The promotion of feelgood Christmas gifts such as goats for poor African farmers has provoked an unseasonable war of words between charities.

Oxfam, Christian Aid, Help the Aged and others are wooing the ethical shopper with pictures of cute goats wearing Christmas hats and promises of helping the poor in developing countries.

But the World Land Trust and Animal Aid say that it is “madness” to send goats, cows and chickens to areas where they will add to the problems of drought and desertification.

John Burton, director of the trust, said he was furious that, despite previous disputes over ethical giving, Oxfam had not entered a constructive dialogue with him.

“I was prepared to put this down to ignorance of the issues last year but now it seems utterly cynical,” he said. “They seem to be doing this just to make money at Christmas. It’s a gimmick.”

The trust claims that goats have a devastating effect because they “eat everything in sight”.

Mr Burton added: “The goat campaign may be a pleasing gift and a short-term fix for milk and meat for a few individuals but in the long term the quality of life for these people will slowly be reduced with devastating effect.”

Andrew Tyler, the director of Animal Aid, said: “The message might bring comfort to the target audience but these schemes, sadly, are not a good thing.

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.”

Animal Aid’s website accused the aid agencies of being “quick to spot a marketing opportunity” and claims that they “misguidedly promote sending cows, goats, rabbits and chickens to impoverished areas of the world”.

But officials at some of the aid agencies questioned whether the argument was more about whose catalogue was most ethical.

They pointed out that Animal Aid had a range of gifts, including organic chocolates and wine, while the trust offered the chance to preserve an acre of rainforest.

Christian Aid said that its critics misunderstood its programme. The purchase of a goat, the charity said, did not necessarily mean that a goat was bought. The money would go into a farming and livestock fund that would be distributed by local project managers.

A Christian Aid spokeswoman said: “We know we have to be sensitive about where animals are distributed. It is about what is most appropriate in each country at that time.

“There is a huge appetite for ethical gifts — it has trebled in the last three years.

“It is a fundraising mechanism, a way of giving to charity and giving someone a virtual gift at the same time.”

Oxfam said that 60 years of experience had shown it that “providing animals to poor families can provide a precious lifeline to communities striving to work their way out of poverty”.

An Oxfam spokeswoman added: “Animal Aid and World Land Trust’s suggestion that Oxfam is acting irresponsibly in providing animals to poor communities is completely unfounded.

“Instead of promoting their own product ranges, their allegations are deeply misleading and undermine the entire sector’s attempts to change lives in poor countries.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating