www.thanhniennews.com
An indoor Salangane or edible-nest swiftlet raising pilot has shown promise recently in south-central Vietnam where local residents earned their living from selling the lucrative nests as an edible delicacy.
Young edible-nest swiftlets
The Khanh Hoa Salagane Nest Company has successfully incubated and raised indoor Salangane whose nests serve as a valuable dish in many Asian countries.
The pilot exhibited a hatch rate of 78.41 percent, with swiftlet’s nest prices at VND20-30 million (US$1,300-1,900) per kilogram depending on products in the domestic market.
Being aware of economic potentials from breading Salangane, the company has conducted research on reproductive process of such precious bird to adopt a complete indoor raising circle.
Le Huu Hoang, the company’s director, said it targeted to produce an indoor breading process that generated in the highest effect but less cost.
He added that the company’s staff defined parameters such as temperature, humidity and sought measures to stabilize such factors that played a vital role in the in the artificial incubation process.
With the research results and lessons from unsuccessful trails using overseas-imported incubators, the company has now designed and manufactured incubators suitable for the Vietnamese environment.
Additionally, the company’s staff also set up a standard nutrition regime and supporting techniques for raising the birds.
The company has developed three breeding houses in other localities in the Khanh Hoa province besides on in the Nha Trang city and offered consultative services to raisers in Phu Yen, Tien Giang, Bac Lieu and Ca Mau.
The special swiftlets (Aerodramus fuciphagus) are found populated in Salangane Island in the Nha Trang city.
The locals harvest the bird nests (considered a delicacy) to be used in soups. These nests are processed and exported to Taiwan and Hong Kong.
The birds build their nest high on the walls of the cave on the islands. To access the nests, harvesters must climb on ladders fashioned from bamboo.
The bird nest comes in two types, white and red nests.
The nest is made out of the bird’s saliva. Usually, a typical bird creates one nest a year during springtime using both parents saliva.
Reported by Xuan Hoa – Translated by Ha Viet
October 4th, 2006
Desicritics.org, India - 2 hours ago
October 02, 2006
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
Migrations have been a problem since the year dot. Whether we are talking about animals, birds, or people, we always have issues in some shape or form. In particular, when talking about human migrations, we have this to thank for the current debate about who belongs where. We also have migrations to thank for the birth of the conflict between hunters and farmers, for changing demographics and for wars. We have migrations to thank for language development, for the employment of legions of anthropologists, for the rise in imperialism.
Let us take a look at two types of human behaviour related to migrations (economic and political) with two examples each, which both came as a surprise and which we don’t know how to handle cleanly. The biggest migrations of the 20th century happened during the Partition of India, the migration in and out of Israel/Palestine, the migration of non-Western Europeans into Western Europe and migrating Mexicans into USA. In each of these cases, one of the most curious elements was the large amount of surprise at the phenomena. Out of all explanations, economics provided me with a good workable explanation.
As usual, many things came together for this essay. The first was when I read one of the finest and least biased books on the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis, namely Righteous Victims by Benny Morris. The second was an op-ed I read in The Financial Times about how Western Europe was taken by surprise by the sheer number of Eastern European migrants after the accession of ten Eastern European countries to the EU. The third was another article in The Financial Times the same day, talking about the lack of human capital within the Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin migrants in the UK. The fourth was an article in The New York Times about the total confusion and chaos behind the American policy and responses towards Mexican immigration and finally a book on global explorations and migrations by Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto called Pathfinders, A Global History of Exploration.
As I have mentioned before in these pages, I am an immigrant son of an immigrant. My father escaped from what is now Bangladesh as a refugee into India proper during British time in India. I, on the other hand, have settled in London, but have joined what is called “the tribe of International citizens.”
To go back to those horrific Partition times, it was one of the largest semi-forced political migrations known to man. The estimates of the two-way traffic between India and Pakistan range from five to fifteen million. Despite the original pious idea that this migration would have settled the issue once and for all, it is still bleeding almost every Indian Subcontinent country. In the past sixty odd years since independence, the percentage of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh has dramatically dropped. Sub-continental minorities are still looked on with suspicion and there is no true secular treatment, such as the lack of a uniform civil code.
Bangladeshis come over the fence into India by the thousands every month, so much that they have changed the demographic balance dramatically in the North-East of India. Sri Lankan Tamils have migrated into India and beyond; Nepalis have total freedom to move in and out of India and India has special Gurkha units in its army. Tibetans have moved into India, Afghanistan saw the migration of Afghans into Pakistan and Iran and then back. Kashmiri Muslims moved to Pakistan, while Kashmiri Hindus moved outside of Kashmir and so on and so forth.
It is so bad that most of the frontiers in the subcontinent are now getting the equivalent of the Churchillian Iron Curtain with fences, minefields, army patrolling, frequent accusations of forced migrations, suspicion of migrants and minorities. If I wear the economist hat, then the demand side is high, because of reasons such as physical security and economic opportunities while the supply side is present because of the flip side of large poor and scared minorities.
