`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 92524-92568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26395]



[[Page 92523]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 225

November 21, 2024

Part III





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Giraffe; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 92524]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH64


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
Giraffe

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 
12-month finding on a petition to list the giraffe (including its 
subspecies) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA). After a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the 
following listing actions are warranted: We propose to list all three 
subspecies of the northern giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)--the West 
African giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis peralta), the Kordofan giraffe 
(Giraffa camelopardalis antiquorum), and the Nubian giraffe (Giraffa 
camelopardalis camelopardalis)--as endangered species under Act. We 
also propose to list the reticulated giraffe (Giraffa reticulata) and 
the Masai giraffe (Giraffa tippelskirchi), both from east Africa, as 
threatened species with protective regulations issued under section 
4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). After a thorough review of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we find that, based on the 
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, it is not warranted at this time to list 
either subspecies of the southern giraffe (Giraffa giraffa)--the 
Angolan giraffe (Giraffa giraffa angolensis) and the South African 
giraffe (Giraffa giraffa giraffa)--but we are proposing, under the 
authority of section 4(e) of the Act, to treat both of these subspecies 
as threatened species based on their similarity of appearance to the 
West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated 
giraffe, and Masai giraffe. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it 
would add all giraffes to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, under the authority of either section 4(a)(1) or 4(e) of the 
Act, and extend the Act's protections to these taxa.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule: We will accept comments on the 
proposals in this document that are received or postmarked on or before 
February 19, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 6, 2025.
    12-month petition finding: The 12-month petition finding for the 
Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe announced in this document 
was made on November 21, 2024.

ADDRESSES: 
    Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following 
methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.'' If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, 
please use this feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most 
compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your 
comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft 
Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our 
preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Manager, Branch of 
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2171. Individuals in the United States 
who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability 
may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications 
relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the 
relay services offered within their country to make international calls 
to the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. 
FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that 
summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly. We have determined that the three subspecies of 
northern giraffe--West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian 
giraffe--each meet the Act's definition of an endangered species, and 
the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe each meet the Act's 
definition of a threatened species; therefore, we are proposing to list 
these species as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened 
species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We propose to list the West African 
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian giraffe as endangered species 
under the Act. We also propose to list the reticulated giraffe and 
Masai giraffe as threatened species with protective regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act. We find that listing the Angolan giraffe and 
South African giraffe as endangered or threatened species under the 
factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is not warranted. 
However, we propose to list the Angolan giraffe and South African 
giraffe as threatened species under the authority of section 4(e) of 
the Act, with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act, 
based on their similarity of appearance to the West African giraffe, 
Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai 
giraffe.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act's section 4(a)(1), we may 
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because 
of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial,

[[Page 92525]]

