@OC, I do not consider the amounts spent on giant pandas as colossal amounts of money. Please let me explain here!
Biodiversity and nature conservation is hopelessly underfunded and the billions that should be spent on preserving our Planet for future generations is more than usual pumped into "economic development(s)" for which past, current and future benefits have been shown to have many negative side effects and impacts on society, environment and life in general on our Planet. Equally, spending on arms vastly outnumbers the almost negligible amounts spent by nations on preserving our living environment, which IS a prerequisite to a Healthy Planet equals Healthy Life.
Now, I do not have the figures at hand - as yet - what the Ministry of the Environment, Provincial administrations or Municipalities spent on conservation of species and habitats in P.R. China. So, I have a little work to do. But the various overseas countries with a giant panda deal do not go beyond the 25-30 million USD mark per year. Given population size in P.R. China and per capita income how much is spent on biodiversity conservation in country and how does the external funding compare to that per capita/GDP in country?
Now, I would also view it as not "wrongful" nor "inappropriate" for overseas nations to support in situ conservation in other countries per se. I would even go so far as to claim without much further ado that this often reinforces the frontline of conservation in South Nations countries (often unable to raise adequate funds for in situ conservation from government coffers) or provides critical baseline support in countries where the external funding, capacity building, knowledge transfer and conservation tools are most welcome on the ground to further in country frontline conservation initiatives in more affluent nations.
I would be inclined - admittedly without having those very figures to prove beyond a doubt - to say that if you would compare the figures for each, you would acknowledge what is actually spent on biodiversity conservation in the country and add the 25-30 million USD per year on the giant panda deals to finance conservation by overseas nations to P.R. China that figure just would pale into insignificance.
These very same questions and general rationale should - in my view - also be applied to any other nations globally! So, ask ourselves how much do we as an individual nation spent on biodiversity and habitat conservation per capita / in country? I am sure (and sad to say) we would all be shocked at how little and lame/sparse/inadequate that response and the final figure really is.
If I reflect on my nation - The Netherlands - effectively we even have no funding model for habitat conservation as it has been privatised away, commercialised and often biodiversity conservation is an after-thought to or when development projects are discussed a quick scan is done to see if there are any threatened species around to tick the boxes (yes, done that ....), mitigation measures are in place (which invariably means wildlife and rare plants get displaced and critical ecosystem habitat are gone or simply next year those bats or rare hamsters are no longer in your belfry or backyard). The legislative necessities completed while the net result for nature and biodiversity is a darn shame. Also, we continue to have strong lobbies for economic development and in particular intensive agriculture that operate completely outside the voting booth yet has been influencing and intimating policy on agriculture, economic development and nature conservation in general for ages. The outcome for my country that is to put it mildly is extremely unhealthy at best. We are being held to ransom by an intimidating lot here which I personally find totally unacceptable. Yet our Government, our Provincial and Municipal authorities still seem to get swayed by active intimidation and sometimes even violent antagonists to change (no, we are not as peaceful as it seems ....).
BTW: I will look up the figure spent per capita/GDP in The Netherlands for you all, I promise.
Now, if one considers your country of residence Brasil - Estimado @OC, you of all people will acknowledge - that even when the Labour / Lula Govt. was in place biodiversity conservation while it might have fared a little better, big dams continued being built in the interior and damaging the local environment, destroying critical habitats, exacerbating deforestation all be it at a lesser rate and while rampant land disputes between migrants and the First Nations continued (often with grave human rights abuses). Now with the New Right in Government House in Brasilia, I am afraid you have again entered the Dark Ages of the days going back to the dictatorship (unknown in most minds outside Brasil, and even in it) and the socio-political as well as economic climate has become so unhealthy and sometimes even downright dangerous for those concerned to enact conservation and biodiversity pursuits in the country. Now, I ask you do you know how much per capita/GDP is spent on habitat, species conservation and environment now as part of the general budget by Central Government and individual States as opposed to Agriculture, Economics, Defense, Housing, Education and Health?
Perhaps (I might agree), this is better material for a more general thread on how we are doing right now with these topics in our individual countries!
.
... Why not focus that wasted energy and sentiment on the Ryuku flying fox, Bonin flying fox, Amami rabbit, Iriomote cat etc ?