The Cultural and Economic Effects and Limitations of Panda Preservation
**This was written for a class assignment.**
The landscape of pop culture, as it relates to climate change and animals, has transformed in recent decades, but is still at a precarious place. One study by French and American researchers states that “public mobilization has not scaled up with the severity” of species extinction and other climate issues; this extends to the conservation of animals (Courchamp, et al). In fact, the study expresses that the most popular, or “most charismatic species remain severely endangered, and rather unknowingly so by the general public”. One of the 10 species the study looks at, the giant panda, was on average known to be endangered by the study’s participants; however, at the time of its publishing, there were “fewer than 2,000 remaining individuals, distributed within 33 subpopulations and scattered on less than 1% of [their] historic range”. In spite of giant pandas being the exception in the study, their status was not any better than the other 9 species mentioned. “Despite their poor conservation status,”the study explains, “these species are omnipresent in our modern societies,’’ including in “the advertising realm”. The giant panda, specifically, is no exception.
More than just a symbol of conservation, the giant panda “has been actively positioned as an emblem of the Chinese nation,’’ according to a case study from the journal Environmental Practice (Buckingham, et al). Pandas are, as a result, seen as a tool for foreign policy; “panda diplomacy, a term coined during the Cold War”, was when “China gifted pandas to foreign governments with which it sought strategic friendships”. Outside of simply gifting the animals, China found alternate uses for pandas. The most relevant example of this is the renting of the animals to “prestigious zoos in nations seen as important markets for Chinese products”. These zoos ”were offered the opportunity to lease pandas for six-figure sums plus a percentage of merchandising sales”. This resulted in a perception, by the 1970s, that pandas were more objects of value than a species in need of protection. The status for pandas in the new, communist China was reflected in their declining numbers for decades to come. A case study from the 1990s expressed that “in China, wildlife has been traditionally considered as a harvestable resource … when the Chinese government introduced laws protecting animals… many people were initially confused: ‘Why protect pandas?’” (O’Brien, et al).
It was with the support of the World Wildlife Fund that the question began to be answered. In the 1960s, the conservation organization decided to base their logo on Chi-Chi, a panda bear who was then in the London Zoo (World Wildlife Fund). The choice to use an animal that had become symbolic of China as their symbol later gave the WWF leverage with the Chinese Government itself. The organization worked with the Chinese Ministry of Forestry in the 1980s to create a “National Conservation Management Plan for the Giant Panda and its Habitat”, which was approved in 1993 (Buckingham, et al 3/O’Brien 179). The plan, which was funded by zoo leasing fees, “proposed the maintenance and expansion of 13 previously established giant panda reserves and the designation of 14 new” ones. This plan was the blueprint for the now 67 panda reserves in China today (Dell’Amore).
But why did action on panda conservation shift? The economic value of pandas themselves in this situation cannot be understated. A study from Current Biology attempted to quantify the value of panda conservation on a global scale, estimating that doing so has increased revenues of related products from “US$562 million/year in 1980 to US$1,899 million/year in 2010” (Wei, et al). The study cites uses of pandas for branding, like in the case of the Panda Express food chain and the Kung Fu Panda film franchise, and in the use of pandas for merchandising. All in all, the study states, “if the panda image were a registered trademark, like Mickey Mouse, it is likely that these merchandise sales could easily generate enough funds to support the entire panda conservation program in China”. Real, live pandas also provide economic value: panda breeding centers are promoted online as “the first or second best tourist attraction in many Chinese towns and cities”, and “proximity to panda reserves [has produced] an 8%… increase in annual farmer incomes relative to [their] provinces as a whole”.
In spite of the growing cultural and economic significance of the panda globally, conservation has not kept up. The IUCN’s downgrade of the panda from being “endangered” to “threatened” came with much fanfare, as Christine Dell’Amore of National Geographic reported in 2016. The WWF was “thrilled”, and a scientist from Conservation International called the downgrade in status “deserved” (Dell’Amore). However, there should still be cause for concern. Marc Brody, who worked at the Wolong Nature Reserve in China, was quoted as saying that “while the Chinese government deserves credit and support for recent progress… there is no justifiable reason to downgrade the listing from endangered to threatened”. He cited the fact that “‘suitable’ or quality panda habitat is…decreasing from … human economic activities.” The WWF itself, in a report released a year later, actually reinforces this concern. “The panda”, the report explains, “has been allowed to persist only at elevations higher than … can be used for productive agriculture…under a changing climate, the agricultural value of land in current panda habitat may increase” (World Wildlife Fund 2017). This is on top of concerns that bamboo, which “makes up almost 90% of their diet”, will not adapt to changing climates as much as the bears themselves will.
A 2015 study focused on bamboo’s future in a changing climate reinforces the concerns brought by the WWF. “Some of the 16 bamboo species” that exist in giant panda reserves, according to the study, “may completely vanish” by 2070 (Li, et al 383). In fact, “over 40 of the… current nature reserves may face bamboo forest loss… and some reserves would lose all bamboo distribution” (384). As reserves that have been championed as preserving pandas become “warmer and drier”, and as their main food source dwindles and the land becomes more attractive to development, will preservation still be a priority?
