Helen Sykes - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Helen Sykes

WCS, 2019

Bleaching was higher at on shallow (1–3 m) compared to deeper reefs (8–15 m). Overall, coral blea... more Bleaching was higher at on shallow (1–3 m) compared to deeper reefs (8–15 m). Overall, coral bleaching levels were con-
sidered low to moderate across Fiji in 2019 in comparison to bleaching levels recorded in 2000–2002 and 2006, when
mass coral bleaching events caused coral mortality across Fiji. Field-based observations in 2019 suggest that the bleaching
did not persist and most corals had returned to normal by May and June.

Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2011

We quantified the economic revenues generated by shark diving and the distribution of these reven... more We quantified the economic revenues generated by shark diving and the distribution of these
revenues to the principal local stakeholders involved with the industry, including businesses,
government and local community.
Shark-diving contributed US $42.2 million to the economy of Fiji, a sum composed of revenues
generated by the industry combined with the taxes paid by shark-divers to the government.
This estimate was based on self-administered questionnaires designed to collect information on the
costs and benefit of the shark-diving industry. We conducted the study in August/September 2011
and distributed questionnaires on the islands of Viti Levu (including the islands of Nananu-i-Ra and
Beqa), Vanua Levu, Taveuni and Kadavu, the Yasawa and Mamanuca groups. Questionnaires were
answered by 289 divers, 18 dive operators, six resort managers (surveyed at Pacific Harbour and
Coral Coast only), 14 dive guides and nine local subsistence fishers from villages that regularly
received payment from shark-diving operators for the use of the reef of which they are the
traditional owners.
We took a conservative approach to all calculations in order to reduce the risk of over-estimating
the value of shark-diving to the Fijian economy
We calculated the economic revenue of shark-diving to Fiji based on three key pieces of information:
(1) Total number of divers visiting the country and the proportion of tourists engaged in dive
activities from the Fiji International Visitor Survey 2009
(2) All expenditures of the divers visiting Fiji primarily to engage in shark-diving activities
(“dedicated shark-divers”) as revealed by our surveys;
(3) The expenditures of divers who visited Fiji for reasons other than diving with sharks, but
chose to engage in shark-diving while in the country (“casual shark-divers”) as revealed by
our surveys. Expenditures of these divers were allocated as the proportion of their trip
spent shark diving, rather than for their entire visit.
In 2010 we estimated that approximately 49,000 divers were engaged in shark-diving activities in Fiji
accounting for 78% of the 63,000 divers visiting the country. Dedicated and casual shark-divers
accounted for 24% and 54% of all divers we interviewed respectively.
The shark-diving industry contributed US $17.5 million in taxes to the government, a sum composed
of corporate taxes from shark-diving (US $11.6 million) and the direct taxes from shark-divers (US
$5.9 million)
A minimum of US $4 million was generated annually by shark-diving for local communities. This
revenue consisted of salaries paid by the industry to employees (US $3.9 million annually) and
community levies paid by dive operators to traditional owners in villages for access to reefs (US
$124,200 annually). Employees of the dive industry were predominantly Fijian (13 of 14 dive guides
who responded to surveys).
Community levies from shark-diving have played a significant role in promoting the conservation of
reefs through systems of traditional ownership.

Viti Levu hosted the largest number of dedicated and casual shark-divers (17,000) with Pacific
Harbour accounting for around 50% of the shark-divers, or approximately 8,600 tourists. The
Mamanuca/Yasawa group also hosted a large number of shark-divers (11,000) while Vanua
Levu/Taveuni hosted approximately 3,600. Kadavu had only 17% of divers identified as casual shark-
divers and no dedicated shark-divers interviewed during our survey.
Shark-diving generated approximately US $10.2 million on Viti Levu (63% of business revenues from
diving) and US $3.2 million (40% of the business revenues) in the Mamanuca/Yasawa groups.

