@amur leopard: Let me preface by saying that I'm not familiar with Beauval in any shape or form, so I won't hazard a guess on whether you are right about that example, let alone argue with you on it. However, I
can say with a high degree of certainty that pandas
do not generate net revenue for zoos in the United States.
Here are some news articles that I was able to pull up about this. The first (
For zoos, pandas are about prestige, not profit) talks about the numbers and how attendance at zoos in Atlanta and Memphis was not affected in the long-term by the acquisition of pandas. It also talks about how these zoos lose money overall on pandas, including a quote from the PR manager of San Diego Zoo who explicitly says, "Pandas have been a cost, not a revenue source." The article concludes with the point that pandas are about prestige rather than revenue.
This second one (
The Economics of Zoos - SmartAsset) only has a couple paragraphs about giant pandas, but also states that "some zoos have reportedly found that the extra ticket sales pandas generate still aren’t enough to cover the added costs." This vibes with the first article.
This third one is from NatGeo (
Panda "Rent" Too High, U.S. Zoos Say) and explicitly states that Atlanta and San Diego lose money on their giant panda exhibits.
This fourth one (
The economics of giant pandas - Marketplace) has a quote from a former president of the AZA. The reporter asks him what he would tell a zoo interested in getting a giant panda and he says, "Don’t do it. If your objective is to break even or make a profit, there’s almost no chance of that happening."
This fifth one is super useful (
You'll Never Believe What It Costs To Rent A Panda From China), because not only does it state a concrete number ("Washington, Atlanta, Memphis and San Diego zoos are said to have spent $33m more on pandas from 2000-03 than they received from showing them") but it also addresses your argument that Pairi Daiza could not possibly have acquired pandas for political reasons. On the contrary, this article indicates that pandas are primarily being used by China for reasons of trade and geopolitics:
"But
World Resources Institute researcher Kathleen Buckingham, with a team at Oxford University, last year studied China's recent panda loans
and concluded that all were linked to trade.
The Edinburgh deal, overseen by China's vice-premier, Li Keqiang, coincided with a £2.6bn contract for Britain to supply China with petrochemical and renewable energy technologies, Jaguar cars and
enough salmon to double Scotland's production.
Other panda pairs were loaned to Canadian and Australian zoos after negotiations for uranium, oil and minerals. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Macao all got pandas after signing free-trade agreements.
In France, the panda loan to Beauval zoo coincided with a $20bn deal for nuclear giant Areva to supply China with uranium oxide.
"A new phase of panda diplomacy is under way. Panda loans are associated with nations supplying China with valuable resources and symbolise China's willingness to build trade relationships," said Buckingham."
Take note of the sentence I bolded also, as it pertains to your chief example (although again, I'm not familiar with Beauval and have no idea what impact pandas have had on them financially).
-------------------------------------------
TL,DR: While the popularity of pandas suggests that they are big moneymakers for zoos, the numbers and statements from the zoos themselves do not support this. Also, pandas at Pairi Daiza absolutely
could be there for political reasons, and in fact they most likely are.
