Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four Foreign Parrot Species

Federal RegisterAug 9, 2011

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0099; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]

RIN 1018-AX50

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four Foreign Parrot Species

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; 12-month finding.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list as endangered the Philippine cockatoo (

Cacatua haematuropygia

) and the yellow-crested cockatoo (

C. sulphurea

), and to list as threatened the white cockatoo (

C. alba

), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). We are taking this action in response to a petition to list the following four parrot species: Crimson shining parrot (

Prosopeia splendens

), Philippine cockatoo (

Cacatua haematuropygia

), white cockatoo (

C. alba

), and yellow-crested cockatoo (

C. sulphurea

) as endangered or threatened under the ESA. This document, which also serves as the completion of the status review and as the 12-month finding on the petition, announces our finding that listing is not warranted for the crimson shining parrot. We also propose a special rule for the white cockatoo in conjunction with our proposed listing as threatened for this species. We seek information from the public on the proposed listing, proposed special rule, and status review for these species.

DATES:

We will consider comments and information received or postmarked on or before October 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0099.

•

U.S. mail or hand-delivery:

Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0099, Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all comments on

http://www.regulations.gov.

This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition (“12-month finding”). In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the ESA requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the

Federal Register.

If the listing of a species is found to be warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions, then the petition to list that species is treated as if it is a petition that is resubmitted on the date of the finding and is, therefore, subject to a new 12-month finding within one year. The Service publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but precluded.

In this document, we announce that listing Philippine cockatoo and yellow-crested cockatoo as endangered is warranted, and we are issuing a proposed rule to add those species as endangered under the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We find that listing the crimson shining parrot as endangered or threatened is not warranted. We further find that listing white cockatoo as threatened is warranted, and we are issuing a proposed rule to add that species as threatened under the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record.

Previous Federal Actions

Petition History

On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting we list 14 parrot species under the ESA. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite information required in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we determined that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12 of the 14 parrot species. In our 90-day finding on this petition, we announced the initiation of a status review to list as endangered or threatened under the ESA the following 12 parrot species: Blue-headed macaw (

Primolius couloni

), crimson shining parrot (

Prosopeia splendens

), great green macaw (

Ara ambiguus

), grey-cheeked parakeet (

Brotogeris pyrrhoptera

), hyacinth macaw (

Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus

), military macaw (

Ara militaris

), Philippine cockatoo (

Cacatua haematuropygia

), red-crowned parrot (

Amazona viridigenalis

), scarlet macaw (

Ara macao

), white cockatoo (

Cacatua alba

), yellow-billed parrot (

Amazona collaria

), and yellow-crested cockatoo (

Cacatua sulphurea

). We initiated the status review to determine if listing each of the 12 species is warranted, and initiated a 60-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of these 12 species of parrots. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2009.

On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court (CV-10-357, D. D.C.), in which the Service agreed to (in part) submit to the

Federal Register

by July 29, 2011, a determination whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing actions for no less than four of the

petitioned species. This

Federal Register

document complies with the first deadline in that court-ordered settlement agreement. We will announce the 12-month findings for the remaining parrot species for which a 90-day finding was made on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957) in subsequent

Federal Register

notices.

Information Requested

We intend that any final actions resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek clarifying information concerning:

(1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and trends (especially breeding and foraging habitats), diet, and population abundance and trends (especially current recruitment data) of these species.

(2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land uses on the distribution and abundance of these species (particularly the conversion of habitat to biofuel production on Halmahera Island and any data on Bacan Island related to the white cockatoo).

(3) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, including live capture and hunting, domestic and international trade, predation by other animals, and any diseases that are known to affect these species or their principal food sources.

(4) Information on management programs for parrot conservation, including mitigation measures related to conservation programs, and any other private, nongovernmental, or governmental conservation programs that benefit these species.

(5) The potential effects of climate change on these species and their habitats.

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

Public Hearing

At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in the

ADDRESSES

section. If you would like to request a public hearing for this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section by September 23, 2011.

Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any one or a combination of the following five factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we look beyond the actual or perceived exposure of the species to the factor to determine how the species responds to the factor and whether the factor causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a factor it is. If the factor is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that it is considered to be a threat. In some cases, there is little information available regarding the status of the species, in part due to their remoteness.

This finding addresses the following four species of parrots: crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow-crested cockatoo. For each of these parrots, we evaluate the five factors under ESA Section 4(a)(1) on the species. In some cases, we found under a factor that a threat was contributing to the extinction risk for multiple species, while some factors constituted a threat for some of the species but not others. In some cases, the factors affecting species are the same or very similar and in other cases the factors are unique. In each evaluation, we clearly identify what species is being addressed, and if the threat applies to more than one species.

Species Information

A. Crimson Shining Parrot (

Prosopeia splendens

)

Taxonomy and Species Description

The crimson shining parrot (

Prosopeia splendens,

Peale, 1848) is endemic to Fiji, where it is found in forests, on agricultural lands, and around human habitation (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2008). Its most closely related species are

P. personata

(G. R. Gray, 1848), masked shining parrot, which occurs on Viti Levu; and

P. tabuensis

(Gmelin, 1788), maroon (red) shining parrot, which occurs on Vanua Levu and Taveuni.

P. splendens

and these two other species are recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (ITIS 2011,

http://www.itis.gov

) as valid species. Absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary and based on the best available information, we consider

P. splendens

to be a valid species.

The crimson shining parrot's head, neck, and underparts are a bright red. It is a medium-sized parrot, with a length of 45 centimeters (cm) (18 inches (in)). It has been observed in flocks of up to 40 birds in the past, but more recently in flocks of up to 12 birds. During the day, this species is generally quiet and becomes vocal towards dusk, at which time it becomes more active. A blue collar extends across the back of its neck; its back and rump are bright green. Its flight feathers and tail are green, strongly covered with blue. Its bill and feet are black, and its irises are orange. Males and females are similar morphologically; however, the bill of males is larger, and the head of males is more square-shaped than females. It differs from the maroon shining parrot in its size and coloration; crimson shining parrots are generally smaller than maroon shining parrots. Rump feathers on the crimson shining parrot do not have the red edges that can be seen on the maroon shining parrot. The main visible features that distinguish the crimson shining parrot from the masked shining parrot and the maroon shining parrot are the scarlet rather than maroon underparts and the blue collar at the back of the neck.

Distribution, Habitat, Biology

There is little to no information available regarding this species. The crimson shining parrot, also known as the Kadavu musk parrot, is endemic to the islands of Kadavu and Ono in Fiji. These two islands are separated by a narrow channel, often navigated by kayaks and other small boats. This species has also been reported on the island of Viti Levu in the Upper Navua Conservation Area (Tokaduadu 2008, pp. 5, 7), where they are thought to be escaped pet birds. There are no known records of this species successfully breeding other than on the islands of Kadavu and Ono (

http://www.NatureFiji.org,

accessed January 4, 2011). The island of Kadavu is remarkable in that it has the highest number of endemic birds per land area in the world. It hosts two areas designated by Birdlife International (BLI) as Important Bird Areas (IBAs), including Mount Nabukelevu which is located on the southwestern end of Kadavu Island. Mt. Nabukelevu, has the largest area of montane forest on the island. These IBAs are a way to identify conservation priorities (BLI 2008j, pp. 1-2) and are considered to be globally important areas for the conservation of bird populations. A site is recognized as an IBA based on the occurrence of key bird species that are vulnerable to global extinction or whose populations are otherwise irreplaceable. These key sites for conservation are small enough to be conserved in their entirety and large enough to support self-sustaining populations of the key bird species. Mount Nabukelevu's montane forest is critical for five globally threatened bird species, including the crimson shining parrot (BLI 2011d, p. 1; BLI 2010c, p. 1).

Very little is known about the ecology of this species in the wild (NatureFiji 2011, pp. 1-2). Although in captivity this species has been known to exhibit aggression in males, it is a social species in the wild (Lin and Lee 2006, p. 188). It has been observed in flocks of up to approximately 40 birds (Tabaranza 1992 as cited in BLI 2001, p. 1679) but more recently it has been observed in flocks of up to 12 individuals. Flocking is thought to serve several purposes including mate selection, and learning food sources and eating techniques (Cameron 2007, pp. 115, 144)

In 2004, the population estimate was 6,000 mature birds, with a declining population (Jackson and Jit 2004 in BLI 2010a, p. 1). However, the species' population estimate was inferred from population surveys conducted on another species, the Masked Shining-Parrot (

Prosopeia personata

) (BLI 2010a, pp. 1-2). Surveys found that the crimson shining parrot occurred at similar population densities as that of the masked shining parrot. In two BirdLife International surveys, 86 crimson shining parrots were recorded in 38 standardized observer-hours, similar to the mean of 1.9 masked shining parrots per hour recorded at 18 sites across Viti Levu (BLI 2010a, pp. 1-2). Masked shining parrots were estimated to occur at approximately 29 birds per km

in lowland native forest. The 2004 crimson shining parrot population was estimated using the density of masked shining parrots and the estimated 225 km

(87 mi

) area of dense and medium-dense forest on Kadavu (Jackson and Jit 2004 in BLI 2010a, p. 1). However, we do not have detailed information about how the surveys on Kadavu were conducted; they may have occurred at a time when the species is not active or visible. There is no evidence that the survey protocol used is appropriate to infer the population density of this species. Nor is there evidence suggesting the two species have the same ecological characteristics, levels of disturbance, and habitat requirements. For example, Viti Levu has a more dense human population than that on the islands of Kadavu and Ono, and human population density often directly influences species population density. Additionally, we do not know the historical population of the crimson shining parrot; this species may never have had a large population, as it is only known to be endemic to Kadavu and Ono Islands, so we do not know if this species has experienced a decrease in population size or if its population has been fairly consistent. Furthermore, species that are endemic to islands tend to have smaller population sizes due to a smaller carrying capacity of the island. This species is described as being “widespread and common” on Kadavu and population information on the East Kadavu IBA also lists this species as common (BLI 2011a, p. 1; BLI 2011f, unpaginated). Additionally, notes from a 2006 birding trip report indicate that the crimson shining parrot would be “hard to miss” on Kadavu (Skevington and Mathieson 2006, unpaginated). Although the best scientific information available indicates the population of crimson shining parrots number 6,000 individuals, there is no historical population data to indicate this species has declined or is currently declining. Given the reports from BirdLife International (BLI 2011a, p. 1; BLI 2011f, unpaginated) and the lack of support for a declining population, we consider the crimson shining parrot to be common on Kadavu.

Its range is estimated to be 460 km

(178 mi

). However, BLI (2000, pp. 22, 27) defines a species' “range” as the “extent of occurrence,” which is “the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.”

Kadavu is the fourth largest of Fiji's islands, at 410 km

(158 mi

). Kadavu has a human population of 8,700 people and is a mountainous, rugged island with high peaks and precipitous cliffs (Fiji Guide 2011). There are few roads and is therefore mainly accessible by boat. The Kadavu Island group is 83 km (45 nautical miles) south of Viti-Levu, Fiji's main island. Kadavu is rugged and mountainous with few roads. The Kadavu Island group also includes nearby Ono Island, off the eastern tip of Kadavu, as well as a number of smaller islands. Ono is 30 km

(12 mi

) in size (Planetary Coral Reef Foundation (PCRF) 2010). This island group has 12,000 Fijians living in 72 traditional village communities (PCRF 2010), and there is one airstrip. The primary means of income is subsistence agriculture and fishing.

Conservation Status for the Crimson Shining Parrot

Fiji is actively involved in forest protection efforts; a new Forest Policy was adopted in 2007 (Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry 2009, p. 1). Crimson shining parrot is also protected by Fiji's Endangered and Protected Species (EPS) Act of 2002. Additionally, Fiji's first national nongovernmental organization (NGO), Nature Fiji, was established recently, and its goal is conservation of its wildlife. Nature Fiji is working closely with BLI to develop a conservation program to protect endangered wildlife in Fiji such as the crimson shining parrot.

In 1981, the crimson shining parrot was listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). At that time, almost all Psittaciformes species (

i.e.,

parrots) were included in Appendix II. CITES is an international agreement where member countries work together to ensure that international trade in CITES-listed animals and plants is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations. This is achieved by regulating import, export, and re-export of CITES-listed animal and plant species and their parts and products through the use of a permitting system (

http://

www.cites.org

). CITES entered into force in 1975, and is an international treaty among 175 nations, including Fiji and the United States. In the United States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but may become so unless trade is subject to strict regulation to avoid utilization incompatible with the species' survival. International trade in specimens (dead or live) of Appendix II species is authorized through permits or certificates. International trade in specimens of Appendix II species is authorized when: (1) The CITES Scientific Authority of the country of export has determined that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild; and (2) the CITES Management Authority of the country of export has determined that the specimens to be exported were legally acquired (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1).

In 1988, the crimson shining parrot was described by the IUCN as lower risk/least concern, and the status changed to vulnerable in 2000 (IUCN 2008; BLI 2010a), which is its current IUCN classification. The authority for compilation of information and determining the appropriate risk extinction category for bird species on the IUCN Red List is Birdlife International, and is cited frequently throughout this document. However, IUCN rankings do not confer any actual protection or management.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Crimson Shining Parrot

This section contains an assessment in which we evaluate the effects of any of the five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA on the species. Listing actions may be warranted based on whether any of the five factors under section 4(a)(1), singly or in combination, places the species in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Each evaluation is specific to this species identified unless we specify that the evaluation is for more than one species.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

There is little to no evidence of destruction, modification, or curtailment of this species' habitat, in fact, there is recent evidence of reforestation efforts and conservation of the species' habitat taking place (BLI 2011a, p. 1; Fiji Daily Post 2007, 2009, unpaginated). It was suggested that this species is roughly estimated to be declining at the rate of forest loss, which had been estimated to be 0.5 to 0.8 percent per year across Fiji (Claasen 1991 in BLI 2011a, p. 1), and that forest loss may be higher on Kadavu due to fires in recent years (BLI 2011a, p. 1). However, there is no information on the extent of past or current forest loss. Not only does the United Nations describe deforestation in Fiji as modest when compared with the rest of Melanesia (UN 2011, p. 1), but also local communities on Kadavu are implementing reforestation efforts and conservation of this species' habitat as described above (Fiji Daily News 2007, unpaginated). Although the eastern part of the island is experiencing pressures from agricultural encroachment, there is no evidence that agricultural encroachment or forest loss due to fires currently threatens the crimson shining parrot (NatureFiji 2011, pp. 1-2).

