On March 2nd 2023, more than 2000 people stood in front of the Everland theme park—not to get into the park itself, but to bid farewell to the most beloved panda in Korea, Fu Bao, who was about to embark on her journey back to China. Pandas had initially been given out to other countries as gifts by China since the period of the Second World War, becoming a way to break the ice with the Western world after the establishment of the communist regime. This was later changed into a leasing policy due to the panda species becoming endangered, but the policy’s diplomatic and political purposes remained. Following this policy, should the leased pandas produce offspring, the offspring were to be returned to China eventually to maintain conservation efforts, and the leased pandas themselves must also return after 10 years. Yet, the ulterior motive of this “panda diplomacy” is not only to help protect the species, but also to maintain positive relations between China and the recipient countries, as pandas often bring tremendous economic gain such as in the case of Korea’s Fu Bao.

Although these practices may appear as beneficial in all regards, including the conservation of pandas and the maintenance of their biodiversity, there are legitimate concerns about the commercialisation of pandas and the purity of China’s panda conservation efforts. Recipient entities like zoos must afford an annual leasing fee up to 1 million US dollars, while any cubs born in the foreign zoos can cost up to 400,000 US dollars to lease, making the leasing of pandas a huge money maker for China. When pandas are sent out under diplomatic action, they are inevitably treated as a tool for political gain, forced to become the so-called ‘Panda Diplomats,’ and then be relocated to an unfamiliar environment and thereby causing them immense stress. Furthermore, once the lease term ends, they will need to be uprooted once more from their habitat. The treatment they receive under the leasing terms is also questionable, potentially violating animal rights.

The effectiveness of China’s panda leasing policy in helping conservation efforts is also debatable. According to an investigation done by the New York Times, there are more pandas being captured from the wild by the Chinese government compared to the number of pandas being released. Meanwhile, cubs born in the US and European zoos were never released into the wild. The investigation results revealed that pandas that were sent to the US have done little to help biodiversity, as China usually sends out pandas with genes that have been well represented in the population, which does not help much in  panda population gene diversity. Based on an expert who has been working in the Chengdu breeding center under affiliation of a US zoo, she has witnessed the excessive use of the anesthesia on the pandas. The anesthesia is part of the process of the artificial insemination. Combining these with accusations regarding the inhumane treatment of the pandas, especially during artificial breeding, the original goal of promoting biodiversity and conserving the panda seems heavily distorted.

Although it is impossible to remove the political aspect of ‘panda leasing’, its current state of over-commercialisation is undoubtedly unethical. The practice should be returned to its original purpose—conservation and the promotion of biodiversity—with the leased pandas acting not as Chinese or economic diplomats but as diplomats for the conservation effort and raising awareness for their species. Recipient countries and establishments that keep the pandas should focus on raising public awareness and educating people rather than investing heavily in commercial activities. The Chinese government should also take care to ensure the safety of their ‘panda diplomats’, correcting any errors and making corrective statements regarding rumors that can cause public concerns.