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or 
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We 
have determined that West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian 
giraffe are endangered due to the following ongoing and imminent 
threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation because of the 
conversion of natural habitats and vegetation to croplands and 
urbanization (Factors A and E), and poaching for consumption, personal 
use, and trade (Factor B), which are all exacerbated by rapid human 
population growth and the effects from climate change (including the 
inter-related effects such as civil unrest and human food insecurity) 
(Factor E). We have further determined that the reticulated giraffe and 
Masai giraffe are threatened due to the following threats: habitat 
loss, fragmentation, and degradation because of the conversion of 
natural habitats and vegetation to croplands and urbanization (Factors 
A and E), and poaching for consumption, personal use, and trade (Factor 
B), which are exacerbated by rapid human population growth and the 
effects from climate change (including the inter-related effects such 
as civil unrest and human food insecurity) (Factor E).
    We have determined that both Angolan giraffe and South African 
giraffe are not warranted as endangered or threatened species due to 
the following threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation 
because of the conversion of natural habitats and vegetation to 
croplands and urbanization (Factors A and E), and poaching for 
consumption, personal use, and trade (Factor B), which are exacerbated 
by rapid human population growth and the effects from climate change 
(including the inter-related effects such as civil unrest and human 
food insecurity) (Factor E). Under the Act's section 4(e), we may treat 
any species as an endangered or threatened species based on its 
similarity of appearance to a species listed as an endangered or 
threatened species. This ``similarity of appearance'' listing is 
intended to protect listed species by facilitating the enforcement and 
furthering the policy of the Act. Our proposal to list the Angolan 
giraffe and South African giraffe as threatened species under the 
authority of section 4(e) of the Act is based on their similarity of 
appearance to the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies (including 
foreign governments within the range of any giraffe species), Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The species' or subspecies' biology, range, and population 
trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species or 
subspecies, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and 
sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of these species or 
subspecies;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species or 
subspecies, their habitats, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting these species or 
subspecies, including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of these 
species or subspecies, which may include habitat destruction, 
modification, or curtailment; overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease; predation; 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or 
manmade factors;
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species or subspecies; and
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to these species or subspecies.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of these species or subspecies.
    (4) Information to assist with applying or issuing protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of any threatened species of 
giraffe. In particular, we seek information concerning:
    (a) The extent to which we should include any of the section 9 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule; or
    (b) Whether we should consider any additional or different 
prohibitions or exceptions from the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) 
rule, such as:
    (i) A prohibition on importing threatened species of giraffes 
without a permit issued under title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) at section 17.32 (50 CFR 17.32) for a threatened 
species.
    (ii) A requirement for an enhancement of propagation or survival 
finding or other criteria to import or export any specimen of a 
threatened species of giraffe.
    (iii) A requirement for a similarity of appearance permit to import 
or export any specimen of a giraffe species or subspecies treated as 
endangered or threatened based on similarity of appearance.
    (iv) An exception associated with our captive-bred wildlife program 
(see 50 CFR 17.21(g)) to conduct otherwise prohibited activities under 
certain circumstances to enhance the propagation or survival of giraffe 
species.
    (v) An exception for interstate commerce from a public institution 
to another public institution, specifically commerce between museums, 
zoological parks, and scientific or educational institutions that meet 
the definition of ``public'' at 50 CFR 10.12.
    (vi) Any specific provisions for intercrosses between threatened 
species or subspecies of giraffe (hybrid giraffes), which would 
otherwise be considered ``offspring'' under the definition of ``fish or 
wildlife'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(8)) and protected accordingly.
    (5) Information regarding legal killing (hunting) or illegal 
killing (poaching) or any other taking of the West African, Kordofan, 
Nubian, reticulated, Masai, Angolan, or South African giraffe.
    (6) Information regarding domestic and international trade of the 
West African, Kordofan, Nubian, reticulated, Masai, Angolan, or South 
African giraffe.
    (7) Information regarding threats to one or more species or 
subspecies of giraffe from hunting, poaching, or any other taking or 
trade involving one or more other species or subspecies of giraffe, 
such as threats to the West African, Kordofan, Nubian, reticulated, or 
Masai giraffe from hunting, poaching, or any other taking or trade 
involving the Angolan giraffe or South African giraffe.
    (8) Information regarding the ability and any methodology to 
differentiate, without substantial difficulty, among different giraffe 
species or subspecies of giraffe and their parts and products, 
including at ports of import and export,

[[Page 92526]]