Forests on Kadavu were heavily logged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and habitat loss and degradation of habitat for agricultural purposes continues. However, approximately 75 percent of the island remains forested; East Kadavu IBA is reported to have the largest area of old-growth forest in Kadavu, including extensive areas of lowland rainforest. Furthermore, the crimson shining parrot is reported to use degraded habitats extensively (BLI 2011a, p. 1; BLI 2011f, unpaginated). Most river estuaries and bays still hold large areas of mangroves, which are used by the crimson shining parrot for feeding (and possibly breeding), and pressure on mangrove forest here is not currently significant (BLI 2011a, p. 1).

BLI and Nature Fiji are working with landowners on Kadavu to conserve these forested natural areas and to increase awareness of the value of maintaining these areas in a little-disturbed state (BLI 2011e, p. 1). NGOs are working with the landowners in the Mount Nabukelevu area to create awareness about the value of their forests and the benefits of establishing “Permanent Forest Estates” (PFEs) (described below) on their lands. These NGOs are also working to help build the capacity of indigenous communities to continue forest conservation on their own (BLI 2011e, p. 3). BLI, through the Darwin Initiative, has worked with the Kadavu's Department of Forestry and local communities on Kadavu to protect this species' habitat. The Darwin Initiative, implemented by the United Kingdom, assists countries that are rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resources to meet their objectives under one or more of the three major biodiversity conventions. BLI conducted a workshop on Kadavu to teach sustainable agricultural practices and ways to reduce soil erosion which subsequently supports community livelihoods. Later, the villages of Lomati, Nabukelevuira, Qalira, and Daviqele committed to protect 1,500 hectares (3,707 ac) of their forest that had been designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) on Mount Nabukelevu in Kadavu (Fiji Daily News 2007).

On Kadavu, particularly in the area of Mount Nabukelevu, many forest-owning mataqalis (clan or landowning units) are under pressure to convert their forests into agricultural land (BLI 2011e, p. 1). In 2010, 10 mataqalis signed an agreement with an NGO to protect the forests of Mount Nabukelevu for the next 20 years (BLI 2011f; NatureFiji 2011). The community-declared protected area now includes 10 mataqali (clan) lands plus a native reserve. Additionally, the Government of Fiji recognizes that maintaining forests is critically important for Fiji's people and biodiversity and has taken steps to preserve its country's resources. In 2007, Fiji introduced the Fiji Forest Policy, which promotes sustainable forest management. One of the foundations of the new Forest Policy is the concept of “Permanent Forest Estates” (PFEs). The policy promotes sustainable management of healthy forests by providing sustainable development incentives for landowners. In addition, the government of Fiji initiated a campaign to plant one million trees in 2010 to halt or slow ecological degradation associated with the depletion of the world's forests. Fiji launched its One Million Trees Campaign in support of the 2010 International Year of Biodiversity, and in 2011 as the International Year of Forests. Fiji indicated that they had surpassed their goal, and participants had succeeded in planting over one million trees (Fiji Ministry of Information 2011).

Although forest loss may be occurring within the range of the crimson shining parrot, we have no information on the extent of forest loss or evidence to suggest that this loss has impacted or is currently affecting this species. The crimson shining parrot is found in forests, agriculture lands, around human habitation, and is known to use degraded habitats extensively. Furthermore, there is no information indicating this species is declining. Additionally, we have no information to suggest that habitat loss may become a threat to this species in the future such that it may contribute to the risk of extinction of this species. Fiji has implemented proactive policies and

protections with respect to its forests. Local conservation activities are occurring on Kadavu; indigenous communities are interested in preserving this species and its habitat. Therefore, we do not find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is a threat to the crimson shining parrot now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

Conservation projects on Kadavu are believed to have reduced the numbers of parrots trapped for trading, but this species is still thought to be captured in small numbers for domestic and international trade (BLI 2010a, p. 1). As indicated above, this species has been listed in Appendix II of CITES since 1981. The United Nations Environment Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) manages a CITES Trade Database on behalf of the CITES Secretariat. We queried the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for gross data on export and import of this species since 2000, and found no record of trade in this species (UNEP-WCMC 2011, accessed January 4, 2011.)

Each Party to CITES is responsible for compiling and submitting annual reports to the CITES Secretariat regarding their country's trade in species listed in the CITES Appendices. The data from submitted annual reports is compiled into the database, and it provides a mechanism by which CITES trade can be assessed. Due to the time needed to compile the data, the most recent year for which comprehensive trade statistics are available is normally 2 years prior to the current year. UNEP-WCMC acknowledges that the data are not always accurate (UNEP-WCMC 2011, p. 5). They indicate that it is not uncommon for the quantity of specimens traded to be considerably less than the amount specified on the permits and that the quantity specified on the permits is frequently the quantity that is reported in annual reports. They further clarify that trade transactions that may have been authorized by the issuance of permits but never have taken place, as well as inaccurately reported volumes of trade, will exist in the UNEP-WCMC CITES database. UNEP-WCMC also acknowledges that gross and net outputs from the CITES database are often overestimates of the quantities traded because in cases where different quantities are reported by the importing and exporting countries, the CITES database program selects the larger quantity. Errors do occur in the database, and the numbers may not be entirely accurate, but they do provide an approximate representation of international trade that is occurring through CITES. However, we consider the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade data to be the best available information pertaining to international trade in CITES-listed species.

Although it has been reported that birds are taken as gifts and there is some illegal trade overseas, it is thought to occur in small numbers (BLI 2010a, p. 1). Conservation projects described under Factor A have reduced the numbers of birds trapped for the pet bird trade (BLI 2011a, p. 1). BLI reports that four communities have set up village protected areas on Kadavu, and they conduct regular bird surveys under their own initiative. Additionally, it is protected by law against trading and transfers out of Kadavua and Ono (NatureFiji 2011, p. 2). There appears to be substantial protection, awareness, and local conservation of this species occurring. Because there is no evidence of poaching (

i.e.,

hunting by people to gain at least a temporary living from the activity) or illegal trade of this species occurring at levels such that it may contribute to the risk of extinction of the crimson shining parrot, or information indicating poaching or trade may increase in the future and rise to the level of a threat, we believe that overutilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the species.

We are unaware of any other information currently available that addresses overutilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or education purposes that may be affecting the crimson shining parrot. We found no evidence of overutilization due to historic or cultural use of this species by local populations. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the crimson shining parrot now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Predation by introduced mammals such as feral cats (

Felis catus

) and rats (

Rattus

spp.) were identified as possible factors affecting this species. There was little to no information found regarding the occurrence of predation or disease in Fiji, particularly with respect to the crimson shining parrot. As is the case on many remote islands, Fiji has no native terrestrial mammals. Introduced mammals such as rats, mongoose (

Herpestes javanicus),

cats and dogs prey heavily on Fiji's native wildlife (Morley 2004 in Olson

et al.

2009, p. 1). However, the mongoose is not present on Kadavu Island and the only current predator definitely known to occur on Kadavu is cats. Cats on Kadavu are known to threaten ground-nesting birds, particularly on the coasts, but they are not known to threaten the crimson shining parrot. There are no known predators on Ono Island to our knowledge. Studies have found that predation rates by introduced predators are lowest in natural forests more than 4.5 km (2 mi) from forest edges or roads (Olson

et al.

2006). Kadavu's terrain consists of volcanic, mountainous, dense rainforest; sandy beaches; rocky coastline; and mangrove swamps. The island has a significant portion of relatively undisturbed forested areas. The islands' forested areas may act as refugia from predation by alien predators, such as the feral cat, for native species such as the crimson shining parrot.

Researchers suggest that maintaining minimally-disturbed forests is one of the most cost-effective strategies for protecting species (Olson

et al.

2009, p. 1). Because this species resides in dense forests far from edges and roads, this species is not likely to be significantly affected by nonnative predators. The crimson shining parrot likely has natural predators, but we were unable to find information that any natural predators are having an impact on this species. Although predation occurs in Fiji, particularly by nonnative species, the best available information does not indicate that predation is a threat to the crimson shining parrot on Kadavu or Ono now, or may become a threat in the future.

We are not aware of any occurrence of disease that may be affecting the crimson shining parrot. In conclusion, we find that neither disease nor predation is a threat to the crimson shining parrot in any portion of its range now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Various regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect the crimson shining parrot. This species is listed on Fiji's Endangered and Protected Species (EPS) Act of 2002 which is the legislation that implements CITES. As discussed under Factor B, the government of Fiji is adequately controlling international trade. According to a review conducted for CITES with respect to national legislation to determine each country's ability to implement CITES effectively, Fiji meets the requirements for

implementing CITES (CITES 2011a;

http://www.cites.org,

SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1). In addition to the absence of legal trade, there is no indication that this species is traded illegally at levels such that it may contribute to the risk of extinction of the crimson shining parrot. Based on the lack of trade, and as discussed under Factor B, we do not consider international trade to be a threat to the crimson shining parrot. Therefore, protection under CITES is an adequate regulatory mechanism.

Wild Bird Conservation Act

The import into the United States of all of these species: the crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow-crested cockatoo, is regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901

et seq.

), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The WBCA is implemented under 50 CFR part 15 and has limited or prohibited imports of exotic bird species into the United States since 1992. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all trade involving the United States is sustainable and is not detrimental to the species. The WBCA is a stricter conservation measure than CITES, and import of these parrot species into the United States requires issuance of a WBCA import permit. WBCA permits may be issued to allow import of listed birds for various purposes, such as scientific research, zoological breeding or display, or personal pets, when certain criteria are met. The Service may approve cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue import permits under such programs. Under the cooperative breeding program, wild-caught birds may be imported into the United States if they are a part of Service-approved management plans for sustainable use. At this time, none of the four parrot species discussed in this document is part of a Service-approved cooperative breeding program, and there are no approved management plans for wild-caught birds of these species.

Under the provisions of WBCA, any individual importing their pet bird to the United States for the first time must reside outside of the United States for at least 12 continuous months. In addition, in order to control diseases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service requires veterinary health certificates and health inspections for pet birds, and implements quarantine procedures for birds imported into the United States. A report published in 2006 showed that imports of parrot species to the United States declined from the mid-1980s to 1991 (Pain

et al.

2006, pp. 322-324). Parrot imports to the United States were already declining before the enactment of the WBCA, but the WBCA largely curtailed the import of wild parrots; we find it is an adequate regulatory mechanism for all four of these parrot species.

As discussed under Factor B, local protections are in place on the islands where this species exists. The governmental institutions responsible for oversight of the conservation of this species have a good legal framework to manage wildlife and their habitats. Not only are local NGOs involved in conservation activities for this species, but there also appears to be adequate capacity at various levels to protect this species and its habitat. The forestry regulations appear to be effective; there are no reports of illegal logging on the islands of Kadavu and Ono. Most of Fiji's forests are managed or owned by local communities, which have incentive to protect the native habitat. Ownership of native lands is not transferable through land sales, but user rights can be transferred via land leases (Leslie and Tuinivanua 2010, p. 10). These landowning groups are deeply attached to their lands and Fiji's forestry policy supports the local ownership of its lands. Within this species' habitat, the forested areas are being adequately managed and protected by these mataqalis.

Environmental education, conservation initiatives, and restoration efforts are occurring on Kadavu. Another NGO working on Kadavu to protect this species is the Matava Foundation (

http://foundation.matava.com/2011-projects

) which is a local NGO associated with a resort on the island. In addition to the conservation efforts in place, the remoteness of these islands likely serves as an additional protection for this species. The crimson shining parrot occurs on two islands, and both islands are extremely remote and fairly undeveloped. These factors all likely serve as additional protections for this species.

In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms appear to be adequate. There are no current records of this species in international trade, and the government of Fiji is actively conducting environmental stewardship projects. There is nothing to suggest that this factor is a threat to the species. Local conservation activities involving indigenous communities are occurring on Kadavu and this species and its habitat appear to be well protected. Fiji has enacted various laws and regulatory mechanisms to protect and manage wildlife and their habitats. As described above in our review, we found that the government of Fiji and NGOs are implementing many projects and mechanisms that will likely have a positive impact on this species and its habitat. Reforestation and conservation efforts are occurring. The best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the crimson shining parrot is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future due to inadequate regulatory mechanisms.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species

In this section, we examined whether invasive species are threats to the crimson shining parrot. The eastern part of Kadavu supports several bird species that are endemic to Kadavu. BLI indicated that logging and roads (see Factor A) may be facilitating the movement of invasive species. Logging enables alien invasive species such as rats and cats, and in some cases, Indian or common mynahs (

Acridotheres tristis),

jungle mynahs

(Acridotheres fuscus),

and

Spathodea campanulata (

African tulip trees), to invade the forests along logging roads and clearings. The island of Kadavu may be experiencing invasive species, but there is no evidence that invasive species are occurring to an extent that they are threats to the crimson shining parrot. Nor is there evidence that invasive species are a threat on Ono Island, where the crimson shining parrot is also known to occur. BLI is creating community-based conservation groups at Fiji's key conservation sites such as Kadavu Island, and is working with communities to address issues such as effectively dealing with invasive species (BLI 2011g, p. 3). We found no other natural or manmade factors that might affect the continued existence of the crimson shining parrot now or in the future. Based on the best available information, we find that there are no other natural or manmade threats to the continued existence of the crimson shining parrot throughout its range now or in the foreseeable future.

Significant Portion of the Range

Having determined that the crimson shining parrot is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are any significant portions of the range where the crimson shining parrot is in danger of extinction

or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

The Act defines an endangered species as one “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as one “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “significant portion of its range” is not defined by the statute. For the purposes of this finding, a portion of a species' range is “significant” if it is part of the current range of the species, and it provides a crucial contribution to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. For the contribution to be crucial it must be at a level such that, without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.

In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (

i.e.,

the loss of that portion clearly would not reasonably be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire species to the point that the species would then be in danger of extinction), such portions will not warrant further consideration.

If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine their status (

i.e.,

whether in fact the species is endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range). Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address either the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”

Applying the process described above for determining whether a species is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we considered status first to determine if any threats or potential threats acting individually or collectively threaten or endanger the species in a portion of its range. We have analyzed the potential threats and determined they are essentially uniform throughout the species' range.

Finding for the Crimson Shining Parrot

Section 3 of the ESA defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a “threatened species” as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded (see Background, above).