Biophysically special, unique marine areas of FIJI, 2017

Fiji is committed to, and is embarking upon, a process to significantly increase the number and c... more Fiji is committed to, and is embarking upon, a process to significantly increase the number and coverage of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) within the country.
To help deliver on this commitment, the Marine Working Group of the Fiji national Protected Area Committee (PAC),
established under the Environmental Management Act 2005, requested a review of previous efforts to describe marine
priority sites for Fiji. To this end, the then Department of Environment (now Ministry of Environment) and the then
Ministry of Fisheries and Forests (now Ministry of Fisheries) convened an expert workshop on the 19th and 20th July
2016. The Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific Island Countries (MACBIO) Project 1 and the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) supported the workshop.
The objectives of the workshop were to review previous efforts to identify marine priority sites and prepare a report, with
maps, identifying updated Special, Unique Marine Areas (SUMAs) for Fiji.
Prior to the workshop, participants were provided with a range of resource material including, reports and maps from the
earlier prioritisation studies. During the workshop additional information was made available, largely maps and GIS with
new biophysical, spatial data. On the first day, participants were spilt into regional groups to review, amend and, in some
cases, add new site descriptions to the earlier work.
On the second day, participants were asked to rate each site based on the following criteria:
■ ■ Amount, detail, and nature of biological justification
■ ■ Geographic explicitness
■ ■ Information sources
■ ■ National or international obligations
A technical expert, who participated in the workshop, and who was familiar with a range of marine environments across
the Fiji Islands was engaged to review and compile the information gathered at the expert workshop. Post workshop
research was also conducted, through one-on-one interviews and additional mini-workshops. This information, together
with the workshop has been almagamated into this report. In total, 98 inshore and offshore Special, Unique Marine Areas
(SUMAs) were identified.
Site scores range from as low as 5 to as high as 12 (highest possible score). Both high and low scores are useful for
management; high-scoring sites can be prioritised with confidence, while lower-scoring sites can be highlighted for
needing more research or requiring protection for the purposes of ecosystem recovery, or even restoration efforts. Future
scoring systems may take into account levels of human use or impact, as this affects the intrinsic ecological value of a
habitat, assemblage, population or ecosystem. The identification and scoring of special, unique marine areas can guide
the next steps in creating a network of marine protected areas, future marine spatial planning, and also inform other
management measures (e.g. permit or licencing decisions) or environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that may be
relevant to these locations.

WCS, 2019

Bleaching was higher at on shallow (1–3 m) compared to deeper reefs (8–15 m). Overall, coral blea... more Bleaching was higher at on shallow (1–3 m) compared to deeper reefs (8–15 m). Overall, coral bleaching levels were con-
sidered low to moderate across Fiji in 2019 in comparison to bleaching levels recorded in 2000–2002 and 2006, when
mass coral bleaching events caused coral mortality across Fiji. Field-based observations in 2019 suggest that the bleaching
did not persist and most corals had returned to normal by May and June.

Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2011

We quantified the economic revenues generated by shark diving and the distribution of these reven... more We quantified the economic revenues generated by shark diving and the distribution of these
revenues to the principal local stakeholders involved with the industry, including businesses,
government and local community.
Shark-diving contributed US $42.2 million to the economy of Fiji, a sum composed of revenues
generated by the industry combined with the taxes paid by shark-divers to the government.
This estimate was based on self-administered questionnaires designed to collect information on the
costs and benefit of the shark-diving industry. We conducted the study in August/September 2011
and distributed questionnaires on the islands of Viti Levu (including the islands of Nananu-i-Ra and
Beqa), Vanua Levu, Taveuni and Kadavu, the Yasawa and Mamanuca groups. Questionnaires were
answered by 289 divers, 18 dive operators, six resort managers (surveyed at Pacific Harbour and
Coral Coast only), 14 dive guides and nine local subsistence fishers from villages that regularly
received payment from shark-diving operators for the use of the reef of which they are the
traditional owners.
We took a conservative approach to all calculations in order to reduce the risk of over-estimating
the value of shark-diving to the Fijian economy
We calculated the economic revenue of shark-diving to Fiji based on three key pieces of information:
(1) Total number of divers visiting the country and the proportion of tourists engaged in dive
activities from the Fiji International Visitor Survey 2009
(2) All expenditures of the divers visiting Fiji primarily to engage in shark-diving activities
(“dedicated shark-divers”) as revealed by our surveys;
(3) The expenditures of divers who visited Fiji for reasons other than diving with sharks, but
chose to engage in shark-diving while in the country (“casual shark-divers”) as revealed by
our surveys. Expenditures of these divers were allocated as the proportion of their trip
spent shark diving, rather than for their entire visit.
In 2010 we estimated that approximately 49,000 divers were engaged in shark-diving activities in Fiji
accounting for 78% of the 63,000 divers visiting the country. Dedicated and casual shark-divers
accounted for 24% and 54% of all divers we interviewed respectively.
The shark-diving industry contributed US $17.5 million in taxes to the government, a sum composed
of corporate taxes from shark-diving (US $11.6 million) and the direct taxes from shark-divers (US
$5.9 million)
A minimum of US $4 million was generated annually by shark-diving for local communities. This
revenue consisted of salaries paid by the industry to employees (US $3.9 million annually) and
community levies paid by dive operators to traditional owners in villages for access to reefs (US
$124,200 annually). Employees of the dive industry were predominantly Fijian (13 of 14 dive guides
who responded to surveys).
Community levies from shark-diving have played a significant role in promoting the conservation of
reefs through systems of traditional ownership.