and what documentation should be provided to the Service to assist in 
making species or subspecies determinations for issuance of permits.
    (9) Information regarding the role of private lands, particularly 
game farms, reserves, and conservancies, in conserving any of the 
giraffe species or subspecies in the wild.
    (10) For the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe, we ask the 
public to submit to us at any time new information relevant to the 
subspecies' status or its habitat including threats or conservation 
measures.
    (11) Information on whether listing giraffes at the species or 
subspecies level is most appropriate for giraffes.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Our final determinations may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based 
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude that any of the northern giraffe 
subspecies are threatened instead of endangered, or that the 
reticulated giraffe is endangered instead of threatened, or that the 
Masai giraffe is endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude 
that one or more of the species proposed for listing does not warrant 
listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. We may 
also conclude that either subspecies of southern giraffe may be 
endangered or threatened instead of not warranted for listing, which 
would prompt our consideration of a new proposed rule for the 
subspecies. In addition, we may change the parameters of the 
prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act if we conclude it is 
appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For 
example, we may expand the prohibitions if we conclude that the 
protective regulation as a whole, including those additional 
prohibitions, is necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the threatened species. Conversely, we may establish 
additional or different exceptions to the prohibitions in the final 
rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate or are 
compatible with the conservation and recovery of the threatened 
species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and 
the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if 
any, that differ from this proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In order to facilitate public comment with 
the large number of range countries of giraffe, we plan to schedule at 
least one public hearing on this proposal, and announce the date, time, 
and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    We received a petition on April 19, 2017, from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Humane Society International, The Human Society 
of the United States, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and 
Natural Resources Defense Council to list the giraffe (Giraffa 
camelopardalis) as endangered or threatened under the Act. Because of 
ongoing changes in taxonomy (see Taxonomy section) of the giraffe 
species and subspecies at the time of the petition, the petitioners 
included an alternate request to list all giraffe subspecies or 
distinct population segments at least as threatened, with qualified 
subspecies or distinct population segments listed as endangered if 
taxonomic consensus changes or if the Service decides to list an entity 
below the species level. On April 26, 2019, we published in the Federal 
Register (84 FR 17768) a 90-day finding that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. This document serves as our 12-
month finding on the April 19, 2017, petition.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for the 
currently recognized species of giraffe (northern giraffe, reticulated 
giraffe, Masai giraffe, and southern giraffe). The SSA team was 
composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species 
experts. The SSA reports represent a compilation of the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing and recovery actions under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we are soliciting independent scientific review of the 
information contained in the northern, reticulated, Masai, and southern 
giraffe SSA reports. We will seek peer review of the SSA reports from 
at least three independent peer reviewers. We will ensure that the 
opinions of peer reviewers are objective and unbiased by following the 
guidelines set forth in the Director's Memo, which updates and 
clarifies Service policy on peer review (Service 2016, entire). The 
purpose of peer review is to ensure that our decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, our 
final decisions may differ from this proposal. Comments from peer 
reviewers will be posted at https://www.regulations.gov, incorporated, 
as

[[Page 92527]]

appropriate, into the SSA reports, and included in the decision file 
for the final rule.

Taxonomy

    Until recently, giraffe was classified as a single species (Giraffa 
camelopardalis) with nine subspecies based on its geographic 
distribution, morphology, and skin pattern (Dagg 1971, entire; Fennessy 
et al. 2016, p. 2543; Muller et al. 2018, p. 1; Brown et al. 2021, p. 
3). Dagg (1971) was the authority most relied upon for giraffe 
taxonomy. In 2016, new analysis of data from all nine recognized 
subspecies concluded that giraffe should be split into four separate 
and distinct species (Fennessy et al. 2016, entire). One result of this 
analysis was that Thornicroft's giraffe (G. c. thornicrofti) was found 
to be indistinguishable from Masai giraffe (G. c. tippelskirchi), and 
Rothschild's giraffe (G. c. rothschildi) was found to be 
indistinguishable from Nubian giraffe (G. c. camelopardalis). Thus, 
these subspecies were subsumed accordingly (Fennessy et al. 2016, 
entire; Bock et al. 2014, p. 2). The best available information, 
therefore, indicates giraffes are classified as four separate and 
distinct species, as follows: (1) the northern giraffe (Giraffa 
camelopardalis) is a species that consists of three subspecies--the 
Nubian giraffe (G. c. camelopardalis), Kordofan giraffe (G. c. 
antiquorum), and West African giraffe (G. c. peralta); (2) the 
reticulated giraffe (Giraffa reticulata) is its own species; (3) the 
Masai giraffe (Giraffa tippelskirchi) is its own species; and (4) the 
southern giraffe (Giraffa giraffa) is a species that consists of two 
subspecies--the South African giraffe (G. g. giraffa), and Angolan 
giraffe (G. g. angolensis) (Fennessy et al. 2016, entire; Winter et al. 
2018a, entire; Coimbra et al. 2021, entire; ITIS 2024, unpaginated). 
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) also recognizes four 
separate and distinct species of giraffe with the same subspecies as 
the valid taxonomic classification of giraffe (ITIS 2024, unpaginated).
    The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species 
Survival Commission (SSC) Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group (GOSG) 
recognizes giraffe as one species with nine subspecies, based on the 
classification in Dagg (1971) (Muller et al. 2018, p. 1). The GOSG is 
composed of a group of technical experts from around the world; it was 
established in March 2013, in recognition of widespread threats to 
giraffe and okapi and to address their conservation needs (GOSG 2023, 
unpaginated). The GOSG has not, however, undertaken a formal assessment 
of the taxonomic status of giraffe since information indicating a 
revised taxonomy has become available (Dunn et al. 2021, p. 2). The 
IUCN Red List assessment also classifies giraffe as a single species 
with nine subspecies based on Dagg (1971) (Muller et al. 2018, p. 1). 
CITES lists all giraffes as one species (Giraffa camelopardalis) (CITES 
2019a, p. 2; CITES 2019b, p. 3; CITES 2024, unpaginated). Even though 
the GOSG and IUCN Red List recognize the giraffe as one species with 
nine subspecies, the best available information indicates that there 
are four separate and distinct species of giraffe, and we use the best 
available information to inform this proposed rule.

