Panda loans don't actually benefit panda conservation

lintworm

lintworm

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Research by the New York Times indicates that all the millions paid in annual loans by all zoos outside China that keep giant pandas aren't for the biggest part actually used for conservation purposes, but rather for infrastructure projects and other expenses that have nothing to do with conservation. Apparently US zoos were quite aware of the situation, but chose to keep quiet about it, for fear of losing their pandas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/world/asia/china-panda-money-us-zoos.html

An excerpt from the article is included below:

U.S. Zoos Gave a Fortune to Protect Pandas. That’s Not How China Spent It.
A Times investigation found that zoos knew conservation money went toward apartment buildings and roads. But they wanted to keep displaying pandas, so nobody looked too closely.

Nov. 29, 2024
For decades, American zoos have raised tens of millions of dollars from donors and sent the money to China for the right to host and display pandas. Under U.S. law, those funds were required to be spent protecting pandas in the wild.

But the Chinese government instead spent millions on apartment buildings, roads, computers, museums and other expenses, records show. For years, China refused even to account for millions more.

Regulators with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the payments, have for two decades raised concerns about this with American zoo administrators and Chinese officials alike. The U.S. government, on three occasions, froze payments to China over incomplete record keeping, documents show.

Zoos, too, have known that the money was not always going toward conservation. But they worried that if Fish and Wildlife cut off the money altogether, China could demand the return of its bears. Zoos count on pandas for visitors, merchandise sales and media attention.

Their report estimated that wild pandas have less territory to roam than they did in the 1980s, before the influx of funds from foreign zoos.

“It’s in everybody’s interest to portray these conservation efforts as great successes,” said Kimberly Terrell, who traveled to China while working as director of conservation at Memphis Zoo.

“There was never any real evaluation of the programs,” she added. “In some cases, it was really hard to see the connection between those programs and giant panda conservation.”

The development is part of a larger Chengdu tourism push that includes new resorts and an international panda festival. The Chinese state news agency Xinhua said the goal was to “fully tap the brand value, cultural value and economic value of the giant panda.”

Joy Dong and Eve Sampson contributed reporting. James Lambert, Dylan Freedman, Kirsten Noyes and Muyi Xiao contributed research.

A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 30, 2024, Section A, Page 6 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Looks Away on China’s Misuse of Panda Aid.
Click to expand...

Ouwehands Dierenpark, the only Dutch zoo to keep giant panda, admits they were unaware how all the millions were used, despite an apparent agreement at least 80% would go towards conservation. Their director still says he thinks them showing pandas adds to conservation, to quote his word vomit: "We hope that our guests realize when watching such a special, yet endangered, animal that we are destroying the world and that we can do something against that together" .

Ouwehands Dierenpark betaalt China miljoenen euro's voor reuzenpanda's, maar weet niet waar dat geld heengaat
 
PossumRoach said:
Absolute balderdash. There are better animals to show how the world is getting destroyed than bears that are pampered on behalf of their actual owners.
Click to expand...

If only the topic would bei that easy. Are Western zoos necessary for panda conservation? Definitly not. Can zoos tell their story to people, that they won't reach without pandas? Probably yes. So the question is, is the input worth the output. Imo every zoo should answer this question by themselves. But they should at least bei honest about the (not existing) conservation impact of keeping the bamboo-eaters.
 
Ideally, I think all zoos should agree to stop having pandas under the rental program as it's clear China can't be trusted to honor their part of the deal IMO, all the conservation stuff aside, I'm someone who deeply honors the concept of fair play and, if China can't be asked to do that, then zoos around the world should simply send their pandas back en masse to make a statement.

I personally expected this as China have shown no interest in wildlife conservation unless it directly benefits their diplomatic goals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lintworm said:
Research by the New York Times indicates that all the millions paid in annual loans by all zoos outside China that keep giant pandas aren't for the biggest part actually used for conservation purposes, but rather for infrastructure projects and other expenses that have nothing to do with conservation. Apparently US zoos were quite aware of the situation, but chose to keep quiet about it, for fear of losing their pandas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/world/asia/china-panda-money-us-zoos.html

An excerpt from the article is included below:



Ouwehands Dierenpark, the only Dutch zoo to keep giant panda, admits they were unaware how all the millions were used, despite an apparent agreement at least 80% would go towards conservation. Their director still says he thinks them showing pandas adds to conservation, to quote his word vomit: "We hope that our guests realize when watching such a special, yet endangered, animal that we are destroying the world and that we can do something against that together" .