Viti Levu hosted the largest number of dedicated and casual shark-divers (17,000) with Pacific
Harbour accounting for around 50% of the shark-divers, or approximately 8,600 tourists. The
Mamanuca/Yasawa group also hosted a large number of shark-divers (11,000) while Vanua
Levu/Taveuni hosted approximately 3,600. Kadavu had only 17% of divers identified as casual shark-
divers and no dedicated shark-divers interviewed during our survey.
Shark-diving generated approximately US $10.2 million on Viti Levu (63% of business revenues from
diving) and US $3.2 million (40% of the business revenues) in the Mamanuca/Yasawa groups.

Biophysically special, unique marine areas of FIJI, 2017

Fiji is committed to, and is embarking upon, a process to significantly increase the number and c... more Fiji is committed to, and is embarking upon, a process to significantly increase the number and coverage of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) within the country.
To help deliver on this commitment, the Marine Working Group of the Fiji national Protected Area Committee (PAC),
established under the Environmental Management Act 2005, requested a review of previous efforts to describe marine
priority sites for Fiji. To this end, the then Department of Environment (now Ministry of Environment) and the then
Ministry of Fisheries and Forests (now Ministry of Fisheries) convened an expert workshop on the 19th and 20th July
2016. The Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific Island Countries (MACBIO) Project 1 and the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) supported the workshop.
The objectives of the workshop were to review previous efforts to identify marine priority sites and prepare a report, with
maps, identifying updated Special, Unique Marine Areas (SUMAs) for Fiji.
Prior to the workshop, participants were provided with a range of resource material including, reports and maps from the
earlier prioritisation studies. During the workshop additional information was made available, largely maps and GIS with
new biophysical, spatial data. On the first day, participants were spilt into regional groups to review, amend and, in some
cases, add new site descriptions to the earlier work.
On the second day, participants were asked to rate each site based on the following criteria:
■ ■ Amount, detail, and nature of biological justification
■ ■ Geographic explicitness
■ ■ Information sources
■ ■ National or international obligations
A technical expert, who participated in the workshop, and who was familiar with a range of marine environments across
the Fiji Islands was engaged to review and compile the information gathered at the expert workshop. Post workshop
research was also conducted, through one-on-one interviews and additional mini-workshops. This information, together
with the workshop has been almagamated into this report. In total, 98 inshore and offshore Special, Unique Marine Areas
(SUMAs) were identified.
Site scores range from as low as 5 to as high as 12 (highest possible score). Both high and low scores are useful for
management; high-scoring sites can be prioritised with confidence, while lower-scoring sites can be highlighted for
needing more research or requiring protection for the purposes of ecosystem recovery, or even restoration efforts. Future
scoring systems may take into account levels of human use or impact, as this affects the intrinsic ecological value of a
habitat, assemblage, population or ecosystem. The identification and scoring of special, unique marine areas can guide
the next steps in creating a network of marine protected areas, future marine spatial planning, and also inform other
management measures (e.g. permit or licencing decisions) or environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that may be
relevant to these locations.