I. Finding for the Angolan Giraffe and South African Giraffe

    Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a 
finding on whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 
months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month finding''). We must make 
a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) 
warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, and issuing or applying protective 
regulations for threatened species.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://

[[Page 92528]]

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.
    In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Angolan giraffe or 
South African giraffe currently meets the definition of ``endangered 
species'' or ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly 
evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding 
threats, regulatory mechanisms, conservation measures, current 
condition, and future condition. We reviewed the petition, information 
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished 
information. This evaluation includes information from recognized 
experts; foreign Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic 
institutions; private entities; and other members of the public. After 
comprehensive assessment of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we determine that the Angolan giraffe and South African 
giraffe each do not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species 
or a threatened species.
    In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this 
document announces the not-warranted findings on a petition to list the 
Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe. We have also elected to 
include brief summaries of the analyses on which these findings are 
based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons and data on 
which the findings are based, in the decision file for each of the not-
warranted findings included in this document. The following is a 
description of the documents containing these analyses:
    The species assessment form for the southern giraffe contains more 
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing 
factors, conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms, a 
list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that 
the southern giraffe's subspecies (the Angolan giraffe and South 
African giraffe) do not meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To inform our status reviews, we 
completed a species status assessment (SSA) report for the southern 
giraffe. The SSA report for the southern giraffe contains a thorough 
review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Angolan 
giraffe and South African giraffe; a thorough description of the 
factors influencing the viability of these subspecies; and the current 
and future conditions of these subspecies (Service 2024d, entire). This 
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157. The 
following is a summary of our determination for the Angolan giraffe and 
South African giraffe.

Summary of Findings for Angolan Giraffe and South African Giraffe

    The southern giraffe consists of two subspecies: Angolan giraffe 
and South African giraffe (Fennessy et al. 2016, p. 2545; Winter et al. 
2018b, p. 10159). Angolan giraffes mainly occur in three geographic 
areas (Angolan giraffe units): Namibia, central Botswana, and southern 
Zimbabwe (Brown et al. 2021, p. 12). By the late 1990s, giraffes were 
assumed to be extirpated in Angola (East 1999, p. 98); recent 
reintroductions have reestablished very small populations of the 
Angolan giraffe in southern Angola. The exact range of the Angolan 
giraffe is uncertain because numerous translocations of Angolan 
giraffes from Namibia have occurred throughout southern Africa, and 
Angolan giraffes now occur even in areas with no record of 
translocations. Additionally, extralimital populations of Angolan 
giraffes were introduced to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 
South Africa, Nigeria, and Zambia (Brown et al. 2021, p. 12).
    The South African giraffe occurs in Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, 
Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Most 
South African giraffes occur in northern Botswana around the Okavango 
Delta and North West, Chobe, and Central Districts, and in northern 
South Africa in the Limpopo Province and Kruger National Park. Both 
these regions are part of Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs). The 
Kavango Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA supports approximately 25 percent of the 
total population of southern giraffe including populations or partial 
populations in Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The 
Great Limpopo TFCA includes the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which 
links national parks in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique, as well 
as a wildlife corridor on communal land; and Banhine and Zinave 
National Parks in Mozambique and bordering private- and state-owned 
conservation areas (Peace Parks Foundation 2024, unpaginated). South 
African giraffes have been translocated within their native range and 
introduced into several countries outside of their native range. 
Giraffes were reintroduced to Limpopo National Park and Zinave National 
Park in Mozambique after having been previously extirpated. In Malawi 
and Eswatini, the historical occurrence of South African giraffes is 
uncertain, and no references are made of them historically occurring in 
these countries (East 1999, p. 95; Dagg 1962, pp. 500-503; Sidney 1965, 
p. 155). However, giraffes have been translocated to Malawi and 
Eswatini, where small populations currently exist (Marais et al. 2020a, 
p. 3; Hoffman et al. 2022, p. 3). Small, extralimital populations of 
South African giraffes also occur in Angola, the DRC, and Senegal 
(Brown et al. 2021, p. 13).
    Several populations of giraffes in northern Botswana, northwest 
Zimbabwe, northeastern Namibia, southwestern Zambia, and central South 
Africa are Angolan or South African giraffes, and there is potentially 
hybridization between the two subspecies in this area (Muller et al. 
2018, p. 1; Bock et al. 2014, p. 7; Deacon and Parker et al. 2016, p. 
3). Additionally, both Angolan giraffes and South African giraffes are 
held on private lands (e.g., game farms, conservancies, and reserves) 
(Deacon and Parker 2016, pp. 5-7; Giraffe Conservation Foundation (GCF) 
2016, unpaginated; du Raan 2016, p. 3). When referring to private lands 
that are game farms, reserves, and conservancies, we consider the 
giraffes in these private lands to be wild giraffes because they are 
not in enclosures, are not supplemented with food, are not captive 
bred, and are mostly kept on adequately sized properties; however, some 
of these areas are as small as 0.2 square kilometers (Deacon and Parker 
2016, p. 4). While private lands are often fenced, giraffes on private 
lands are otherwise generally free-roaming. We do not