As required by the ESA, we considered the five factors separately and in combination in assessing whether the crimson shining parrot is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the crimson shining parrot. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and available published and unpublished information regarding this species and its habitat.

We do not have long-term population trend data for the crimson shining parrot. This species has always been an island endemic and may have always had a small population; island endemics tend to have smaller population sizes. Without historical population information, we do not know if this species has experienced a decrease in population size or if its population has been fairly consistent. Furthermore, this species is reported as common and widespread. During our review of the status of the species, we evaluated the potential threats to the crimson shining parrot including: habitat loss and habitat degradation, take for the pet trade, disease and predation, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors such as invasive species. We found no information that habitat loss is a threat to the crimson shining parrot. We conclude that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is not a threat to the crimson shining parrot. We found no information that poaching for the pet trade is a threat to the species. This species is not in international trade according to the UNEP-WCMC trade database. Additionally, education and public awareness campaigns are occurring in Kadavu. Fiji is actively involved in forest protection efforts; a new Forest Policy was adopted in 2007 (Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry 2009, p. 1). We found no evidence that disease or predation affects the wild crimson shining parrot population. In addition, this species is protected by laws against trading and transfers out of Kadavu and Ono. We also concluded that there are no other natural or manmade factors that are threats to the species (Factor E).

The best available information indicates that there is little disturbance on the islands where the crimson shining parrot naturally occurs. Habitat loss is often a threat to wildlife, however, in this case, there is no evidence that habitat loss is affecting the crimson shining parrot. On the contrary, this species is said to occupy altered habitat extensively. Conservation efforts for this species have been underway within the past few years to ensure long-term conservation of habitat where this species exists; local groups on Kadavu are implementing reforestation and conservation programs. Based on the lack of threats acting on this species throughout its range as described above, and the lack of information indicating the species population is in decline, we determine that this species is not in danger of extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the crimson shining parrot as a threatened or endangered species is not warranted.

Species Information

B. Philippine Cockatoo (

Cacatua haematuropygia

)

Taxonomy and Species Description

The species was first taxonomically described by Müller in 1776 (BLI 2011b). We accept the species as

C. haematuropygia,

which follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2011).

Cockatoos are only found in Australasia—a few archipelagos in Southeast Asia (Philippines, Indonesia,

East Timor, Tanimbar, Bismarck, and Solomon), New Guinea, and Australia—suggesting that the modern species arose after the breakup of Gondwanaland, the southern supercontinent that existed 200 to 500 million years ago. The 19th century naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace was among the first to note the break in Australasian and Asian fauna. Wallace's line runs between the islands of Bali and Lombok, Borneo and Sulawesi, and south of the Philippines. Cockatoos are present on Lombok and Sulawesi, but not on Bali and Borneo. The line represents the western edge of a zone of overlap between Australasian and Asian fauna (known as Wallacea), with the eastern edge defined by the Australian continental shelf (Lydekker's Line) (White and Bruce 1986, p. 32; Cameron 2007, pp. 1-3). These oceanic islands of Wallacea have high levels of endemism, meaning the species that occur there are unique to those islands.

The Philippine cockatoo, or red-vented cockatoo, is locally known as the “katala” and “kalangay,” and has a helmet crest and a red undertail (Rowley 1997). Cockatoos are a distinct group of parrots (order Psittaciformes), distinguished by the presence of an erectile crest (Collar 1989, p. 5; Cameron 2007, p. 1) and the lack of dyck texture in their feathers. Dyck texturing is a microscopic texturing that produces blue and green coloration and is present in the plumage of other parrots (Brown and Toft 1999, p. 141).

Biology, Distribution, and Habitat

This species is endemic to the Philippines, an archipelago of approximately 7,000 islands. The total area of the Philippines is 30,000,000 ha (74,131,614 ac) (Kummer 1991, p. 44). The Philippine cockatoo requires lowland primary or secondary forests with suitable nesting tree cavities and food sources, within or adjacent to riparian or coastal areas with mangroves (IUCN 2008i). The species is reported to use regenerating forest and even heavily degraded forest, as long as emergent nest trees survive. However, its nest sites are restricted to lowlands (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

The Philippine cockatoo is a food generalist; its diet varies based on the seasons. It consumes seeds, legumes, fruit, flowers, buds, and nectar. It will also eat agricultural crops such as corn and rice, and has been observed feeding on

Moringa oleifera (

commonly known as malunggay or horseradish tree). Interestingly, the government of the Philippines introduced a bill in 2010, in the Fifteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, First Regular Session, to encourage planting

Moringa oleifera

due to economic benefits (Senate Bill 1349 2010, pp. 1-7). The Philippine cockatoo has also been observed feeding on the fruits of

Sonneratia,

a mangrove species (Tabaranza 1992; Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1683).

This species nests in tree cavities, and produces two to three eggs per season (Cameron 2007, p. 140). Breeding generally occurs March through June (BLI 2001, p. 1684), and both sexes participate in nest building (Widmann

et al.

2001, p. 135). The period between incubation and fledging is generally about 95 days (Cameron 2007, p. 140). The species prefers nests high in the tree canopy, generally around 30 m (98 ft) (BLI 2001, p. 1683), but nest heights between 12 and 35 m (39 to 114 ft) have also been observed (Widmann

et al.

2001, p. 135). The diameter of the cavity openings observed has been between 10 and 25 cm (4 and 10 in) (Widmann

et al.

2001, p. 135). Some artificial nest boxes have been installed to increase nesting habitat; the species exhibits a preference for horizontal rather than vertical nest boxes (Low 2001, p. 3). Some of the tree species they use for roosting include

Dipterocarpus grandiflorus (

common names: apitong, tempudau, tunden, lagan bras aput) and

Intsia bijuga

(common names: Borneo-teak, Moluccan ironwood, and merbau asam), as well as coconut trees (Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1686). They also use

Garuga floribunda

(no common name [ncn]) and

Sonneratia alba

(ncn) (Cameron 2007, p. 35).

Population Estimates

Based on recent reports, it is likely that between 450 and 1,245 individuals remain in the wild. Surveys indicated that until around the 1980s, the Philippine cockatoo was fairly common within the Philippine archipelago (Collar

et al.

1998; Boussekey 2000, p. 138, BLI 2010, p. 1). Historically, it was known to exist on 52 islands in the Philippines; now, it is believed to exist on eight islands (BLI 2011a, p. 1).

The species' current range is significantly reduced from its historic range. In the past, the species was reported to have been commonly found throughout the Philippines except for northern and central Luzon (Delacour and Mayr 1946; DuPont 1971 in Boussekey 2000, p. 138; Collar

et al.

1999 in Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23). It was common throughout the Philippines as recently as the 1950s. Between 1980 and 2000, there was a 60 to 90 percent population decline throughout its range (Boussekey 2000, p. 138). In the early 1990s, the population was estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,000 (Tabaranza 1992 and Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1681).

Snyder

et al.

(2000) reported the following population surveys. A 1991 survey estimated between 800 and 3,000 birds exist on Palawan (Pandanas, Bugsok, and Bancalan Islands were thought to support 100 to 300 individuals and Dumaran 150 to 250 individuals), and possibly a few hundred were thought to exist in the Tawi-Tawi region (Lambert 1993b, 1994b). A single pair was found on Siquijor in 1991 (Evans

et al.

1993). A few were found at Mount Isarog, Luzon in 1988 (Goodman and Gonzales 1990), and a few pairs were found in Mindoro at Malpalon (Dutson

et al.

1992). On Masbate, birds were observed in 1993 (Curio 1994), and the species has been recorded a few times in singles or small numbers in Rajah Sikatuna National Park, Bohol since 1989 (Brooks

et al.

1995b). In 1994, two pairs (Dutson in litt. 1997) were seen on Tawi-Tawi, and the species was considered widespread there in 1995-1996, although apparently more often seen in captivity than in the wild (two singles were observed in Batu-Batu and a single and a pair in Buan) (Allen in litt. 1997). Three birds were observed on Simunul, Tawi-Tawi in 1996 (Allen in litt. 1997; Dutson

et al.

1996). The species is considered extinct on Cebu (Brooks

et al.

1995a) and Negros (Brooks

et al.

1992). Recent population counts and estimates are below; however, this information is not a complete representation of the population, but is the best available information. Some islands may not hold viable populations and may be functionally extinct.

Between 2004 and 2010, the population estimate decreased from 1,000 to 4,000 individuals to 450 to 1,245 individual birds in the wild (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23; BLI 2010b; Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). This species currently is found in the Culasian Managed Resource Protected Area (CMRPA), Palawan, Dumaran Island (negligible population), Pandanan and Bugsok Islands, Polillo Island Group, Rasa Island, Tawi-Tawi, and possibly on Samar Island. An estimated additional 400 individuals may survive in the Sulu archipelago; however, only sparse information is available for this area (Widmann

et al.

2007; Widmann

et al.

2009a; Widmann

et al.

2010a). Subpopulations away from Palawan and the Sulus are thought to be very small, and do not likely have viable populations (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.) The extent these populations are interbreeding is unclear at this time.

Detailed discussion of each of these areas follows.

Table 1—Population Counts and Estimates of Philippine Cockatoo Between 2007 and 2010 on Islands in the Philippines

Number of individuals based on recent observation, population count, or estimate

Location

Bugsok Island (40 to 80 estimated).

Burdeos, Polillo Islands.

CMRPA, Palawan Island.

Dumaran, Lagan.

Pandanan Island.

Patnanungan, Polillo Islands.

280

Rasa Island.

Samar.

200

Tawi-Tawi (100 to 400 estimated).

672

TOTAL*

* Note: This is not a full population survey; it documents birds actually counted, observed, or estimated (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Culasian Managed Resource Protected Area

This area is in the south of Palawan Island and is 1,954 hectares (ha) (4,828 acres (ac)). The total land area of Palawan is approximately 1.5 million ha (3.7 million ac), including the 1,767 islands and islets surrounding the main island. This species exists both within the actual designated protected area (CMRPA) and in the areas surrounding the protected area on Palawan Island. Philippine cockatoos are thought to travel between Palawan Island and nearby Rasa Island. This species has been known to fly from the mainland to offshore islands as far as 8 km (5 mi) away from the mainland to roost and breed. No roosting sites are known in the CMRPA and surrounding areas (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 23); however, there have been recent sightings there: four were observed in September 2009, and three were observed in December 2009 (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 37). At least two Philippine cockatoos persist inside the protected area, but they have not bred in the last 4 years.

CMRPA has been described as exhibiting the “empty forest syndrome.” Although its forest is largely intact, little wildlife remains due to hunting pressure and poaching. In the small population that was protected only recently here, there are no indications that the species' status is improving. Only one breeding pair exists outside of the reserve. Cockatoo poaching occurred in this area within the past 3 years, and breeding in the 2009-2010 season failed. Because all nests have been systematically poached over many years, extinction of this population is likely to occur suddenly due to lack of recruitment (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Dumaran Island

On Dumaran Island, which is off the northeastern coast of Palawan, three areas are managed by the Katala Foundation's Philippine Cockatoo Conservation Programme (PCCP). Two of those are protected areas: the Omoi Cockatoo Reserve and the Manambaling Cockatoo Reserve (Widmann

et al.

2009b, p. 7). The third area is Lagan, which is also monitored and managed by the PCCP. On Dumaran Island, the protected suitable forest patches are each very small: 1.5 and 0.6 km

(0.6 and 0.2 mi

), respectively (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 24). On this island in 2008, although 10 eggs were counted, only two birds fledged (Widmann

et al.

2009b, p. 6). Recovery is slow; they started with fewer than 20 birds before protection started (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Pandanan and Bugsok Islands

Pandanan and Bugsok (119 km²) (46 mi

) are small islands south of Palawan, within the Balabac Island Region. It is likely that Pandanan holds possibly the second-most important population of Philippine cockatoos, containing at least 80 individuals (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). Approximately 40 birds were observed in a coconut plantation in 2009 on Malinsuno Island, a 10-hectare (24-acre) nearby island that is part of the Pandanan Barangay (equivalent to county or province) (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 5; Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). On Bugsok Island, Balabac, also in the Pandanan Barangay, approximately 40 cockatoos were also recently observed roosting (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 5). A large part of Pandanan Island itself is not easily accessible, and because it is privately managed, it is protected for the most part. PCCP is working on building a relationship with organizations to monitor and formally protect this island, and wardens are being hired as of 2010 (Widmann

et al.

2010, pp. 26, 56).

Polillo Islands Group

This group of islands is approximately 110 km (68 mi) east of Manila, in Quezon Province in the northern Philippines. Patnanungan Island is part of the Polillo Island Group and is not yet very developed. Polillo Island itself is 1,000 km

(386 mi

). As of 2009, within the Polillo group of islands, Patnanungan Island was known to contain a population of the Philippine cockatoo (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 15). However, no roosting sites have been identified on this island (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 23). Patnanungan Island is mainly covered with secondary vegetation and coconut plantations (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 22). Seven nest trees are being monitored in this area (Widmann

et al.

2009b, p. 7). To the best of our knowledge, there is not a viable population on Polillo Island, although the species has been observed there. In 2009, in Burdeos, six Philippine cockatoos were spotted in Duyan-Duyan Forest in the Anibawan Barangay, where it is regularly heard (Widmann

et al.

2009a, p. 41; Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 38). In part, because there were fewer than 20 birds prior to their protection, recovery is slow (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Rasa Island

Rasa Island is a protected 8 km

(3 mi

) island off the east coast of Narra, Palawan. This island was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2006 (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 15). As of 2007, 1.75 km

(0.6 mi

) of the island was coastal and mangrove forest. In 2008, 32 nest trees were found to be occupied, 21 pairs had successful fledglings, and the population was estimated to be 205 individuals (Widmann

et al.

2008, p. 14; Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 27; Widmann

et al.

2009b, p. 5-6). Breeding success was 63 percent; 49 fledglings were banded (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 24). Population recruitment in years that experienced sufficient precipitation in Rasa has been good. As of 2009, Rasa Island had 64 nest trees, and its cockatoo population was approximately 280 individuals, making it the area with the highest natural density of Philippine cockatoos (Widmann 2010b). PCCP estimates that Rasa Island contains about 20 percent of the total Philippine cockatoo population (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 19). The success of cockatoos on this island is likely due to the lack of potable water, which makes it unattractive to human settlement (BLI 2001, p. 1687). The Philippine cockatoo population on this island has grown due to intense management; in 1997, there were only about 50 birds on Rasa Island (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 24).