The other side of the world is seeing a massive migration of Hispanic, mainly Mexican, immigrants to the United States of America. The Federal and State governments, the two major parties, non-governmental organisations, civic society, media and all the rest of the Tocqueville institutions are all over this issue. A country built on immigration and resting on an iconic Statue of Liberty proclaiming,
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door,”
is now frantically thrashing about, trying to find a compelling and coherent response to this problem. Again this has come as a surprise after a certain level of immigration has been reached. In many parts of the country, Hispanic minorities are heading towards becoming a majority. And the natives are restless, if you excuse the pun. Bottom line, the income differential between USA and Mexico is just too high just like we see between Bangladesh and India; the Mexicans are haring across the boundary, at the risk of life and limb because of deserts, snakes, robbers, electrified fences, military, vigilante and police patrols, minefields, you name it. The demand is greater than the supply, therefore the attraction.
The Israeli Palestinian issue is not pure economics driven, although there are some murmurs of economic based migrations into Israel from Russia, India and other places. But the inward Israeli migration was driven less by economics than by security (shades of migrating Muslims into Pakistan). On the flip side, the migration/expulsion (depending on which side of the fence you are sitting) of Palestinians was also driven by security reasons. If it’s migration, it is then driven by security worries by the Palestinians starting from the 1948 war. If it is expulsion, then it is driven by the security worries of the Israelis about the number of Palestinians in their territory. But the pure demand-supply equation still applies. Given a limited amount (supply) of land in Israel/Palestine, and greater demand than can be satisfied, with no possibility of pricing relief, the result is war and disputes.
But the classic example which illustrates all these factors is the European Union (EU). The EU was created out of a fervent wish for peace and security after two horrific insane world wars. One of the key elements of the EU is that there must be free movement of capital, services and labour. While there are many holes and excuses in this idealised criterion, labour has been free for decades now. To evaluate how the process worked, one can just look at the level of migrations between the various countries every time there was a step change in the number of countries joining the EU. The first was the core of six countries, and there wasn’t much migration between them, because their economic conditions were at parity. Then came the UK, which joined in the 70’s and this time there was a small movement of financial sector people into London and a small number of people moving off to the continent to enjoy better weather, food and cheaper houses.
Then the EU expanded to include countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal. Again migration of the Southern Europeans to other EU countries was slight. Given this history, nobody expected that the 2004 round of accession by the ten countries (including eight ex-communist countries) would suddenly throw up a major move. Expectations by the EU ran to about a hundred thousand migrants to EU initially and then declining. As it happens, there are an estimated six hundred thousand migrants into the United Kingdom alone. This had serious implications across the EU. While keeping inflation down and increasing entrepreneurial activity, the infamous Polish plumber was a major reason of the rejection of the European Constitution in France, serious immigration discussions in Germany and strong representations against allowing the next two countries in line, Bulgaria and Romania, a free right to migrate to the UK.
The last is the most surprising; a country like the UK has been historically open to migrations down the centuries and has been a strong proponent of EU expansion. For various institutions to publicly warn against an open-door policy for the migrants from the new countries is surprising yet understandable, given the rise in worries about immigration. Never mind that the EU does not have a very good reputation of integration and managing migrants. Just look at the total paucity of thought around the challenges integrating European Muslims and the knee-jerk reactions against what has now become known as “European Islam.” Look at the total fluffiness around the African migration issue into Europe with Spain, Italy, and Greece all struggling to understand, cope and manage the overwhelming waves of poor African migrants. But, fact remains, economics drove the migrations (of Muslims, Africans, as well from the new EU countries) and while not understanding the scale of the issue, politicians and the public were surprised.
While the air is free in the world, capital is (mostly) free, knowledge is free, ideas and electrons cross merrily across the global internet, people are not free. For deep-seated reasons ranging from nationalism, identity, culture and economics, people look on migrations with fear, angst, anxiety, worry and occasionally even hate. In the profound words of Yoda in Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace: “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.” One can put on the supreme idealist hat and declaim like Moses: “Let my people go,” but even if the people have gone, they have to be received somewhere. In our world, it is the reception of people which is the real challenge. The element of surprise means that measured thoughtful responses are difficult and knee-jerk reactions or blunted solutions are proposed. I am afraid there are no easy solutions, but transparency and honesty would go a long way in making this difficult transition easier.
But if one takes a long term view, as Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto did in his excellent book, one finds that over the long span of history, migrations and explorations will keep on happening. From the viewpoint of the old ages, there were explorations and now there is convergence. I strongly recommend this book for people who are concerned about very short term immigration and emigration, because as Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto says, the time of exploration will again come and humankind will be travelling amongst the stars.
October 3rd, 2006
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