Maneka Gandhi questions fundraising methods of animal welfare charities

[Guest guest]

*HATS OFF TO YOU, MRS GANDHI, FOR HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. *

**

*Of those charitable organizations*

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/index.php?subaction=showfull & id=1166563020 & archive= & s\

tart_from= & ucat=5 & cat=5

 

*Of those charitable organizations***

 

*Maneka Gandhi from **India*

 

Nothing irritates me more than the charities abroad that collect money and

purport to give it to women or children or for animals in Asia or Africa.

Very little reaches the country or the cause for which it is meant - I have

seen this happen in the animal world so many times. Most of it goes towards

their own " infrastructure " , which means rent, staff, travel and

" investigation " .

 

One organization ran a campaign for many years for saving bears in India. It

came to India six times a year to see the situation of bears. It hired

consultants from Australia and Argentina. No money came to India. I

complained to Charity Commission of that country and it was discovered the

fine print said that the organization could do what it wanted with the

donated money. Finally, the head of the organization was investigated and

removed.

 

A little money was sent to us and a small bear sanctuary was built. A horse

care organization came to India after running a campaign abroad on how badly

Indian horses were treated. They brought money, gave it to a lawyer who

bought a house and car with it and disappeared. Now it teaches about five

farriers a year and that's it. But their international campaign for money

continues.

 

Yet another organization came in to keep donkeys. In 10 years they have kept

70 donkeys in their enclosure and treated another 50. They come from

Europeat least once a month, three days at a time, and stay in five

star hotels to

check whether their Indian doctors are working.

 

Recently, a watch company held an elephant polo match. The company gave half

a million pounds to an international organization that collects money to

save Indian elephants for a foreign charity. The Indian elephant NGO that

had been reluctantly roped into this illegal and unhappy venture got 8,000

pounds with a promise of 25,000 more. That's it.

 

Now Oxfam and Christian Aid have come out with their own scam. For anyone

who wants to feel good by giving a present to someone who has everything

already, you can buy a goat in their name or a donkey, pig, chicken, calf or

rabbit. Once the donor pays, the animal is sent to a " developing " country.

The scheme is sold by describing it as a " real statement to world

development and poverty alleviation " . There are 750 Oxfam shops in England.

 

These charities are wooing the ethical shopper with pictures of goats

wearing Christmas hats and promises of helping the poor in developing

countries. According to environmentalists, it is madness to send goats, cows

and chickens to areas where they will add to the problems of drought and

desertification.

 

Goats have a devastating effect because each goat eats all the grass and

shrubbery on two hectares of land a year. A goat destroys the fertility of

land and any milk or dung it may give is very little compared to the havoc

it wreaks. Within two years, the people who have goats have an even poorer

lifestyle - there are village quarrels on community grazing; the children

are taken out of school to graze the goats, water becomes even scarcer.

 

All farmed animals require proper nourishment, large quantities of water,

shelter from extremes and veterinary care. Such resources are in critically

short supply in much of Africa and Asia. These programs are irresponsible

and misguided. Instead of helping impoverished communities in the developing

world flourish it is spreading disease, damaging the environment and wiping

out vital water supplies.

 

Two goats can reduce the amount of farmland available to local people and

result in villages becoming deserted while a cow, at £750, will drink up to

90 liters of water every single day.

 

Oxfam and Christian Aid now say that its critics have misunderstood its

program. The purchase of a goat, the charities said, did not necessarily

mean that a goat was bought! The money goes into a farming and livestock

fund to be distributed by local project managers. This means, basically,

that more staffers will be given money.

 

If people have paid money for 5,000 animals, less than 200 will actually

reach - I can bet on it. This is simply cynical exploitation of animals and

poor people. There is a huge appetite for ethical gifts - it has trebled in

the last three years. It is easy to use India or Africa as a way to raise

money. But basically it is a fundraising mechanism for charities - with

about 10 per cent reaching the designated country.

*Posted on 19 Dec 2006 by Root*