Other Islands

Little current data exists regarding the status of the Philippine cockatoo on

other islands, such as Samar and Tawi-Tawi, in part because these areas are extremely remote. The Katala Foundation Inc. (KFI) surveyed Samar in 2002, at which time only two individual Philippine cockatoos were verified. Sightings were reported recently in Busuanga Island (Coron) and on Bellatan Island in the Tawi-Tawi region. KFI recently received a report from a member of the Wild Bird Club, Philippines, that approximately 30 to 40 individuals were sighted on Bellatan Island (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). Sightings of this species on Dinagat, Surigao del Norte, and Samal Islands, Davao, have been reported, but they remain unverified (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

An older survey indicated that possibly 100 to 200 Philippine cockatoos existed in the Tawi-Tawi region; however, those data are from over 20 years ago, and, therefore, no longer likely to be an accurate population estimate (Lambert 1993, Dutson 1997, and Allen 1997 in Snyder 2000, p. 84; BLI 2010b, p. 1). Tawi-Tawi is in the southwestern part of the Philippines in the Sulu Archipelago. Tawi-Tawi consists of 107 islands and islets and is approximately 1,197 km

(462 mi

) in area. The island of Tawi-Tawi itself is 484 km

(187 mi

) (Dutson

et al.

1996, p. 32) and is part of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). This area has experienced problems with logging, military activity, and insurgency but is now encouraging ecotourism (Philippines Department of Natural Resources (DENR) 2005; IUCN 2010b; Manila Bulletin 2010), which may have positive effects on the Philippine cockatoo.

Samar is the third largest island in the Philippines archipelago. It experienced threats from logging and mining in the past, but in 1989, an unexpected natural disaster resulted in initiation of conservation actions (Samar Island Natural Park 2010, p. 1). Due to the intense landslides that occurred as a result of logging activities, a logging moratorium was put into place that year. Samar Island Natural Park was subsequently established on the island, which may have positive results for the Philippine cockatoo. Samar has been reported to contain one of the Philippines' largest unfragmented tracts of lowland rainforest. There have been several reports of Philippine cockatoo sightings on Samar, but there is no current estimate of how many exist there other than the reported sightings (Widmann

et al.

2006, p. 13; BLI 2010 p. 1; Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Conservation Status for the Philippine Cockatoo

Protections exist through various national, local, and international mechanisms. This species was transferred from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES in 1992 (refer to the discussions under Factors B and D for the crimson shining parrot above for more information about CITES). Inclusion in Appendix I means that international commercial trade is generally prohibited (

http://www.cites.org

). From 1981 to 1992, the Philippine cockatoo was listed in Appendix II of CITES. The species is protected under the Philippines Republic Act 9147, otherwise known as the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 or the “Wildlife Act of 2001.” It is classified as “Critically Endangered” by the government of the Philippines under this Act (DENR 2010b, p. 2). It is on the Philippines list of protected species (DENR 2010b, p. 2), under the Republic Act No. 9147. The Republic No. provides for the conservation and protection of wildlife resources and their habitats. It prohibits certain activities such as capture and trade of live wildlife, including the Philippine cockatoo. It is also protected in the U.S. by the WBCA (refer to discussion under the Crimson Shining Parrot, factor D).

The Philippine cockatoo is also listed as Critically Endangered in the 2010 IUCN Red List. Critically endangered is IUCN's most severe category of extinction assessment, which equates to an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. IUCN criteria include rate of decline, population size, area of geographic distribution, and degree of population and distribution fragmentation; however, IUCN rankings do not confer any actual protection or management.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Philippine Cockatoo

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Widespread deforestation and destruction of native mangroves have affected the habitat of the Philippine cockatoo. The loss of this species' habitat through deforestation largely occurred prior to the 1980s (Kummer 1991, p. 46; Galang 2004, p. 13). Forest cover decreased in Palawan from 10,703 km

(4,132 mi

) in 1950, to 6,605 km

(2,550 mi

) in 1987 (Kummer 1991, p. 57). In the 1990s, commercial logging on Palawan, the primary location of the Philippine cockatoo, was suspended by presidential decree; however, nearly all of the island's forests were already leased to logging operations (Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1686; Galang 2004, p. 14). Many of Palawan's mangroves, which covered 46,000 ha (13,668 ac) in 1988, were also cleared for fishpond construction (Quinnell and Balmford 1988 in BLI 2001, p. 1686). As a result of the pressures for resources, much of the forest is now either secondary forest or has been converted to plantations or agriculture (Heaney

et al.

1998, 88 pp.; Galang 2004, pp. 13-14). In most areas within the range of the Philippine cockatoo, there is a severe shortage of timber and firewood; consequently, illegal logging is widespread. In addition to mangrove logging, slash-and-burn farming (referred to as “kaingin” in the Philippines) is a problem in many areas, particularly in the Polillo Island Group.

Soil erosion is a secondary impact that further degrades suitable habitat (Kummer 1991, p. 41), as demonstrated on Samar Island. In addition to habitat degradation and destruction through road construction, digging, removal of trees, and mining are causing secondary habitat degradation through severe erosion. During the rainy season, water creates deep clefts along the roads that are created for mining operations, causing road collapse. No mitigation measures have been put into place to reduce erosion (IUCNb 2010, pp. 1-2). Virtually all chainsaw operations in Patnanungan and Burdeos are not registered with the appropriate authority (Widmann

et al.

2010).

Cockatoos are highly impacted by selective logging of primary forests because they are large birds and subsequently require large nests. Selective logging, which targets mature trees, has a negative impact on tree-cavity nesters such as the Philippine cockatoo. Research has found that the abundance of cockatoos is positively related to the density of its favored nest tree and strangling figs (

Ficus

spp.) (Kinnaird

et al.

2003, p. 227). These are trees that would be impacted by logging, especially since reduced-impact logging techniques are seldom applied. Once the primary forest is logged, the secondary forest is generally converted to other uses or logged again rather than being allowed to return to primary forest. Therefore, although cockatoos may continue to inhabit secondary forests, the population is usually at a substantially lower number due to a decrease in suitable nesting sites.

It is well documented that habitat loss is one of the most significant effects

humans have on wild species (Fahrig 1997, p. 603; Vitousek

et al.

1997). In some cases, corridors are established to promote connectivity between populations of species to reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation, and this has been shown to be effective (Haddad

et al.

2003, pp. 609-615; Cameron 2007, pp. 110-112). In the case of the Philippine cockatoo, a “virtual” corridor is being created by artificially transplanting captive-reared cockatoos into suitable, relatively protected habitat; however, it is unclear how much this species naturally moves from one island habitat to another. This species in the past has been known to fly from the mainland to nearby islands at distances of 8 km (5 mi). Researchers point out that at the metapopulation scale, habitat fragmentation causes habitat patches to be reduced in size and to be isolated from one another, and gene flow between patches is decreased (Blanchet

et al.

2010, p. 291). Because this species' population reduction and fragmentation has occurred so recently and rapidly, it is unlikely that there are significant genetic differences between the existing populations. However, habitat loss and fragmentation are affecting this species.

The Palawan Islands Region is essentially the last area where Philippine cockatoos have a viable population. Although Palawan has been seen as a center for environmental preservation (McNally 2002, p. 9), it still faces many threats, in part due to a burgeoning human population (IUCN 2010b, p. 1; Laurance

et al.

2010, p. 377). The human population of the Philippines in 2009 was estimated at 91,983,000 (United Nations (UN) 2009, p. 41) and is experiencing a growth rate of 1.7 percent annually (UN 2009, p. 51). Palawan, in particular, has experienced rapid human population growth (McNally 2002, pp. 8-9). As of 2002, “Palawan remains a highly attractive place of destination for migrants from other areas within the Philippines” (McNally 2002, p. 11). While the burgeoning human population on Palawan may not directly affect the Philippine cockatoo, it does indirectly affect the species by contributing to the habitat losses and pressures described within this section.

Despite the protection measures that are in place to prohibit mining and other activities that degrade habitat, mining operations and oil palm plantations are being developed on Palawan Island (IUCN 2010c, pp. 1-3; Novellino 2010, pp. 2-48). The Philippine cockatoo has not been recorded in areas in southern Palawan where mining and oil palm plantations exist (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). Although mining does not occur directly within Philippine cockatoo habitat, it indirectly adds to habitat loss and degradation on the island (Novellino

et al.

2010, pp. 1-48). These threats to the ecosystem still exist despite legislative protections in Palawan (refer to Factor D).

Rasa Island contains a large percentage of the Philippine cockatoo population, although small in actual numbers. In addition to the formal protection measures in place on Rasa Island, this population is actively monitored and protected by PCCP staff (Widmann

et al.

2010a, b, c). While this population is reasonably protected, in part due to island's undesirable characteristics for human settlement such as the lack of potable water, any deforestation and habitat loss here are significant factors affecting the species. This is because so little of the species' habitat remains and because they are experiencing other pressures as well, such as poaching, described under Factor B, below.

On Dumaran Island, the pending implementation of a Jatropha plantation is occurring within the few remaining forest patches left (Widmann

et al.

2010a, pp. 6, 32, 46).

Jatropha curcas

trees produce a fruit with an inedible oil that contains a high energy content and is being explored as an alternative fuel (Mendoza

et al.

2007, p. 1). A hectare of Jatropha has been claimed to produce 1,892 liters (500 gallons) of fuel. Many industries such as the air transportation industry are considering this as a biofuel source, and it is also being touted as a mechanism for carbon credits. However, because this species occurs in areas that are managed and protected by the PCCP, the Omoi Cockatoo Reserve and the Manambaling Cockatoo Reserve (Widmann

et al.

2009b, p. 7), we do not find that pending implementation of a Jatropha plantation is a threat to the species on Dumaran Island.

PCCP currently manages three areas on Dumaran Island, including a newly acquired buffer area in Omoi (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 32). Dumaran Island also experiences widespread slash-and-burn agriculture, which has begun to affect more forested areas on steeper slopes here (Widmann 2008a, p. 19). Larger forested parts of the island are now replaced with grass and shrubland, and dense stands of bamboo, as a consequence of this practice. Due to lack of water, irrigation systems, and level areas, lowland rice cultivation is very restricted. However, permanent forms of cultivation are coconut and cashew plantations. Forest and grass fires are common, particularly during the dry season. Fire is not only used to clear areas for cultivation, but also to further growth of fresh grass for pastures.

In the other areas where this species exists, the current extent of the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat is unclear; however, it is likely that the pressures on the species are similar, if not worse (BLI 2010b; Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 15). Human encroachment and concomitant increasing human population pressures exacerbate the destructive effects of ongoing human activities throughout the Philippine cockatoo's habitat. Increased urbanization and mining lead to increased infrastructure development. Road building and mining projects further facilitate human access to remaining forest fragments, throughout the species' range, including protected areas. Mining projects, such as those proposed or occurring on Palawan, open new areas to exploitation and attract people seeking employment; these pressures from human development will likely spill over into nearby Philippine cockatoo habitat.

Summary of Factor A

We have identified a number of threats to the habitat of the Philippine cockatoo that have operated in the past, are impacting the species now, and will continue to impact the species. Habitat loss and degradation from past events, such as selective and commercial logging, conversion to plantations or agriculture, and mining, have decreased this species' suitable habitat; and these activities are still occurring. Illegal logging (discussed under Factor D) is widespread in the Philippines (Kummer 1991, pp. 70-75; Galang 2004, pp. 12, 17, 22; Laurence 2007, p. 1544), which adds to any pressures of legal deforestation. Based on the best available scientific and commercial data available, we find that the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitats, particularly in the Palawan area, is a threat to the Philippine cockatoo throughout all of its range.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

Illegal Pet Trade

The Philippine cockatoo, like all cockatoos, is a desirable pet (Cameron 2007, p. vii). In the Philippines, cockatoos are reported to be popular pets due to their ability to mimic human voices (Catigob-Sinha 1993 in

Boussekey 2000, p. 138). On Palawan, Pandanan, and Samar Islands, trapping is a particularly serious threat (Widmann

et al.

2010a, pp. 21-22; Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 16) and is still considered to be one of the most significant threats to the species. Awareness campaigns have been initiated since the late 1990s to increase understanding of why these birds should not be removed from the wild for pets, and these campaigns are somewhat effective (Widmann

et al.

2010). Due to the high value of these birds (valued at $160 U.S. dollars (USD) in Manila in 1997, and $300 USD in 2006 (BLI 2010, p. 1)), chicks are taken from virtually every accessible nest on these islands (Widmann

et al.

2010a, pp. 21-22). A researcher observed that in the 1980s, up to 10 Philippine cockatoos were trapped per day (Tabaranza 1992 in BLI 2001, p. 1685).

In recent years, several programs to combat the poaching problem, such as public awareness programs and the rehabilitation and release of confiscated parrots were established by the PCCP to support the conservation of the Philippine cockatoo. PCCP started these awareness programs to educate adults and children in villages near areas where the birds are concentrated. The programs use the Philippine cockatoo as a flagship species for conservation, especially with children, because the image of the endemic Philippine cockatoo is unique (Widmann

et al.

2010, pp. 21-22). PCCP focuses in areas where this species is found in the wild, such as the CMRPA, to educate the local communities in an attempt to reduce poaching. In 2005, on Palawan Island, PCCP began an initiative specifically targeted towards anti-poaching in the CMRPA. Former poachers were identified and converted into wildlife wardens. This “conversion” practice is common in developing countries that have human populations that rely heavily on forests and wildlife for their survival (Cribb 2006, p. 3). These converted poachers-now-wardens safeguard the nesting trees, and patrol and monitor inside CMRPA in the southwest region of Palawan (Widmann

et al.

2010).

Because illegal trade is difficult to monitor and quantify, it is unclear to what extent poaching for the pet trade is affecting this species. Considering that in the early 1990s, the population was estimated to be only between 1,000 and 4,000 birds (Tabaranza 1992 and Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1681), relatively high numbers were legally traded internationally in the 1980s (

e.g.,

422 reported in 1983; BLI 2010, p. 1). This species is still is being poached in the wild (Widmann

et al.

2010).

