of about two acres, which we have been mowing to eliminate the nettles and thistles (over a metre high when we moved in), and are now grazing the field with llamas and sheep. The open, unsprayed meadow should be ideal for egrets, as they also often like to asociate with grazing animals.
Fingers crossed, watch this space.

Recycled printer cartridges

Readers of this blog may be interested in this news story, published on edie.net yesterday (with quotes from the WLT's Viv Burton):

Court case tightens company's grip on its ink cartridges

Tokyo Canon Inc has won a court case over their claim that companies refilling empty Canon printer cartridges are breaching the manufacturer's patent rights. This could spell trouble for charities relying on recycling cartridges as a source of income. And more importantly, if printer cartridges can no longer be refilled and reused, the effect on the environment from using these products will be greater. Said Viv:

"If Canon aren't prepared to do let others refill them they should be encouraged to do it themselves."

More about goats

It was before Christmas that I first wrote to OXFAM about their programme to create herds of goats across Africa, as a solution to poverty. Since writing my blogs on this issue, I have had lots of people confirm my negative views on this, as anyone with even scant knowledge about environmental degradation in Africa, is aware that goats are one of the main causes.

Unfortunately OXFAM have been unable to come up with a spokesperson who can justify their activities. Despite reminders, the best I got was a message that some one would contact me in about three weeks time.

An issue I did not mention in my earlier blogs, is that very often animals such as goats and camels (also being 'sold' as Christmas gifts) are frequently used as status symbols, not as sources of food. Goat keepers often try to accumulate large herds, which are then used for trading, bride-money etc.

But the big issue is still what do goats feed on? They either feed on foodstuffs that could have been eaten by humans, or they graze (and usually over-graze)on what is left of the natural vegetation. And it is this latter which is the problem. As far as I am concerned, until OXFAM, and the other charities involved can answer these criticisms, we should consider goats a threat to the environment, and discourage any increase in their populations, which are already unsustainable in many parts of Africa.

Germans in decline. Great for conservation.

Returning from a short holiday in Sicily last weekend, I read in the Daily Telegraph about the new German Chancellor's fears concerning the declining birth rate. According to the report, Angela Merkel is concerned that the falling birth rate will eventually lead to Germans disappearing. (see for a summary http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060128-13590500-bc-germany-babies.xml ). I always feel guilty when flying back from a holiday, but feel that my flying a few times a year is no worse than producing a large family of future consumers -- as exemplified by the British Prime Minister.

It may be the way the Daily Telegraph reported the issue, but it seemed almost to have neo-Nazi overtones, concerning a decline in German-ness. According to Merkel, an aging population would not be able to support itself, and more children were needed.

This of course is a hoary old myth, that expanding economies depend on. Surely the German Chancellor realises that children cost thousands and thousands of euros, pounds or dollars to rear to maturity. Health care, education and countless other facilities over the first 20 years of a person's life add up to a tidy sum. The elderly, by comparison, generally only become very expensive in the last four or five years of their life, and they also often have the means to pay for it. The problem is, that the elderly often want to hang on to their wealth, and expect the state to pay for their health care.

But my interest in the subject is that the one hope for the modern world is declining populations of humans in the developed world. It is the populations of countries like Germany and Britain that consume disproportionate amounts of energy and other non-renewable resources. So any decline in population has to be beneficial, both in the short term and in the long term. Every baby brought into this world will consume, and possibly reproduce itself with more consumers. The quality of life for huge numbers of people throughout the world is already terrible, and even in the more prosperous parts of the world, there are increasing gaps between the haves and have nots.

Malthus got it right, and human populations are limited by resources. Those who deny this connection are ignoring the fact that the only way that the current human populations are being sustained is by reliance on irreplaceable fossil energy, the systematic over-exploitation of renewable resources, and by huge, and steadily increasing levels of abject poverty. Anyone who thinks that all the world's human population can live at a reasonable standard of living, is living in a fool's paradise.

I hope the German Green Parties are celebrating the fact that the population is declining. It gives some hope for the future.

And as an afterthought, take any one item of consumerism, such as face-washes (what's wrong with water?), bottled water, or pet foods. If we devoted 1% of the amount spent on any of these items to preserving what's left of the planet, we could achieve a huge amount. Now there's a thought.

Make Poverty History

I have just read an appeal from the 'make poverty history team', asking everyone to lobby the Chancellor to provide even more aid.

I can only reiterate what I have stated many times before. I have seen very little evidence that increasing aid diminishes poverty. Most of the countries which receive large amounts of aid also spend large amounts of money on arms, and suffer from varying degrees of institutional corruption. Aid benefits the donors, by ridding countries of food surpluses, and often makes recipient countries aid dependent. It salves the consciences of individuals, who live a life style, which is often dependent on exploiting poorer countries. It also absolves corrupt and oppressive regimes of solving refugee problems. Aid is also a huge industry, with a large number of (often very well paid) jobs in the developed world now dependent on it. The celeb's sponsoring fund raising to 'make poverty history' could easily take enough money out of their own bank accounts to donate more than is raised from the widows' mites. And some aid -- such as increasing the number of goats in Africa) -- leads to environmental degradation. Aid is a short-term papering over of two long term problems: increasing human populations, and environmental degradation. While we spend more on the wall paper than restoring the crumbling bricks and mortar, we can be sure the wall will fall down soon.

This is not to say that some emergency aid is not vital. But long term aid is not a long term solution.

This is a personal view, based on extensive experience of travelling the world. When I first started travelling 40 years ago, there was serious poverty in Spain, southern Italy and many parts of Central and South America. Those areas have mostly seen dramatic improvements in standards of living, while Africa has seen dramatic increase in those living in serious poverty; is there an aid connection?

I wrote to Oxfam recently asking about their goat policies, and the impacts on the environment, but have not had a response......