Ouwehands Dierenpark betaalt China miljoenen euro's voor reuzenpanda's, maar weet niet waar dat geld heengaat
Click to expand...
Didn't someone suspect this? I think that it was abvious that the money given for "conservation" efforts wasn't mostly spent on the main focus. Just seeing the zoos that have them, there's currently 16(!) zoos with the animals, and this list doesn't count the zoos that don't have to pay for the animals. Soon to be 17 with the SFZ and more collections could still try to acquire the animals. This+all the years and cubs has led me to belive that zoos have been giving vast amounts of money to the country, and not for conservation, but for the interest of the government. I thik that zoos should stop paying for the animals, and send the animals back to china, but that's highly improbable. It's sad to see how animals are used this way, as it's showshow us humans use animals for their interest.
 
lintworm said:
Research by the New York Times indicates that all the millions paid in annual loans by all zoos outside China that keep giant pandas aren't for the biggest part actually used for conservation purposes, but rather for infrastructure projects and other expenses that have nothing to do with conservation. Apparently US zoos were quite aware of the situation, but chose to keep quiet about it, for fear of losing their pandas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/world/asia/china-panda-money-us-zoos.html

An excerpt from the article is included below:



Ouwehands Dierenpark, the only Dutch zoo to keep giant panda, admits they were unaware how all the millions were used, despite an apparent agreement at least 80% would go towards conservation. Their director still says he thinks them showing pandas adds to conservation, to quote his word vomit: "We hope that our guests realize when watching such a special, yet endangered, animal that we are destroying the world and that we can do something against that together" .

Ouwehands Dierenpark betaalt China miljoenen euro's voor reuzenpanda's, maar weet niet waar dat geld heengaat
Click to expand...

There is something to be said for highlighting endangered animals as the director suggested. However that is so far away from what's happened here which is paying money which has gone towards the very opposite of conservation.

This news is not a surprise really given the nature of China as a state and that state's treatment of people, human rights, animals and the environment. But it is still a shame to hear the facts exposed.

It's sad to see conservation zoos colluding in a lie - it potentially undermines their credibility on delivering important projects that do positive things for conservation.

The arrangements with China for any zoos paying for Pandas should now come to an end and the fake nature of the message stopped so the real conservation messages get air time instead.
 
All the nefarious business dealings aside - let's be honest here, $1M per pair per year is not really a lot of money to the government of China. China does it for influence and to throw some diplomatic weight around, but it isn't really for the money coming in from the zoos. $16M or so per year is not that much, it's less than 0.0004% of the Chinese budget. Further, anyone that actually thought the money was going to go directly to conservation was being willfully ignorant of how things tend to work in China.

I am not letting China off the hook here, but trying to bring in some reality to the conversation. To be sure, China should honor its side of the deals, but lets keep this in reality.
 
Last edited:
I was a bit critical about the EAZA's plan to phase out the Giant Panda - I am not a fan of the whole diplomacy thing... but they are characteristic animals with characteristic part in ecosystem.
But with how the species is managed by the government and the way the species is loaned to zoos I can collude that there are better species to spend money on than pandas.
Takins, for instance! Takins are great!
Giant Salamanders too! [though there is murmurs as to the taxonomic purity of those in captivity]
Pangolins even!
 
SwampDonkey said:
All the nefarious business dealings aside - let's be honest here, $1M per pair per year is not really a lot of money to the government of China. China does it for influence and to throw some diplomatic weight around, but it isn't really for the money coming in from the zoos. $16M or so per year is not that much, it's less than 0.0004% of the Chinese budget. Further, anyone that actually thought the money was going to go directly to conservation was being willfully ignorant of how things tend to work in China.

I am not letting China off the hook here, but trying to bring in some reality to the conversation. To be sure, China should honor its side of the deals, but lets keep this in reality.
Click to expand...

Isn't the reality this is proved to be nonsense vs just suspected now and whether China benefits or does the right thing is a bit academic vs what the zoos should do themselves.
 
The panda rental was always controversial. Over the years it became untenable, from every possible point of view.
  • It was never clear how money was spend by China.
  • For zoos, money-making opportunity turned dubious, because multiple zoos lost money on panda rental, as the result of extravagant fixed cost of the rental and upkeep.
  • Many zoos achieved similar or bigger growth of public interest and revenue with more typical animals and attractions, at the same time.
  • The general public became less and less interested in seeing particular unusual species like pandas, koalas etc.
  • Zoos' goals changed away from the pride of showing unusual species or all public favorites, and most big zoos dropped part of their popular animals: elephants, polar bears, hippos, dolphins etc.
  • China became worlds largest economy and a very assertive one, so it is impossible to argue that China needs foreign help to finance conservation. Chinese can actually show good results of protecting panda reserves with local money, and The Giant Panda was moved from endangered to merely vulnerable on the IUCN red list.
  • And it became clear that ambitions of Western zoos largely drive the Chinese moneymaking on pandas - if Western suckers want to pay, we will rent pandas for an enormous price.
  • The whole rental has been completely un-transparent, while public institutions, including zoos, are now closely scrutinized for ethics and finances.
It is a concept which lost its purpose over the years. I personally hope that Western zoos simply walk away. If Chinese zoos are interested, they can still rent pandas for free like other animals are exchanged by zoos worldwide. Gorillas and rhinos travel between countries and no money or ownership changes hands. Chinese could rightly ask for an educational information about Chinese conservation successes to be displayed alongside, not millions of dollars.
 