Although we are unsure of the magnitude of the pet trade and its effect on the survival of this species, several reports describe how poaching is still a problem for parrot species, particularly in poorer countries (Dickson 2005, p. 548;

http://www.philippinecockatoo.org,

accessed February 14, 2011). In areas with extreme poverty, poaching can be a lucrative and relatively risk-free source of income (Dickson 2005; Cribb 2007; Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 22). In many cases, poachers have limited income prospects (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 37). A common conservation practice is to provide poachers with alternative sources of income. After the benefits of species and habitat conservation are explained to them, they are generally receptive to resource conservation and ultimately gain a sense of stewardship of the resources. This technique has been effective in the past, but it is resource-intensive and has only a localized effect.

PCCP also broadcasts local radio programs raising conservation awareness. For example, in August 2010, they broadcast an interview regarding wildlife trade and a recent confiscation in Palawan (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 73). Conservation-focused radio programs have occurred here since 1996 (Boussekey 2000, p. 140). However, even with these education and conservation measures in place, poaching still occurs in the Philippines (Widmann

et al.

2010c). Based on the available information, and the relatively small number of Philippine cockatoos remaining in the wild, we find that poaching for the pet trade in the Philippines is a threat to the Philippine cockatoo throughout all of its range.

International Trade and CITES

The Philippine cockatoo was transferred to CITES' Appendix I in June 1992 because populations were declining rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for the pet bird trade. Refer to the Factor B discussion above under the crimson shining parrot for additional information about CITES. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I species requires the issuance of both an import and export permit. Import permits are issued only if findings are made that the import would be for purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild and that the specimen will not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). Export permits are issued only if findings are made that the specimen was legally acquired and trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species. (CITES Appendix III(2)). These two findings made prior to issuance of a CITES permit are designed to ensure that international trade in a CITES-listed species is not detrimental to that species.

An exception to permitting requirements for international trade of Appendix I species exists specimens originating from a CITES-registered captive-breeding operation. Under the exception in the CITES Treaty and Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), specimens of Appendix-I species originating from CITES-registered captive-breeding operations can be traded for commercial purposes, and shipments only need to be accompanied by an export permit issued by the exporting country. An import permit is not required because these specimens are treated as CITES' Appendix-II species. There is one CITES-registered captive-breeding operation in the Philippines that is authorized to export captive bred specimens of this species (

http://www.cites.org/common/reg/e_cb.html,

accessed December 12, 2010). Countries operating CITES-registered operations must ensure that the operation “will make a continuing meaningful contribution according to the conservation needs of the species” (CITES 2007b, pp. 1-2). Countries that are parties to CITES are advised to restrict their imports of Appendix-I captive-bred specimens to those coming only from CITES-registered operations. Additional information on CITES-registered operations can be found on the CITES Web site at

http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/registers.shtml.

We queried the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for data on exports and imports of this species from 2000 to 2009, and there were very few exports from the Philippines reported as “wild” origin. Between 2000 and 2009, CITES Party countries reported to UNEP-WCMC that a total of 91 live Philippine cockatoos were imported (

http://www.unep-wcmc-apps.org/citestrade

) into their countries, at an average of 10 birds per year. The majority of these (78) originated from the Philippines; 77 of these live shipments were reported to be of captive-origin, and only one was indicated to be of wild origin. Additionally, in 2009, the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database indicated that only two live birds were exported from the Philippines. As the Philippine cockatoo is listed as an Appendix-I

species under CITES, legal commercial international trade is very limited. Based on the low numbers of live, wild Philippine cockatoos in international trade since 2000, and because the trade was in parts and products from wild specimens, rather than live birds, we believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is not a threat to the species.

Summary of Factor B

In summary, cockatoos are popular pets, and poaching for the pet trade still occurs, particularly on Pandanan Island (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 13). Although we do not find that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is a threat to the species, we do find that poaching for the pet trade in the Philippines continues to be a threat to the Philippine cockatoo.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

In the information provided and the literature reviewed, there were suggestions that diseases, particularly a fungal disease, in the wild may be a threat to this species. It was suggested that Viscertropic Velogenic Newcastle Disease, Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease (PBFD), or the psittacid herpes virus (PsHV-1 or PsHV-2) were indicated as possible threats and may have been introduced into the wild population, possibly by the release of captive birds (Lambert 1994 in BLI 2001, p. 1686; BLI 2010b, p. 1). Cockatoo species are widely distributed throughout Australasia, and some avian species have developed resistance to some diseases (Commonwealth of Australia 2006, p. 1). These diseases affect each cockatoo species differently.

Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease

Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease (PBFD) is a viral disease that originated in Australia and affects both wild and captive birds, causing chronic infections resulting in either feather loss or deformities of beak and feathers (Cameron 2007, p. 82). PBFD causes immunodeficiency and affects organs such as the feathers, liver, and brain. Suppression of the immune system can result in secondary infections due to other viruses, bacteria, or fungi. The disease can occur without obvious signs (de Kloet and de Kloet 2004, p. 2394). Birds usually become infected in the nest by ingesting or inhaling viral particles. Infected birds develop immunity, die within a couple of weeks, or become chronically infected. No vaccine exists to immunize populations (Cameron 2007, p. 82). While some cockatoo species are susceptible to this virus, there is no indication that PBFD adversely affects the Philippine cockatoo at the population level in the wild.

Proventricular Dilatation Disease

Another serious disease that has been reported to infect some cockatoos is Proventricular Dilatation Disease (PDD). PDD is a fatal disease that may pose a serious threat to domesticated and wild parrots worldwide, particularly those with very small populations (Waugh 1996, p. 112; Kistler

et al.

2008, p. 1). This contagious disease causes damage to the nerves of the upper digestive tract, so that food digestion and absorption are negatively affected. The disease has a 100 percent mortality rate in affected birds, although the exact manner of transmission between birds is unclear. Although this is a particularly virulent virus that affects cockatoos in general, we are unaware of any reports that this disease occurs in Philippine cockatoos in the wild.

Avian Influenza

Wild birds, especially waterfowl and shorebirds, are natural reservoirs of avian influenza (also known as “bird flu”). Most strains of the avian influenza virus have low pathogenicity and cause few clinical signs in infected birds. Pathogenicity is the ability of a pathogen to produce an infectious disease in an organism. However, strains can mutate into highly pathogenic forms, which is what happened in 1997, when the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (called H5N1) first appeared in Hong Kong (USDA

et al.

2006, pp. 1-2). H5N1 is mainly propagated by commercial poultry living in close quarters with humans. The effect on migratory birds is less clear (Metz 2006a, p. 24). Scientists increasingly believe that at least some migratory waterfowl carry H5N1, sometimes over long distances, and introduce the virus to poultry flocks (World Health Organization 2006, p. 2). H5N1 has infected and caused death in domestic poultry, people, and some wild birds in Asia, Europe, and Africa. About half of humans infected die from the disease (Service 2006, p. 1). A parrot held in quarantine in the United Kingdom was incorrectly diagnosed with H5N1 is 2005. The original identification of H5N1 was made from a pool of tissues derived from a

Pionus

parrot (from Surinam) and another avian species called a mesia (

Leiothrix

spp.) from Taiwan. The

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom

(DEFRA) stated that it was not possible to say whether the virus isolated came from the parrot tissue or the mesia tissue or both (DEFRA 2005, p. 34). However, they concluded that the source was more likely the sample from the mesia (DEFRA 2005, p. 34). Later, it was determined that the samples had been mixed, and the parrot did not have the disease (Gauthier-Clerk

et al.

2007, p. 208). Although in the Philippines, 339 smuggled parrots were euthanized following confiscation even though none were confirmed to have the virus (Metz 2006a, pp. 24-25), we are unaware of any reports that this disease occurs in Philippine cockatoos in the wild.

Aspergillosis

Aspergillosis is an infection or allergic response to the

Aspergillus

fungus. A literature review found that cases of Aspergillosis were being reported in captive-held, wild-origin Philippine cockatoos in the Philippines at the U.S. Air Force Base, Clark Field, Angeles City (Burr 1981, p. 21). In all known cases according to the report, stress, such as enclosure in a small bird cage, was indicated to be a factor prior to death. Observations indicated that free-flying birds in aviaries showed no signs of stress, and there were no deaths recorded in these birds. Natural incidence of Aspergillosis in the wild occurs in the Philippine cockatoo; however, it appears to be more prevalent in captive birds. During one survey,

Aspergillus

spores were found below nest holes in Palawan (Tabaranza 1992; Lambert 1994 in BLI 2001, p. 1686). The Philippine cockatoo is likely a latent carrier of

Aspergillus

(Burr 1981, p. 23); however, based on a review of the best available information, there is no recent information indicating that this disease negatively affects this species at the population level in the wild (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 45).

Lice and Mites

Ectoparasitism by lice and mites was documented as the possible cause of death in some chick mortalities on Rasa Island (Widmann

et al.

2001, p. 146; Widmann

et al.

2010a, pp. 6, 38). Mites, a form of arachnid, were found in some monitored nests where chicks had died. Although nests are being routinely monitored on Rasa Island, mites are not commonly found in these nests. Mites have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with avian species. Not all bird-mite relationships are parasitic; some might be benign or beneficial (Proctor and Owens 2000, pp. 358, 362). Many mites are nonparasitic scavengers and use the nest or bird feathers as habitat. Despite the presence of mites found in nests where chick mortalities were observed, there is no evidence that mites

significantly contribute to chick mortalities. We conducted a search of available information, and there is no other information indicating that lice and mites significantly affect the species, although mites may occur more frequently during dryer seasons (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 38; Widmann

et al.

2010c, pp. 39, 45). It was suggested that unusually high temperature, rather than mites, may have contributed to the lack of nest success in 2001 (Widmann

et al.

2010c, p. 45); however, the actual reasons for nest failures (mortalities) are unclear.

Summary of Factor C

When conducting a status review, we evaluate the magnitude of each factor that may be affecting a species, and, in this case, we did not find evidence that any disease or predator rises to the level of a threat that is affecting this species in the wild. After conducting a literature search (Johnson

et al.

1986, pp. 813-815; Latimer

et al.

1992, pp. 165-168; de Kloet 2004, pp. 2393-2412; Tomaszewski

et al.

2006, pp. 536-544), we found no indication that disease or predation is a threat to the Philippine cockatoo in the wild. Although individual Philippine cockatoos may be subject to occasional infections or predation, there is no evidence that either of these is occurring at a level that may affect the status of the species as a whole to the extent that it is considered a threat to the species. Therefore, we find that the Philippine cockatoo is not threatened due to disease or predation.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Several regulatory mechanisms are in place at the national and local levels that serve to conserve this species and the habitat on which it depends; however, the mechanisms are ineffective at adequately protecting the Philippine cockatoo. We find that CITES effectively protects the species from unsustainable legal international trade. Factors hampering the regulatory mechanisms in place include remoteness of protected areas, poverty that causes locals to unsustainably use this species' habitat or to poach, and the lack of resources to adequately enforce laws and regulations (Galang 2004, p. 17; Laurance 2007, p. 1544; Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) 2007, p. 1-3). These are discussed below.

Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, efforts were already underway to protect the Philippine cockatoo (Boussekey 2000, p. 140; Galang 2004, p. 17). In 1987, the Government of the Philippines established the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) through the DENR, under Executive Order 192. Its responsibilities are in part to manage and protect the country's protected areas. In 1992, the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS Act of 1992) was adopted in order to protect and maintain the Philippines' biological diversity. In 1994, the PAWB signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding the conservation of this species (Boussekey 2000, p. 138, Philippines DENR 2009, pp. 1-2). This MOA has been implemented by a nongovernmental organization, the Katala Foundation, since 2006 through the PCCP. Under this MOA, an intensive species conservation program has been underway to conserve this species and its habitat. The PCCP accomplishes its mission through intense local management of the species. Some aspects of the conservation program are to educate local communities about the benefits of conserving endemic wildlife, protect and restore nesting sites and habitat, conduct research, and reintroduce the species into the wild (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 22).

As a protected species (DENR 2010b, p. 2), under the Republic Act No. 9147, certain activities such as capture and trade of live wildlife are prohibited. Republic Act No. 9147 provides for fines and penalties for prohibited acts. However, within the Philippines, the laws are generally ignored and only poorly enforced (Galang 2004, pp. 12-17; Laurance 2007, p. 1544; Rose 2008, p. 232).

Additional protections exist under the Philippines' Executive Order No. 247, which protects the rights of local people with respect to the use of natural resources (

http://www.elaw.gov,

accessed January 4, 2011). This Executive Order mandates that prospecting of biological and genetic resources shall be allowed within the ancestral lands and domains of indigenous cultural communities only with the prior informed consent of such communities. Involving local tribal communities adds an additional conservation measure. For example, the Batak tribe (Boussekey 2000, p. 144) in northern Palawan has shown interest in participating in wildlife conservation. The protection of endemic natural resources has been demonstrated to benefit native tribes and local communities near sites that have unique features (Widmann

et al.

2010b, p. 36). Locals may be recruited as wardens, or these areas can be developed for ecotourism. However, in this case, it is likely that only around 300 to 400 members of the Batak tribe survive today, so the effectiveness in the long term is unclear (Cultural Survival 2010 and Survival International 2010, both accessed November 18, 2010). These regulatory mechanisms could have a positive effect on the species, but currently it is unclear whether Executive Order No. 247 is benign or actually constructive.

As discussed under Factor B, the Philippine cockatoo is monitored and managed in some, but not all, areas where it exists. Some areas are designated as protected specifically for the Philippine cockatoo and wardens are employed (Widmann

et al.

2010a, pp. 18-22; and refer to Conservation Status for the Philippine Cockatoo section above). An increase in the population is occurring in some areas where it is protected, such as on Rasa Island, but in other areas where protections are not robust, the population is declining (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 32). Although there are five areas designated as being “protected,” under Philippine law, the levels of protection vary. In 2006, Rasa Island, the area containing the densest population of the Philippine cockatoo, was declared a wildlife sanctuary by President Arroyo (Widmann 2006, p. 1). The protected area consists of 1,983 ha (4,900 ac). While this area is fairly well protected and monitored, effective reserve management here is hampered by a shortage of staff, technical expertise, and financial support (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). In addition, the remoteness of protected areas makes enforcement of activities such as poaching and illegal logging difficult. Overall, the management of protected areas is insufficient. For example, in 2010, despite management of the species, 15 hatchlings died and 17 eggs did not hatch on Rasa Island during an extreme weather event (refer to Factor E discussion) (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 38). Even in areas such as Narra that are monitored by wardens, poaching occurs (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 6). The protections in place for this species are ultimately ineffective at reducing the threats to this species. This species resides in other areas that are not protected; and habitat destruction (see Factor A discussion above) and poaching for the pet trade (see Factor B discussion above) still occur even in protected zones.

