For years, China diverted millions of dollars that the United States sent himintended for the panda conservationto, instead, build buildings, buy technological devices and finance three new museums.
The New York Times analyzed two decades of financial reports, internal correspondence, photographs and archival records United States Fish and Wildlife Service and concluded that more than USD 86 million collected by the Washington and San Diego zoos, which respond to the right that Beijing gave them to house these animals in their facilities, were not used as established in the contracts.
Instead, the documents stated that, thanks to this money, the Chinese Government built roads and apartment buildings far from natural areasacquired computers and satellite television service for government offices, built three museums and, ironically, even allowed transform a panda breeding center in the west of the country into an amusement parkalmost as big as Disneyland.
According to US law, in exchange for permission for zoos to house and exhibit pandas, which attract thousands of people to these places, the Government must send a sum of money to China that will be used to protection of animals in their natural habitats. Initially, the agreements contemplated the right of Service experts to verify financing on the spot But, as the years went by and the relationship between nations deteriorated, the clause fell into disuse.
This situation, added to the little transparency of Xi Jinping’s Government regarding its economy, generated great concern from regulators, who even froze transactions on three occasions, in an attempt to exert pressure and get answers. However, the decision always ended up being reversed in order to preserve the continuity of panda pairs in zoos, which translates into more visitors, more sales of merchandise and better impact in the media.
“There was always pressure back and forth about how the United States should not ask anything”acknowledged Kenneth Stansell, a former Fish and Wildlife official who traveled to China in the 2000s, coincidentally for work on pandas, while David Towne, who ran a foundation representing American zoos that housed pandas, explained that the dynamic with China was complicated and “You had to trust his word.”
“China felt that it was none of our business, that we had the pandas and that we should not tell them how to spend the money”held.
This exchange, which contemplates the possession of the animals in exchange for a payment to contribute to the preservation of the species in their country, is part of the Endangered Species Act which, although it was presented as a great conservation success, ended up receiving multiple criticisms from various NGOs, who point out that this type of agreement distorts its spirit. Inclusive, The New York Times He concluded after his work that “the best thing he has done is raise more pandas for zoos.”
(With information from EFE)