It is interesting to see the more or less similar critical views about the panda rentals here.
Meanwhile there is the rumor, that four European zoos are willing to do the same kind of doubtable loans with golden snub nosed monkeys. (Of which only one is confirmed right now)
 
dillotest0 said:
Giant Salamanders too! [though there is murmurs as to the taxonomic purity of those in captivity]
Click to expand...
On this note...
I recall reading recently how genetic samples from Giant Salamanders in China found more than the single species long known... but rather multiple different species; warrantive of a split by the powers that be.
And that has raised speculation that the Chinese giant salamanders in captivity may well be genetic hybrids!
 
remar said:
It is interesting to see the more or less similar critical views about the panda rentals here.
Click to expand...

Let's say it openly: giant pandas are not very active nor interesting in real life. A panda exhibit lots of time has a sleeping blob and no interested onlookers. They look good on photos but that's all. And photos lost their value with the excess of photos on the internet. The same with koalas, which one Zoochatter call 'grey tree fungus'.
 
Jurek7 said:
Let's say it openly: giant pandas are not very active nor interesting in real life. A panda exhibit lots of time has a sleeping blob and no interested onlookers. They look good on photos but that's all. And photos lost their value with the excess of photos on the internet. The same with koalas, which one Zoochatter call 'grey tree fungus'.
Click to expand...

Makes me so sad how even Zoochatters aren't aware of how intelligent and charismatic these animals are. I'm not going to comment on the political aspect, but the species doesn't deserve the animosity here. They are extremely special animals and deeply valued by the locals of zoos who keep them. To be frank, I don't see how their sleep habits devalue them any more than any other large carnivore. In the 2 decades of the giant pandas' time here in Atlanta, I have never once seen the viewing area empty. They were special to our city and things still feel melancholy at the zoo without them.
 
BearMinimum said:
Makes me so sad how even Zoochatters aren't aware of how intelligent and charismatic these animals are. I'm not going to comment on the political aspect, but the species doesn't deserve the animosity here. They are extremely special animals and deeply valued by the locals of zoos who keep them. To be frank, I don't see how their sleep habits devalue them any more than any other large carnivore. In the 2 decades of the giant pandas' time here in Atlanta, I have never once seen the viewing area empty. They were special to our city and things still feel melancholy at the zoo without them.
Click to expand...
Maybe I have been lucky, but my experience with panda has been the exact opposite of my binturong viewings. The pandas have been active and doing panda things, the binturongs asleep. The loss of them in Atlanta is a big one, to me. Zoo Atlanta is a nice zoo, but the pandas were the highlight for me, along with the drills - two unique animals to North American zoos.
 
BearMinimum said:
Makes me so sad how even Zoochatters aren't aware of how intelligent and charismatic these animals are. I'm not going to comment on the political aspect, but the species doesn't deserve the animosity here. They are extremely special animals and deeply valued by the locals of zoos who keep them. To be frank, I don't see how their sleep habits devalue them any more than any other large carnivore. In the 2 decades of the giant pandas' time here in Atlanta, I have never once seen the viewing area empty. They were special to our city and things still feel melancholy at the zoo without them.
Click to expand...

I think they are excellent and have enjoyed the few times I’ve seen them. But I don’t believe zoos should pay the Chinese for the privilege of exhibiting them and whether they are lovely or not probably needs tp be secondary to the question about whether the arrangement to have them is right or not.
 
Jurek7 said:
Let's say it openly: giant pandas are not very active nor interesting in real life. A panda exhibit lots of time has a sleeping blob and no interested onlookers.
Click to expand...
As someone who does like animals that are otherwise sleeping furballs I feel like the sleeping=non interesting comment is a moot point.

When I saw pandas for the first time in my life at Ueno, my mother and I had to jolt to the giant panda enclosure because of how congested the viewing area gets. The visitors will still coo at the bears despite the animals being in the most unattractive enclosure I remember seeing. Still sucks that those animals are used as a political pawn.
 
I've always been critical on Pandas in Western zoos. I believe it was Prague zoo who purposely didn't get Giant pandas because they didn't want the alliance with China. I don't remember the exact wording, but it came down to "in order to get Giant pandas to our zoo, we'd have to sign a contract that says we agree with all actions of the Chinese government, which we absolutely do not".

The Panda loan system has always been about power and never about Panda conservation.

The thing I'm surprised by:
- The fact that it took this look for an investigation to happen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top