The Philippine cockatoo is carefully monitored and managed in some, but not all, areas where it exists. The species exists in five protected areas: (1) Rasa Island Wildlife Sanctuary (Narra, Palawan), (2) Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park

(Palawan), (3) Omoi and Manambaling Cockatoo Reserves in Dumaran (Dumaran, Palawan), (4) Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (CMRPA) in Rizal, Palawan, and (5) Samar Island Natural Park. Each protected area in Palawan has its own unique protections in place and legislation to protect the species and its habitat (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Although there are five areas designated as being “protected,” the levels of protection vary. An increase in the population is occurring in some areas, but in other areas where protections are not as robust, the population is declining, in part due to poaching. The PCCP, the Philippine government, and individuals concerned with the conservation of this species have actively worked to protect the Philippine cockatoo since 1998. The PCCP is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of wild Philippine cockatoos. Its goals are to teach the principles and value of conservation, work to rehabilitate Philippine cockatoos back into the wild, and conduct scientific research. As of 2000, the local communities that live within the range of this species have been aware that it is illegal to capture or trade this species (Boussekey 2000, p. 143).

At most sites where a viable population appears to exist, PCCP is actively managing this species to try to increase the populations. For example, artificial nest boxes for the Philippine cockatoo were installed on Rasa Island and the mainland (Palawan) (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 27). Recovery of the Philippine cockatoo on Rasa Island has been fairly effective, where nest-guarding by local people has virtually stopped poaching (Boussekey, pers. comm. in Cahill

et al.

2006, p. 166). Breeding success on Rasa Island has been high (averaging 2.6 hatchlings per nest in 2002, for example). On this island, a population of approximately 20 birds increased four-fold between 1998 and 2003 (Boussekey, pers. comm. in Cahill

et al.

2006, p. 166; Widmann

et al.

2010). In Patnanungan, Polillo Islands, the first artificial nest box for the Philippine cockatoo was installed in November 2009 (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 13), and reforestation efforts are occurring. These activities are somewhat effective but slow because the protection efforts are not able to completely combat the negative factors such as poaching and selective logging that affect this species in many cases.

Recent efforts are being focused on Pandanan Island (south of Palawan Island), which has excellent habitat for this species, and has recently been targeted by PCCP for protection of the Philippine cockatoo. A grant under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wildlife Without Borders, Critically Endangered Species Conservation Fund, for the Pandanan project was approved in September 2009 (Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 5). This island has the potential for the species to make a good recovery because there is excellent forest cover due in part to the protections provided by the Jewelmer Corporation. This company holds a marine mining concession in the area of Pandanan. Due to this concession, no human inhabitants are legally allowed on Pandanan Island. In January 2010, PCCP obtained formal permission from the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) to conduct conservation efforts on the island (Widmann

et al.

2010b, p. 5). Poaching still needs to be abated, but PCCP has been working to establish a local warden program (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 50) on the island to address this issue. Security has recently improved in the area where a viable cockatoo population has been confirmed, but the species is still threatened by poaching (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 15). The PCCP indicates that it is likely that with the warden program in place, they can eliminate or reduce poaching.

As resources allow, other protections and conservation actions are in place for this species. On Dumaran, Rizal, and Patnanungan Islands, Philippine cockatoo activity is observed through wardens monitoring, and patrols occur at protected areas and roost sites. Monitoring of the population trend on Rasa and Dumaran Islands is done through counting individuals at traditional roost sites. Due to both a lack of funding and logistics, not all Philippine cockatoo sites are actively monitored and managed. This is primarily because it is more efficient to focus resources in the Palawan Islands Region where the Philippine cockatoo has a viable population.

In summary, while laws to protect this species are in place, enforcement often is severely lacking or difficult, given the many islands that make up the Philippines and considering that illegal activities in many cases remain socially acceptable at the local level. Illegal logging is considered a leading cause of forest degradation in the Philippines (Galang 2004, pp. 12-17; Laurance 2007, p. 1544; Rose 2008, p. 232). Laws and regulations are frequently ignored, which further reduces the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms (Galang 2004, pp. 12-17), and this species continues to suffer a decline in population numbers. Therefore, we find that, although the Philippines has a good legal framework to manage wildlife and their habitats, actual implementation of its laws and regulatory mechanisms is inadequate to reduce the threats to the Philippine cockatoo.

CITES

The evaluation of the effectiveness of CITES as a regulatory mechanism is cross-referenced under Factor B, as CITES regulates international trade of wildlife. The Treaty requires CITES Parties to have in place adequate legislation for its implementation. Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to evaluate whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully implement the Treaty. In reviewing a country's national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates factors such as whether a Party's domestic laws designate the responsible Scientific and Management Authorities, prohibit trade contrary to the requirements of the Convention, have penalty provisions in place for illegal trade, and provide for seizure of specimens that are illegally traded or possessed. The Philippines has enacted domestic legislation to implement CITES. That legislation is currently being reviewed by the Secretariat to determine if it meets all the necessary criteria (CITES 2011a).

With respect to international trade, we found CITES to be an adequate existing regulatory mechanism for this species (see our analysis under Factor B for legal trade). See our analysis for the crimson shining parrot for additional discussion on how we made this determination. As discussed under Factor B, very few Philippine cockatoos have been legally exported from the Philippines since 2000. One operation in the Philippines is registered to export captive-bred specimens of this species for commercial purposes and appears to be adequately monitored and regulated. Based on the information available, CITES and the Government of the Philippines have effectively controlled legal international trade of this species.

Summary of Factor D

In summary, we find that the Government of the Philippines appears to have controlled legal international trade through CITES (see discussion under Factor B above). With respect to trade, the existing domestic regulatory mechanisms within the Philippines, as implemented, are inadequate to reduce or remove the current threats to the Philippine cockatoo in the wild based

on reports of poaching. As discussed under Factor B above, uncontrolled illegal domestic trade continues to adversely impact the Philippine cockatoo. Measures in place via the MOA and the PCCP provide some protection to the Philippine cockatoo. Through the MOA, this species is carefully monitored and managed in key areas where the species has a good chance of recovery, particularly in the Rasa Island Wildlife Sanctuary (Narra, Palawan). Despite efforts, management of protected areas encompassing this species' habitat is hindered due to the remoteness of protected areas, staff shortages, lack of technical expertise, and lack of funding; this is acknowledged by the local NGO (Widmann

et al.

2010a).

Even with government controls, poaching of cockatoos is relatively common in areas that are not protected. In addition, laws and regulations are frequently ignored, in part due to the difficulty in monitoring and enforcement throughout the multitude of islands in the Philippines. As discussed under Factors A and B above, we found that poaching, logging, and conversion of forests to agriculture and plantations are threats to the Philippine cockatoo. Despite regulatory mechanisms in place, illegal logging continues to be a leading cause of forest degradation in the Philippines (Laurance 2007, pp. 1544-1555; Rose 2008, p. 231). There is no information available to suggest these threats will change in the foreseeable future; therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms, as implemented, are inadequate to reduce or remove the current threats to the Philippine cockatoo.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species

Various other factors have been cited as being potential threats to this species. In addition to poaching, trapping, and deforestation (Boussekey 2000, p. 138) (refer to the discussions under Factors A and B, above), hunting (to protect crops), harassment by bees, and nest flooding have been observed to affect this species (Widmann

et al.

2001, pp. 139-140; Widmann

et al.

2007a, pp. 76-77, 79). Because this species has been viewed as an agricultural pest, it was often killed if it was thought to be consuming crops (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23). However, there is no indication that this practice still occurs. Nest flooding during a thunderstorm was observed to affect clutch survival during the 2000-2001 breeding season on Rasa Island (Widmann

et al.

2001, pp. 139-140). Although nest flooding may occur occasionally, the PCCP indicates that it is not a common occurrence, and we do not consider this to be a threat to the species.

Bees have been observed to attack cockatoos. In 2005, on Patnanungan Island, bees were documented attacking Philippine cockatoos (Widmann

et al.

2007a, pp. 76-77, 79). These cockatoos were unable to nest due to the close proximity of a beehive. The extent of competition with bees for nesting sites is not clear. Philippine cockatoos have been monitored for many years, and this is the only known report of nest site competition with bees. Therefore, it does not appear to be a significant factor affecting this species.

Other factors affecting the species include food shortages due to drought and the lack of suitable nesting cavities (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 25). The lack of suitable nesting sites in general is addressed under Factor A. In 2005, this species suffered from starvation on Rasa Island due to a food shortage during an El Niño drought year. However, several fledglings were rescued. Of these, 10 developed normally and were subsequently released (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 25). Additional factors affecting the species include the lack of suitable nesting cavities (in large, decayed trees) and possibly the lack of adequate food sources (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 6). Because this species has specific nutrition and habitat requirements, it was suggested that Rasa Island may be at carrying capacity due to limited habitat and food availability (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 25). Because Rasa Island is very small, with only 1.75 km

(0.6 mi

) of the island being coastal and mangrove forest, its suitable habitat is limited. As of 2009, Rasa Island had 64 nest trees, and as of 2010, there were 280 individual Philippine cockatoos on this island. There was a second starvation event in 2010 (Widmann

et al.

2010a, p. 6). At this time, we are unable to determine if limited food availability on this island and starvation due to drought are threats; however, the Rasa Island population is carefully monitored by the PCCP, and they intervene and manage the species if needed. Although in some years limited food availability may be a concern, we do not find that this factor rises to the level of a threat to the species. Further, the lack of suitable nesting cavities is being monitored and addressed by the PCCP. At this time, there is no evidence that bees or nest flooding are threats to the species.

Small and Declining Population

The Philippine cockatoo has a contracted geographic range and a small, rapidly declining population, primarily due to poaching. There are between 450 and 1,245 individuals left remaining in the wild, distributed on eight islands (BLI 2011, p. 1). In many cases, the Philippine cockatoo is now geographically isolated from other populations. Additionally, because it is an island species that generally mates for life and is long-lived, it is extremely vulnerable to localized extinctions. Species with small populations are significantly influenced by individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, p. 27), immigration and emigration rates, and changes in population sex ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert to negatively affect reproduction (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, p. 27).

Prior to the 1980s, the Philippine cockatoo was common throughout the Philippines (Boussekey 2000, p. 138; Cameron 2007, p. 34). Its existing populations are extremely localized due to habitat loss and its preference for lowland primary and secondary forest, which is also preferred human habitat. PCCP suggests that a rapid population reduction may occur in the future based on low recruitment in recent years, especially for unprotected populations (Widmann 2011a, pers. comm.). In the Rizal (South Palawan) area, which was protected only recently, there are no indications of recovery. Only one breeding pair exists outside of this cockatoo reserve, and this area was poached within the past 2 years. Breeding here did not occur in the 2009-2010 season. Since all nests have been systematically poached in this area over many years, extinction of this population might occur suddenly due to lack of reproduction success. This is partly a consequence of mating characteristics of this species: It is long-lived and generally mates for life. At least two birds persist inside the protected area, but they have not bred in the past 4 years (Widmann 2011a, pers. comm.).

Small, isolated populations of wildlife species such as the Philippine cockatoo that have gone through a reduction in population numbers can be susceptible to demographic and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 130-134). Factors that could affect their susceptibility include: Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of individuals; changes in gene frequencies due to genetic drift; diminished genetic

diversity and associated effects due to inbreeding (

i.e.,

inbreeding depression); dispersal of just a few individuals; a few clutch failures; a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring over just 1 or a few years; and chance mortality of just a few reproductive-age individuals. These small, rapidly declining populations are also susceptible to natural levels of environmental variability and related “catastrophic” events (

e.g.,

severe storms, extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we refer to as environmental stochasticity (Dunham

et al.

1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412).

Threats to species typically operate synergistically. Initial effects of one threat factor can later exacerbate the effects of other threat factors (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, pp. 25-26). Any further fragmentation of populations may likely result in the further removal or dispersal of individuals. The lack of a sufficient number of individuals in a local area or a decline in their individual or collective fitness may also cause a decline in the population size, despite the presence of suitable habitat patches.

The combined effects of habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A) and threats associated with small, declining, and isolated populations (Factor E) on a species' population are referred to as patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can have profound effects on fragmented populations and can potentially reduce a species' effective population by orders of magnitude (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat fragmentation can separate populations to the point where individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soulé 1986, p. 31). Furthermore, as a species' status continues to decline, often as a result of deterministic forces such as habitat loss or overutilization, it becomes increasingly vulnerable to a broad array of other forces. Despite the mitigation and conservation measures in place, if this trend continues, its ultimate extinction due to one or more stochastic events becomes more likely. Given the species' dispersed nature, the fact that it is a long-lived species that generally mates for life, and that the largest population is approximately 280 individuals, we find that this factor threatens the continued existence of this species. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, we conclude that based on its small, rapidly declining population, the Philippine cockatoo is at risk of extinction, particularly when combined with the other threats.

Summary of Factor E

Several other factors were identified as affecting the success of this species such as harassment by bees, nest flooding, and starvation. These factors are a normal occurrence in the ecology of this species, and we do not find that these factors significantly affect this species such that they rise to the level of a threat. However, we find that its small, rapidly declining population, when combined with the other threats of habitat loss and poaching, is a threat to the species throughout its range.

Finding for the Philippine Cockatoo

We considered the five factors in assessing whether the Philippine cockatoo is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Philippine cockatoo. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized Philippine cockatoo experts and local and international NGOs.

The primary factors affecting the Philippine cockatoo include habitat loss and habitat degradation and poaching for the pet trade. Habitat loss associated with logging, an expanding human population and associated development, conversion of lowland forests to agriculture are the some of the greatest threats to the continued survival of this species (BLI 2001, p. 1685; Galang 2004, pp. 5-22; Posa

et al.

2008, pp. 231-236; Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23; Widmann

et al.

2010, p. 14). Habitat loss due to the above activities continues to occur; this species' population is declining range wide as a result.

Based on the best available information, poaching is still occurring, despite education and public awareness campaigns and protections in place at the national level (Widmann

et al.