This question is compounded by the effect the popularization of pandas has on their conservation. A study on the perception of endangered animals found that “volunteers saw an average of 4.4 lions a day, meaning that people see on average two to three times as many ‘virtual’ lions in a single year than the total population of wild lions currently living in the whole of West Africa” (Wei, et al 7). This same imbalance of representation versus real animal population applies to pandas as well. While the use of pandas in food chains and film franchises can help introduce people to the animal, and may push them to support their conservation, it also conveys a misleading ubiquity. As the study explains, “this mechanism amounts to an intraspecific competition mediated by human perception, in which abundant but virtual populations outcompete for human attention the real but threatened populations” — in other words, how can the average person at a toy store tell if lions or pandas need more conservation support if they have an equal amount of merchandise?
It is with this disconnect in mind that we must consider the place of the panda in popular culture. One study that looked at tourist reviews of Chinese panda breeding centers found that they could be reduced to discussing three things: tourist experiences, any amenities, and dead last, the pandas themselves (Cong, et al). Only 13.7% of the thematic content of the reviews involved any discussion on the pandas specifically, and an even smaller amount focused on their conservation. If people who visit China to see pandas in their natural habitats don’t care about their conservation, what does that say about any effort to preserve the species?
A narcissistic view would be to suggest that pandas will survive only in zoos, and only as attractions. After all, “western governments”, one report states, “increasingly see the panda as a commercial asset of a private zoo” (Buckingham et al 266). The report cites an example where “the Scottish Parliament declined a request for support [adding a panda to the] Edinburgh Zoo, leading one director to comment that they were taking a ‘financial gamble’” — the concern was whether the zoo could still compete financially, not whether the wellbeing of pandas would benefit from the display. The panda, in spite of being the only species to have its population increase of the 10 in the Wei study, is only thriving in captivity (Wei 7). The disappointing truth is that in spite of conservation efforts, “techniques to release captive-bred panda are still in their infancy… 10 pandas have been released since 1983, and only two remain in the wild” (Buckingham et al 266).
In spite of the economic, social, and political value of pandas, conservation efforts to protect them are simply not where they should be. In spite of their population growth and downgrade from endangered to “vulnerable” status, the giant panda will struggle with returning to the wild and with sourcing enough bamboo to survive, especially as climate change worsens (World Wildlife Fund 2017). And in spite of these facts, the general public will not prioritize panda conservation as much as they should. An executive from Wildlife Reserves Singapore explained to BBC that, “A happy coincidence of [the panda’s] natural adaptations result in what humans perceive as cute, and a cute and cuddly face is a whole lot easier to love” — the panda, in fact is at a cultural advantage compared to other endangered species (Tan). “In the words of Baba Dioum,” he adds, “‘in the end we will only conserve what we love’.”
Works Cited
Buckingham, Kathleen C., et al. “Environmental reviews and case studies: diplomats and refugees: panda diplomacy, soft “cuddly” power, and the new trajectory in panda conservation.” Environmental Practice, vol. 15, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 262–270, Cambridge University Press. doi.org/10.1017/S1466046613000185.
Cong, Li, et al. “Analysis of wildlife tourism experiences with endangered species: An exploratory study of encounters with giant pandas in Chengdu, China.” Tourism Management, vol. 40, Feb. 2014, pp. 300–310, ScienceDirect. doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.005. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019.
Courchamp, Franck, et al. “The Paradoxical Extinction of the Most Charismatic Animals.” PLoS Biology, vol. 16, no. 4, Apr. 2018, pp. 1–13. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2003997. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019
Dell’Amore, Christine. “Giant Pandas, Symbol of Conservation, Are No Longer Endangered.” National Geographic, 4 Sept. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/09/pandas-vulnerable-endangered-species/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2019.
Li, Renqiang, et al. “Climate change-induced decline in bamboo habitats and species diversity: implications for giant panda conservation.” Diversity and Distributions, vol. 21, no. 4, 2014, pp. 379–391.
O’Brien, Stephen J., et al. “Pandas, people, and policy.” Nature, no. 369, 19 May 1994, pp. 179–179, doi-org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/10.1038/369179a0. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019.
Tan, Yvette. “How Did China Save the Panda?” BBC News, 5 Sept. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37273337. Accessed 29 Nov. 2019.
Wei, Fuwen, et al. “The Value of Ecosystem Services from Giant Panda Reserves.” Current Biology, vol. 28, no. 13, 9 July 2018, pp. 2174–2180, ScienceDirect. doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.046. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019.
World Wildlife Fund. Giant Panda: WWF Wildlife and Climate Change Series. 2017. c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/992/files/original/WWF_Giant_Panda_climate_assessment_web.pdf?1488211328. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019.
— -. “Giant Panda.” World Wildlife Fund, www.worldwildlife.org/species/giant-panda#. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019.ws/world-asia-china-37273337. Accessed 29 Nov. 2019..
