birdlife.org
(as evaluated by BirdLife International - the official Red List Authority for birds for IUCN): Endangered
Justification This species qualifies as Endangered because it has apparently undergone a rapid decline owing to pesticide-use and predation by the introduced brown tree snake on one island, although the reasons on other islands are unclear. However, earlier population estimates were probably too large and the population appears to have stabilised in recent years, and thus past declines may not be as great as feared.
Family/Sub-family Apodidae
Species name author Mearns, 1909
Taxonomic source(s) AOU checklist (1998 + supplements)
Synonyms Aerodramus bartschi AOU checklist (1998 + supplements)
Taxonomic note Collocalia inquieta (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. bartschi following Browning (1993) and AOU (1998) and C. inquieta following Browning (1993).
Identification 11Â cm. Swiftlet with dark greyish-brown upperparts and head. Silvery grey-white throat and upper breast. Remainder of underparts darker and greyer. Shallow fork-tail. Plumage lacks any noticeable sheen. Voice Chirps and twitterings. Makes echolocation clicks inside caves.
Population estimate
Population trend
Range estimate (breeding/resident)
Country endemic?
3,200 - 3,500
decreasing
730 km2
No
Range & population Collocalia bartschi is endemic to Guam (to USA) and the Northern Mariana Islands (to USA), and was introduced to Oahu, Hawaiian Islands (USA) in the early 1960s. On Guam, it was very abundant but, from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, it underwent a precipitous decline4. In 1999, only three colonies remained, the largest holding c.700 birds (total population c.800)8. In the Northern
Marianas, populations disappeared from Rota and Tinian in the 1970s, although, on Tinian, it was possibly only nomadic3. In 1982, estimates were 9,120 on Saipan and 1,022 on uninhabited Aguijan3 but, more recently, estimates are c.2,000 (five colonies) and 400-475 (seven colonies), respectively8. On Oahu, it survives in a single known breeding colony in a small tunnel in the Ko`olau Mountains, although similar irrigation tunnels are common and thus other small colonies may exist2. Observations in 1997 suggest a minimum of 17 breeding pairs (66 birds in total)7.
Ecology It feeds over coastal and interior forest and grassland (and formerly mangroves), capturing small insects in flight, preferring forest on Guam and Aguijan8. It breeds and roosts in colonies in caves that typically hold a few to 700 birds8. Nesting occurs year-round, but is greatest from late January to September or October. One egg is laid per clutch and pairs probably lay more than one clutch per year8.
Threats The causes of the decline on Guam may relate to former pesticide-use. Currently, predation by brown tree snake Boiga irregularis is the primary limiting factor and interactions with introduced mud dauber wasps Vespula sp. may interfere with recovery (the additional weight of wasps nests causing swiftlet nests to fall from cave walls). On Saipan, exotic cockroaches (which also damage and destroy nests by consuming nest material and swiftlet saliva gluing them to cave walls) and possible disturbance by humans and feral mammals are probably the main threats7,8.
Conservation measures underway On Guam, snakes have been trapped at the main colony. Colonies have been censused regularly, nesting has been observed and foraging ranges mapped. On Saipan and Aguijan, colonies have been censused periodically and insecticide applied to kill cockroaches9.
Conservation measures proposed Continue monitoring. On Guam, facilitate recolonisation of caves historically used by large colonies. On Rota, reintroduce birds9. On Saipan, prevent cave disturbance.
References 1. Browning (1993). 2. Chantler and Driessens (1995). 3. Engbring et al. (1982). 4. Jenkins (1983). 5. Lee et al. (1996). 6. Morton and Amidon (1996). 7. Wiles and Woodside (1999). 8. G. Wiles (unpublished data). 9. G. Wiles in litt. (2000).
Text account compilers Andrew O’Brien (BirdLife International), Alison Stattersfield (BirdLife International)
IUCN Red List evaluators Guy Dutson (BirdLife International), Alison Stattersfield (BirdLife International)
Recommended citation BirdLife International (2006) Species factsheet: Collocalia bartschi. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 29/9/2006
This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, and BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.