2010c., p. 13). Awareness campaigns have been conducted on Mindanao, Palawan, and Polillo Islands (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). On Dumaran Island, the Katala Pride Campaign has focused on raising awareness among students and farmers. Trilingual conservation posters have been distributed throughout the Philippines, and in 1992, a captive-breeding program was initiated. This species is being intensely managed in some areas, but the management and protection of the species is hampered by the lack of resources, its remote island habitat, and by the nature of this species' life-history characteristics (such as the tendency to mate for life and they do not reproduce until a late age). Efforts to improve the habitat of this species (

e.g.,

reforestation, building of nest boxes) are continuing and may improve its habitat and population numbers. In Polillo, Dumaran, and Rasa, the species may slowly increase in population numbers, but in other areas, the species' population continues to decline. The best population estimates of this species were compiled in the early 1990s, at which time the population was estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,000 individuals (Snyder

et al.

2000). Experts believe the population is now between 450 and 1,245 individuals, and most populations are fairly well monitored (Widmann

et al.

2010); however, poaching for the domestic pet trade continues to be a threat to the species. It is unlikely that this species' rapidly declining and small population can withstand this level of poaching. Therefore, we find overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) is a threat to the Philippine cockatoo.

We found no evidence that diseases significantly affect the wild Philippine cockatoo population. Other avian species, particularly cockatoo species, are susceptible to avian diseases, but there was no evidence that disease occurs in the wild to an extent that it is a threat to this species. Predation was not found to affect Philippine cockatoo populations. Based on the best available information, we conclude that disease and predation (Factor C) are not threats to the species.

The Philippine cockatoo is classified as a protected species by the Philippine government. The current range of the Philippine cockatoo is much smaller than its historical range (BLI 2010b). However, as a result of conservation efforts by the various entities working to ensure long-term conservation of the Philippine cockatoo, its range may slowly increase, but current efforts are indicating mixed levels of success. Despite conservation efforts of various entities, we have determined that existing regulatory mechanisms continue to be inadequate because habitat loss and poaching are still occurring (Factor D). In summary, we conclude that inadequate regulatory mechanisms are a threat to the Philippine cockatoo.

This species has a small and rapidly declining population. This species no longer exists in many of the areas where it occurred historically. This species is in competition with humans for habitat;

development and related infrastructure take the place of its habitat. Within its current range, where there are few viable populations remaining, the PCCP is managing the species to the best of its ability; however, the PCCP acknowledges that this species still faces a rapid population reduction in the future based on low recruitment in recent years, especially for unprotected populations. When combined with other threats, and when considering its fragmented population, we conclude that its small, rapidly declining population is a threat to the species (Factor E). Due to this species' extremely small, declining, and fragmented population and due to the existing threats (Factors A, B, D, and E), it is currently in danger of extinction.

Despite the conservation measures in place, this species faces severe threats, and the population trend for this species continues to decline. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the Philippine cockatoo is in danger of extinction (endangered) throughout all of its range. We do not find that the effects of current threats acting on the species are likely to be sufficiently ameliorated in the foreseeable future. These threats are consistent throughout its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Philippine cockatoo as endangered is warranted throughout its range, and we propose to list the Philippine cockatoo as endangered under the ESA.

Species Information

C. White cockatoo (

Cacatua alba

)

Taxonomy and Species Description

The white cockatoo is also known as the umbrella cockatoo. ITIS, CITES, and BirdLife International recognize the species as

Cacatua alba

(BLI 2010). Therefore, we accept the species as

C. alba.

The white cockatoo is completely white except for the underside of its wings and tail, which are pale yellow. It has a long, backward-curving white crest on its head. Its bill is grey-black, and it has a white bare eye-ring. The bird has either yellowish-white or slightly grey-blue legs.

Population Estimates

Population estimates for the white cockatoo vary, in part due to the remoteness of the islands where this species exists. Population estimates prior to 2000 indicated that the Lalobata protected area on Halmahera Island contained between 28,500 and 42,900 white cockatoos (MacKinnon

et al.

1995; Snyder

et al.

2000, p. 67), although they did not survey lowland forest, which they thought may contain more white cockatoos. The white cockatoo was described as being common in the early 1990s. Survey work carried out in 1991 and 1992 suggested a population estimate of between 49,765 and 212,430 birds (Lambert 1993a; Snyder

et al.

2000, p. 671; BLI 2010c, p. 1). BLI reported that the total population is between 43,000 and 183,000 mature individuals; however, this population estimate is based on 1993 data (Lambert 1993 in BLI 2010). Burung Indonesia estimated that based on surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009, there are between 8,629 and 48,393 white cockatoos remaining in the wild (Burung Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.) on Halmahera Island.

Distribution, Habitat, Biology

While the exact life span is unknown, reports of the white cockatoo's lifespan vary between 20 and 50 years in captivity (Lambert 1993, p. 147; Jordan 2010, pers. comm.). Wild-caught birds have been reported not to breed until they are 6 years old. The highest productive period for the white cockatoo is between 6 and 20 years (Jordan 2010, pers. comm.). However, some pairs have been recorded to breed well into their thirties, and a few exceptions have been reported with pairs or individuals that have reproduced into their forties or fifties (Lambert 1993, p. 147). Clutch-size of white cockatoos in captivity is reported to be 2 to 3 eggs per season, and incubation takes 25 to 28 days; nestlings reside in the nest approximately 90 days before fledging (Cameron 2007, p. 140). Both parents share responsibility for raising chicks, and the species is thought to be monogamous for life.

The white cockatoo is endemic to a few islands in North Maluku, Indonesia, and it inhabits primary, logged, and secondary forests possibly up to 900 m (2,953 ft) (IUCN 2008h). It is not thought to inhabit forests on ultra basic rock (BLI 2001, p. 1674). This species is believed to occur in three protected areas: Gunung Sibela Strict Nature Reserve on Bacan Island (although this site is threatened by agricultural encroachment and gold prospecting), and Aketajawe Nature Reserve and the Lalobata Protected Forest (ALNP), both on Halmahera Island (BLI 2010). Historically, its range has been the islands of Halmahera, Bacan, Ternate, Tidore, Kasiruta and Mandiole in North Maluku (Snyder

et al.

2000, p. 67; BLI 2010c). ALNP consists of approximately 167,300 hectares (413,407 acres) of primary and secondary forest. This total area represents 7.5 percent of Halmahera Island (Burung International 2010, pers. comm). Now the white cockatoo is thought to only inhabit Halmahera and Bacan Islands (Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2010, pers. comm.). The Bacan Island group, also known as Palau Batjan, is about 16 km (10 mi) southwest of Halmahera Island. Little is known about the status of the species other than on Halmahera Island. Due to the lack of information, this status review only addresses its status on Halmahera Island unless otherwise specified.

The Maluku Islands are also known as the Moluccas or the Spice Islands, and they are between Sulawesi and New Guinea, below the Philippines. The white cockatoo, like most cockatoos, is a resident (nonmigratory) species, but cockatoos are strong fliers, and they will likely travel to nearby islands in search of habitat or food, if it is not readily available. The highest densities of this species occur in primary (old-growth) forest (BLI 2009; Burung International 2011), but the species seems to tolerate some habitat modification. White cockatoos inhabit mangroves, plantations (including coconut), and agricultural land (BLI 2010c). This species requires large trees for nesting and roosting, is often observed feeding in large flocks, and eats seeds, fruit, and insects. Their preferred nesting holes were observed to be situated at points where large branches had broken off the main trunk (Lambert 1993, p. 146).

Halmahera (also known as Jilolo or Gilolo Island) is the largest island in the North Maluku province, and is 17,780 km

(6,865 mi

) in size. Its annual precipitation is 2,000 to 3,000 mm (79 to 118 in). Halmahera, a four-pronged island, is considered to be a biodiversity hotspot (Myers

et al.

2000 in Setiadi

et al.

2010, p. 560). North Maluku province consists of eight provincial districts: North Halmahera, West Halmahera, East Halmahera, Central Halmahera, South Halmahera, Ternate Municipality, Tidore City and Islands, and Sula Islands. In North Halmahera, the number of districts on the island has recently increased to 22, and the number of villages has increased from 174 to 260. The human population in Maluku Province in 2010 was estimated to be 1,531,402 (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Maluku 2010). Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park, established in 2004, was the first national park established in North Maluku (Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan No. SK.397/MenHut-II/2004), and is described as being one of the most pristine and unvisited areas in all of Indonesia.

Bacan, a smaller island to the southwest of Halmahera, is also

inhabited by the white cockatoo, although very little is known about the status of the species here. This remote, sparsely populated island is not well known. It is 1,900 km² (733 mi

) in area and still contains relatively undisturbed forests. A recent human population estimate is between 13,000 and 59,000 individuals, and the majority resides on the west side of the island, in the capital (Labuha) and nearby villages. The current number of white cockatoos on the island is unknown. Reports from locals indicated that the species had declined on Bacan due to trapping between the 1970s and 1980s (Lambert 1993, p. 146). Surveys conducted here in 1985 found only 76 white cockatoos. In 1991, the population on Bacan and its satellite islands was estimated to be 7,220 to 29,300 white cockatoos (Lambert 1993a, b), but this may be an overestimate of the population size based on the survey methods used (Gilardi 2011, pers. comm.).

Accuracy of survey methodologies varies (Thomas 1996, pp. 49-58; Pollack 2006, p. 882; Thomas

et al.

2009, pp. 5-14), and there are limits to how much confidence we can place in various population surveys (Royle and Nichols 2003). One researcher pointed out that differing methodologies can result in differences in at least an order of magnitude. In situations where species are rare or have small populations, the number of observations made per survey may be very small and the number of sites limited, and, therefore, estimates and projections may not be accurate (Marsden 1999, pp. 377-390; Pollack 2006, p. 891). In some areas, suitable habitat may have been recently disturbed due to habitat modification and infrastructure development. As a result, species' breeding, nesting, and forage habitat have subsequently been destroyed, and the birds are dispersing. It may appear as though the population is larger than it actually is due to sightings in new locations or the perception that the species is more common because it has been displaced from its original habitat.

In the case of white cockatoos, the population estimate may not be accurate based on the survey methodology used and the inferences made. A recent survey indicated that the population density estimation for this species in the Aketajawe block was between 1.6 and 8.9 individuals per km

(Burung 2011, pp. 1-5). From this survey, a projection was made to the surrounding area of 5,462 km

(2,109 mi

) of the remaining natural forest area in the vicinity of the national park. Based on this projection, Burung estimated the population in the western Halmahera natural forests was 8,630 to 48,393 individuals. This estimate may be optimistic based, in part, on the studies described above (Marsden 1999, pp. 377-390; Royle and Nichols 2003, p. 777; Pollock 2006, p. 882). In addition, because the survey extrapolated the population density for the surrounding area outside of the Aketajawe block (which contains less suitable habitat for the species and is more accessible to poachers) from the estimated density within the Aketajawe Nature Reserve (which contains the preferred habitat for the species and is less accessible to poachers), the density levels outside of the Aketajawe Nature Reserve may be an overestimate. Assuming that there were anywhere between 8,629 and 48,393 individuals on Halmahera in 2009 and there was an estimated 49,765 to 212,430 individuals in 1992, this trend in population estimates indicates a decrease in the population. This decrease is extremely likely based on the negative effects of habitat loss and poaching that are commonly known to occur on this island.

Recent local anecdotal accounts of this species' population also vary. One recent observation was that the population of white cockatoos was thought to be “very sparse” (WCS 2010, pers. comm.) and rapidly declining (BLI 2010c, p. 1). Populations were conversely described as still being relatively widespread across Halmahera Island, and birds were occasionally observed in flocks (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). In November 2010, this species was observed daily, with flocks up to 23 birds observed during a recent 5-day trip to Halmahera (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). However, local people consider them to have declined from former population levels.

We have no recent estimate of the population on Bacan Island. Although the last estimate, in 1993, was between 7,220 to 29,300 individuals on Bacan Island, a 1985 survey only found 76 cockatoos. We are unsure of the population trend. Further, in 1993, there were reported to be over 100 people who regularly trapped parrots on Bacan, and this practice was a major source of income (Lambert 1993, p. 155). Poaching is a common practice in Indonesia, and it likely still occurs with regularity on Bacan Island.

Conservation Status for the White Cockatoo

The white cockatoo has been listed in Appendix II of CITES since 1981. It is listed on the 2010 IUCN Red list as vulnerable. It is also protected in the U.S. by the WBCA (refer to discussion under the Crimson Shining Parrot, factor D). The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of exotic birds and to ensure that international trade involving the United States does not harm exotic birds. Although there is a national ban against harvest for the white cockatoo, the quota is not effective at eliminating poaching in the wild. Cockatoos are still poached and smuggled into local markets illegally (ProFauna Indonesia 2008, pp. 1-9; ProFauna 2010). The white cockatoo is not listed as a protected species by the Indonesian Republic Forestry Ministry (WCS 2010, pers. comm.).

Information available suggests that a few local protections are in fairly preliminary stages but occurring. Existence of the Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park on Halmahera may serve to reduce hunting pressure and habitat loss if game wardens are monitoring the park. Also on Halmahera, some of the foreign-owned mining operations are considering their environmental impact (see Factor A discussion on mining). Very few private or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operate in the area, in part due to the lack of funding available. Burung Indonesia (

http://www.burung.org

) does some work in this area, mostly in relation to the national park, and there is another local NGO, Konservasi Alam Maluku Utara (KAMU), that is working to try to protect this species (Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2010, pers. comm.). There may be carbon-funded forest protection projects starting in the area that also may convey protection measures, but none is operating yet.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the White Cockatoo

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

It is commonly accepted that deforestation and habitat loss is a significant problem in Indonesia (Galang 2004, p. 14; Laurance 2007, p. 1544; BLI 2010k, p. 1). Indonesia consists of 17,508 islands and 33 provinces. It is a rapidly developing country, with a population of 230 million (United Nations 2009, p. 11). It is the world's fourth most populous country (United Nations 2009, p. 11). Countries with the highest human population growth rates tend to have the highest rates of deforestation as well (Laurance 2007, p. 1545). As available land becomes more scarce, companies and humans move towards more remote areas in search of resources (BLI 2008, p. 100). Human settlements and plantations are typically located in

lowland coastal areas, which is the white cockatoo's preferred habitat (Smiet 1985, pp. 181, 183). The habitat required by the white cockatoo has been impacted by activities such as conversion of its habitat to uses such as development of towns, mining, and logging (particularly illegal logging, which generally fails to use sustainable logging practices) (Lambert 1993, p. 146). Pressure on the islands' resources is increasing (

http://www.indonesia-tourism.com/north-maluku/halmahera_history.html

), in part from the increase in human population on the island, a demand for more resources such as biofuel and agriculture, and to a lesser extent, an increase in ecotourism. Historically, 75 percent of the population on Halmahera has depended on farming or fishing for their livelihood, but this is changing as investors and human development move to the island.

