The Ocean Park Conservation Foundation has signed off on an agreement to expand its collection of resident red pandas in the Hong Kong theme park. In addition, the contract extended the loan period for the park’s current three red pandas for a further twenty years. The Chinese government has a long-established history of sending pandas to other countries on loan; starting for ‘panda diplomacy’ purposes around 1950. But the terms and conditions of such arrangements, and the policy considerations which drive them, reveal that Mainland China’s furry agenda is not as black and white as it seems.

Between 1965 and 1980, five pandas were exported from China to North Korea as a gift of good faith. All five died in quick succession due to handlers lacking adequate training in husbandry practices. Increasingly, Western countries were requesting their own panda exhibits, but all were originally rejected on the grounds of strained political relationships and low supply. Pandas are especially difficult to locate and capture due to their remote mountainous native habitat, and also prove difficult to breed in captivity. Nevertheless, several Western jurisdictions including the United States, the United Kingdom France, and Germany now enjoy possession.

In 1975, a potential roadblock was thrown up in the form of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The Convention officially recognised that “peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora,” and its signatories were “convinced of the urgency of taking appropriate measures to this end.” China became the 63rd party to accede to CITES in 1981, taking account for its giant pandas and red pandas - then listed under Appendix 1 of the Convention as “species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade” for the regulatory purposes of Article 2. These provisions seemingly prohibited China’s international export of pandas, but a loophole was quickly discovered and taken advantage of. According to a retrospective report by the Congressional Research Service in May 2022, the provisions of CITES mainly prohibited the trade of endangered species for commercial purposes, “permitting non-commercial loans between registered scientists or scientific institutions.” Consequently, the Chinese government rebranded the ventures as ‘conservation-oriented,’ establishing programmes with 22 zoos in 18 countries.

Of the almost 2,500 pandas alive today, only around 1,900 reside in their native habitat, the other 600 being held in captivity. While the parties to these international contracts are understandably keen to emphasise the preservation element of such arrangements, there is no factual indication that captive living yields any beneficial impact for the pandas themselves. Conversely, less than twenty cubs have ever been born abroad, and of the ten pandas released to the wild since 1983, six have had to be recaptured, and one has died due to insufficient ability to survive independently. Raising pandas in captivity has clearly not reaped good results, so why does the practice continue under the guise of conservation? Welfare groups indicate that the animals are mainly used as a tool to increase tourist revenue, drawing spectators from neighbouring countries for whom traveling to China to observe pandas in the wild is not a viable option.

However, from the Chinese government’s perspective, there is a much more valuable gain from this exchange. In perhaps the most illustrative display of what is called ‘soft politics,’ panda diplomacy allows China to manipulate the political actions of foreign governments, rewarding those who cooperate with their aims, and sanctioning those who don’t. As ABC news Australia put it, “what China gives, it can also take away.” For example, Barack Obama received the Dalai Llama at the White House, in 2010, prompting China to recall one panda from the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. Similarly, the San Diego Zoo was forced to return two pandas following Donald Trump’s trade war in 2019. Interestingly, in the aftermath of the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 in 2014, resulting tensions between Malaysia and China were temporarily abated by the arrival of two pandas to Malaysia. In 2022, Qatar became the most recent recipient. The country’s arid weather and seaside location certainly does not give rise to thoughts of compatibility for pandas, who are much more adjusted to cool, temperate climes. Countries who do not possess sufficient resources to sustain panda populations are now being urged to initiate their return to China in the overriding interest of animal welfare.

The imminent arrival of Ocean Park’s two new red pandas is conspicuously correlative with Hong Kong’s recent return to mainland Chinese political control. Once again, the director of the theme park group emphasised the narrative that receipt of the animals would enable them to “expand [their] level of deliverables to breeding and research.” This begs the question, Hong Kong being in such close proximity to the pandas’ natural habitat, of why we cannot just visit them ‘at home’. While conservation is ostensibly the driving force behind these arrangements, the reality is more shaded, with captive breeding showing limited success and raising questions about the true welfare of these vulnerable creatures. Incidents of pandas dying from health complications in zoos and breeding centres indicate that the species is simply not well suited to a captive environment. It is clear that presently, pandas are not protected, they are pawns for political gain.

The dual narrative of conservation and political influence prompts us to reevaluate the motivations behind such exchanges, urging a more transparent and comprehensive examinations of the ethical implications and genuine benefits for the species involved.

Courtesy of: Saskia Sinha