To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife
To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife’s Globally Threatened Bird Forums
October 2nd, 2006
worldwildlife.org
Based on an interview with Ruwindiyarto (Telapak)
The modern history of swiftlet bird nests harvest in East Kalimantan started in the 1940s. The communities had harvested the bird nests in the areas of Telang Teba and Sungai Peta then. Some community groups believed that several clans had inherited rights to manage the bird nests from generation to generation. The harvesting of bird nests stopped during the Japanese occupation, and then started again in the 1960s. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the swiftlet bird nests had been important commodities since the late 18 century, bartered for tiles and china from China.
Pak Jaui Puling is a community leader and village headperson of Long Peso, Subdistrict of Long Peso. He is also the head of a group which manages the harvest of swiftlet bird nests. The group’s name is Semangat Anda (Your Enthusiasm) or abbreviated to SA. The group comprises eighteen households. One of Pak Jaui Puling sons has his own group, notably Semua Anggota Harus Berhasil (All Members Must be Successful) or abbreviated to SAHB, that comprises twelve households. Those two groups are considered as prominent community groups among other bird nests harvesters along the river Kayan. In 1993 the community-based bird nests havester groups within the limits of Subdistrict of Long Peso established an association, with Sulang Kedung as the chairman and Pak Jaui Puling as the association advisor. The association had received endorsement from the Subdistrict government. The association is the umbrella of 41 community-based bird nests harvester groups (comprising about 400 households) from fourteen villages within the limits of Subdistricts of Long Peso and Tanjung Palas. At the district level (District of Bulungan), there is a similar association, namely the Swiftlet Bird Nests Harvesters Cooperative, led by Pak Mendhan in Jelarai. Pak Mendhan is also the prominent sponsor for most of the community harvesters’ groups.
Pak Jaui Puling started harvesting bird nests in early 70s. Before that year Pak Jaui Puling was a gaharu and rattan harvester. However, the oldest caves managed by Pak Jaui Puling and his groups had been discovered only in 1977. In the beginning the group started with five caves. Nowadays they manage twelve caves. Like other harvesters along the river Kayan, each cave is given a name. Ownership of the caves are based on the history of who discovered them and is deliberated with other harvester groups. Conflicts over the management of caves are a common occurrence; for instance, the Ahli Waris (Inheritance) cave in Lepok Kepang. The cave was discovered by Pak Jaui Puling’s group. It had been managed for a while by this group, but later Pak Kirib claimed that the cave belonged to his ancestors and that he is the owner of the cave. The conflict was resolved through a long deliberation. The Ahli Waris cave is nowadays managed by Pak Kirib and his group. Many other cases indicate that most conflicts over a cave’s management are resolved through direct deliberation among the harvester groups. This atmosphere has, however, changed recently, after intensive intervention by non-local big investors, also involving local government and police officers. The situation then becomes very complicated.
The swiftlet bird nest havester groups along the river Kayan regularly pay taxes to the government. Pak Jaui Puling showed notes and receipts of tax payments for the past six years, with data on size of harvests, along with the percentage of taxation and amount of tax payment made to the local government. Since early 1998 the groups have been faced with a new tax by the local government, notably Forest Products Fee, which has been imposed by a local government regulation. The Provincial Forestry Service (Dinas Kehutanan Tk. I) collects the fees. However, there is no implementation guidance on the new tax, which then confuses harvester groups like Pak Jaui Puling’s. They have not made any payments to the government on the new tax. They are very worried about this uncertain situation. They are worried that they will be forced to pay the accumulated tax when the government someday asks for payment. If this happens, it’ll be easy for the government to accuse the community harvester groups of disobeying their obligation to pay the tax. This has happened in many similar cases throughout the country where the government has used this method to takeover an established community practice. [example?] It is also the case, where in the name of increasing regional gross domestic product (GDP), that the local government will invite involvement of big investors. Often the government may use security forces to back up this scenario.
If we look at the stability of harvest data over years, we can assume that the harvest system employed by the community groups is based on conservation principles. The harvest system is based on taking two harvests, then eggs are allowed to hatch and juvenile birds fledged, then another harvest is made and the caves cleaned. This method appears to allow the swiftlet populations to regenerate. The harvesters are aware if they over-exploit the resources they will in turn loss the benefits for the following generations. Therefore, these kinds of community-based practices in utilizing natural resources should be protected. They should not be taken over by more commerical approaches, which might be more effective in terms of “production” and more efficient in terms of “costs”, BUT ????
October 2nd, 2006