Part of the Indonesian government's long-term planning strategy is to develop more efficient agriculture to help alleviate poverty. For example, the government of Indonesia has sold land to a company called the Sustainable Pacific Corporation (SPC), which purchased 300,000 ha (750,000 ac) of land to be used for organic agriculture and livestock breeding, agricultural packing houses, warehouses, tourism, and a sea port (

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2412420/halmahera_a_world_sustainable_development.html?cat=3

and

http://worldteakplantation.itrademarket.com/profile/sustainable-pacific-corp.htm,

accessed February 23, 2011). An essential part of this process is infrastructure development, primarily the improvement of roads, which can lead to further illegal logging and land clearance, and also facilitates bird trapping (poaching). This initiative will likely convert land that is currently suitable white cockatoo habitat into land for other uses that are no longer suitable for this species, such as

Jatropha curcas

plantations, which are discussed below.

Logging

Illegal logging is considered to be a leading cause of forest degradation in Indonesia (Rhee

et al.

2004, chap. 6, p. 7). Between 2000 and 2005, Indonesia's forest cover declined by more than 90,000 km

(34,740 mi

). Unsustainable logging practices that destroy the forest canopy also reduce habitat available to the white cockatoo (Lusli 2008, p. 22). Logging creates a network of roads, which can lead to secondary problems (BLI 2008k, p. 6), such as providing access for poachers. The Center for International Forestry Research estimated that between 55 and 75 percent of logging in Indonesia is illegal (

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org,

accessed December 10, 2010). Jepson and Ladle (2005, pp. 442-448) concluded that illegal logging was becoming semi-legal and the

de facto

arrangement for governing Indonesia's forests. Illegal logging is pervasive, and the Indonesian government has been unable to enforce protected forest boundaries (Barr 2001, p. 40; Laurance 2007, pp. 1544-1547). Illegal logging activities include: Overharvesting beyond legal and sustainable quotas, harvesting trees from steep slopes and riparian habitat, illegal timber harvest and land encroachment in conservation areas and protected forests, and falsification of documents. Overexploitation of the forests and illegal logging are driven by the wood-processing industry, which is reported to consume at least six times the officially allowed harvest (Rhee

et al.

2004, p. xvii, chap. 6, p. 8). Illegal logging in national parks is reported with regularity, and the people involved have in the past been armed and described as being ruthless (Whitten

et al.

2001, p. 2).

Selective logging is the primary legal method used for the extraction of timber in Indonesia (BLI 2008k, p. 6). In selective logging, the most valuable trees from a forest are commercially extracted (Johns 1988, p. 31), and the forest is left to regenerate naturally or with some management until being subsequently logged again. Johns (1988, p. 31), studying a West Malaysian dipterocarp forest, found that mechanized selective logging in tropical rain forests, which usually removes a small percentage of timber trees, caused severe incidental damage. The extraction of 3 percent of trees destroyed 51 percent of the forest. He concluded that this type of logging reduced the availability of food sources for frugivores (fruit-eaters). Loggers occasionally find parrots, including

Cacatua alba,

in commercially valuable trees that they fell, such as

Anisoptera

(locally known as mersawa) in the Dipterocarpaceae family. The white cockatoo has been observed in commercially valuable trees such as

Anisoptera

and

Canarium

species (kenari or kiharpan) (Lambert 1993, p. 146). The most recent BLI assessment stated that much of the habitat for the species was still intact, and even where degraded, the species used degraded areas. This was confirmed by WCS, which indicated that the islands of Halmahera and Bacan still have extensive forest cover; however, as selective logging targets mature trees, it can have a disproportionate impact on hole-nesters, such as cockatoos, because fewer nest sites remain (BLI 2008k, p. 6).

Although almost 80 percent of its original forest is still intact, the Halmahera Rain Forests ecoregion (including Bacan Island) still faces habitat deforestation threats. As the forests are lost on other Indonesian islands, there is an increasing potential for forestry operations to move to Halmahera and other islands with large, desirable trees. Despite Presidential Instruction No. 4/2005 to eradicate illegal logging in forest areas and distribution of illegally cut timber throughout Indonesia (FAOLEX 2009, p. 1), illegal logging continues (refer to Factor D discussion). Contributing factors include poor forest management practices, rapid decentralization of government, abuse of local political powers, complicity of the military and police in some areas of the country, inconsistent law enforcement, and dwindling power of the central government (USAID 2004, pp. 3, 9; Laurence 2007, p. 1544).

Although illegal logging still occurs, the Indonesian government is actively working to conserve its resources. The year 2011 was declared the International Year of Forests. Many countries, including Indonesia, are working towards reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (termed REDD) (Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia 2008, 185 pp.). Despite these efforts, illegal logging still occurs within this species' range.

Mining

Mining and its associated impacts is a fairly new factor affecting this species. Several companies have mining rights in the Maluku area, particularly on Halmahera (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). PT Antam, the largest mining company in Indonesia, currently operates three nickel mines on the northeast prong of Halmahera (PT Antam 2009). Another mining company, PT Nusa Halmahera Mineral (NHM), is a joint venture company between Newcrest Mining of Australia and PT Antam Tbk, an Indonesian-owned company. They have an exploration license for Bacan and nearby islands to look for gold and other minerals. A third mining company has a license to mine nickel near Ake Tajawi on Halmahera (WWF 2010a).

Two gold mines have been in operation on Halmahera (Newcrest Mining 2010, p. 1). The Gosowong mine was an open-pit, cyanide-leach mine that operated from 1999 to 2002, and is now closed. The Toguraci mine began

operation in 2004. Toguraci is located 2 km (1.2 mi) southwest of the original Gosowong pit mine. This mining operation is operated by a joint venture company, Pt Nusa Halmahera Minerals (PTNHM) and PT Aneka Tambang. Development of this mine began in July 2003, after approval of a feasibility study and environmental impact statement by the Indonesian Minister of Mines. Actual mining of ore and the first gold production began in February 2004. This mine has been the subject of conflict between local residents and the mining company. Between October and December 2003, several illegal miners occupied the Toguraci mine site. Additionally, the mine is located in a forested area that, according to local residents, is protected under Indonesian law, and, therefore, mining operations should not be allowed. The current operating status of the Toguraci mine is unclear; however, local NGOs indicate that mining on Halmahera does affect the white cockatoo (Vetter 2009, pp. 2, 14, 15; WCS 2010, pers. comm.). Mining activities can affect the white cockatoo's habitat either directly or indirectly, through pressures such as illegal poaching or human encroachment and habitat disturbance.

Yet another mining company, PT Weda Bay Nickel, proposed a nickel and cobalt mining project in 2009 on the island and has submitted an environmental monitoring plan (PT Weda Bay Nickel 2009, 204 pp.; Cardiff 2010, pp. 1-14). The footprint of the mining operation appears to be within the boundaries of Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park (Vetter 2009, p. 19; Cardiff 2010, p. 1), which could have significant detrimental effects on Halmahera's wildlife, including the white cockatoo. A review of the proposed mining project indicated that it would likely destroy between 4,000 and 11,000 hectares (9,884 and 27,182 acres) of tropical forest, and between 2,000 and 6,000 ha (4,942 and 14,826 ac) of protected forested area (Cardiff 2010, pp. 6, 9, 12). The review indicated that mining activities are extremely destructive to this habitat. Based on deforestation projections, the population of the white cockatoo is projected to decline more than 65 percent over three generations due to deforestation (Vetter 2009, pp. 25, 26, 51). It is unclear whether this mining operation will be approved, or if there will be mitigation measures required; however, it is clear that the extractable resources on Halmahera are desirable, and mining will very likely have a significant negative impact on this species and its habitat.

Biofuel Production

Indonesia is investing in the planting of

Jatropha curcas

trees and palm oil (

Elaeis guineesis

) (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom 2008, pp. xvii, 47, 64, 65). Rapid expansion of biofuel plantations has led to intense international concern about wide-scale environmental impacts. On Halmahera, at least 500 hectares (3,750 acres) have been allotted for cultivating the Jatropha tree (Consulate General of the Republic of Indonesia 2006, pp. 5-6). Many industries, such as the air transportation industry, are considering the use of fuel from Jatropha as a biofuel source, and it is also being encouraged as a mechanism for carbon credits (

http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org, http://www.jatrophaworld.org,

http://www.jatropha-alliance.org

). This oil has been reported to produce energy similar to diesel fuel. Although this species may yield 4 times as much fuel per hectare as soybeans, and possibly 10 times that of corn, it requires 5 times more water to produce than corn. It is also reported to be desirable to developing countries because its carbon emissions footprint is thought to be relatively small when burned.

Conversion of land to monocultures destroys white cockatoo habitat. Monocultures are generally not suitable habitat for wildlife. White cockatoos require large trees, which provide large enough nesting cavity sites, and

Jatropha curcas

trees require many years to reach a size that would be suitable for nesting. This will likely also have a negative impact on this species' suitable habitat due to road building, infrastructure development, other construction (Vetter 2009, pp. 1-10). Additionally, because there is currently no effective enforcement body to monitor sustainable land development (also refer to Factor D discussion) on Halmahera, these activities threaten white cockatoo habitat. Therefore, we find that conversion of forests to monocultures for biofuel, particularly Jatropha, is a threat to the white cockatoo.

Summary of Factor A

Deforestation affects endemic bird species restricted to single islands more severely than it affects other species (Brooks

et al.

1997, p. 392). Monocultures such as exotic tree plantations, agriculture, conversion to human habitat, resource extraction, agriculture, and logging are forms of deforestation and habitat loss affecting endemic island species such as the white cockatoo in Indonesia (Laurance 2007, p. 1544). Lowland areas that offer vital habitat for Indonesia's cockatoos have been the most severely impacted (Cameron 2007, p. 177; Vetter 2009, p. 4). As islands become more inhabited and deforested, humans move to other islands that contain available resources (Laurance 2007, p. 1544).

Cockatoos are highly impacted by selective logging of primary forests. Selective logging, which targets mature trees, has a negative impact on cavity-nesters such as the white cockatoo. Research found that the abundance of cockatoos is positively related to the density of its favored nesting trees (large trees that would be impacted by logging), especially since reduced-impact logging techniques are rarely applied. Once the primary forest is logged, experience on other nearby Indonesian islands shows that the secondary forest is generally converted to other uses or logged again rather than being allowed to return to primary forest. Although cockatoos may continue to inhabit secondary forests, the population will be at a substantially lower number. Additionally, species are often found in secondary forest or recently altered forest habitat; however, this habitat tends to be marginal, and the effects on the species' population may not be evident. The trend of high loss of primary forests and degradation of secondary forests is a concern, in part because little is known about the reproductive ecology of white cockatoos in the wild, including breeding success in mature forests versus secondary forests, and whether this species of cockatoo will survive in degraded forests in the long term.

In summary, habitat modification and deforestation activities, such as conversion of primary or secondary forests to exotic tree plantations for biofuel production, agriculture, and human habitat, combined with selective logging and resource extraction (mining), are likely to destroy much of the white cockatoo's habitat (the lowland rain forests of Halmahera) in the near future. While this species may be tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other disturbed sites, these areas do not represent optimal conditions for the species. Based on these factors, we find that the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat is a threat to the continued existence of the white cockatoo throughout all of its range.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

The primary threat to white cockatoos is poaching from the wild to meet the

demand for the pet trade (Jepson and Ladle 2005, p. 442; Defenders 2007, p. 7; ProFauna 2008; BLI 2010c). It is well established that illegal collection for the pet trade is a major problem for wild birds in Indonesia and is the primary threat to this species (BLI 2003, pp. 1-2; ProFauna 2008, pp. 1-9; ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). Bird-keeping is a popular pastime in Indonesia, with deep cultural roots (Jepson and Ladle 2005, p. 442). Parrots have been traded for hundreds of years by people living in the Moluccas. One report indicated that 17 percent of the global population was captured for trade in 1991 alone (Lambert 1993, p. 160). As of 1999, there appeared to be no enforcement of the zero export quota; cockatoos were widely available in local markets.

In 2002, an investigation found 500 white cockatoos were caught to supply the pet trade (ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). In addition, parrots are an important part of the Indonesian culture, which creates significant demand for parrots domestically (BLI 2008k, p. 10). In a survey on bird-keeping among households in five major Indonesian cities, Jepson and Ladle (2005, pp. 442-448) found that as many as 2.5 million birds are kept in the five cities. Of these, 60,230 wild-caught, native parrots were kept by 51,000 households, and 50,590 wild-caught, native parrots were acquired each year (changed hands, not an indication of birds taken from the wild each year). The study recommended a conservation intervention based on the level of bird-keeping among urban Indonesians. As of 2006, an average of 100 white cockatoos were found for sale in bird markets in Java annually (ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). The sale of live parrots can be a significant source of income. Parrots can sell for 75,000 to 500,000 Indonesian Ruphiahs (IDR or Rp) each, which equates to between $7.50 and $50 U.S. dollars. A young cockatoo can sell for $20 to $25 USD (ProFauna 2008, p. 3; Sasaoka 2009, pers. comm., pp. 1-2; ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). In 1993, cockatoos were described as generally rare in the Java and Bali markets; only two white cockatoos, or 1.2 percent of parrots for sale, were seen in these markets visited (Lambert 1993, p. 158). However, of 381 parrots of 19 species observed at markets in Indonesia, white cockatoo was represented by 11 pets (9.7 percent) and 44 individuals (11.5 percent) in the market sample.

Between 1993 and 2002, although Indonesia had reported the export of 712 wild-caught birds, import records from other CITES countries recorded 1,646 (Cahill

et al.

2006, p. 162; UNEP-WCMC 2010). Discrepancies in the UNEP-WCMC Trade Database are common. For example, the Service found a report in 2009 of one shipment of white cockatoo to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from South Africa that was reported as 965 by the UAE; however, there was no corresponding export entry from South Africa (UNEP-WCMC 2010). The largest shipment from South Africa in 2009 to the UAE was 614, so we believ

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.