[[Page 92529]]

consider giraffe on these private lands to be in an environment that is 
intensively manipulated, thus distinguishing them from the definition 
of ``captivity'' in 50 CFR 17.3. Additionally, southern giraffe on 
these private lands are managed as wild under the laws and management 
practices in the range countries of Angolan giraffe and South African 
giraffe, which rely on private game farms, reserves, and conservancies 
to conserve wild giraffes in suitable habitat for giraffe.
    Giraffes live in a complex society characterized by loose subgroup 
composition, a pattern of sexual segregation, and longer-term 
relationships that are typical in fission-fusion societies (Bercovitch 
et al. 2006, p. 314; Carter et al. 2013, p. 390; Dagg 2019, p. 39). 
This type of structured society involves the formation and dissolution 
of subgroups within a larger social network based upon preferential 
associations within a larger community that rarely coalesces into a 
single unit (Dagg 2019, p. 43; Bercovitch and Berry 2012, p. 2). Herds 
tend to be small and average 3 to 5 animals with female-female 
associations more common than male-male or male-female associations 
(Dagg 2019, p. 45; Bercovitch and Berry 2012, p. 6). Male giraffes are 
nonterritorial and mostly solitary individuals that adopt a roaming 
reproductive strategy and become increasingly more solitary as they age 
(Bercovitch and Berry 2014, p. 172; Leuthold 1979, p. 29). Females are 
seldom alone and are often in groups with other females and any young 
born to those females (nursing groups).
    The giraffe's primary activity is feeding, and they consume a 
variety of leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits (Dagg 2019, p. 24; Muller 
et al. 2016, p. 6). Because giraffes have high metabolic and 
reproductive requirements, they need to consume large quantities of 
food throughout the year (Parker and Bernard 2005, p. 207). Giraffes 
have been noted to forage on at least 100 different plant species, 
although Acacia, Commiphora, and Terminalia species are major staples 
(Kingdon 1997, p. 494; Muller et al. 2016, p. 6). Acacia trees or 
bushes are a preferred resource and are fed on in high proportions 
wherever giraffes occur (Dagg 2019, p. 25).
    Giraffes need high-quality forage year-round to maintain their 
high-energy budget, particularly females that are pregnant for most of 
their adult lives. Each population has a diverse diet, and food that 
giraffes select throughout the year largely depends on the seasonal 
changes in the phenology of plant species (Pellew 1984, p. 74) or, for 
females, whether they are nursing (Caister et al. 2003, p. 209; Saito 
and Idani 2018, p. 15). Anthropogenic influences strongly affect 
giraffe's use of space (Brown et al. 2023, p. 8) as do physical and 
geographic barriers such as rivers, fencing, and urbanization (Fennessy 
et al. 2009, p. 324; Le Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 350; Perry 1978, p. 
80). Generally, giraffes do not show large-scale seasonal migrations, 
but within individual home ranges, small-scale seasonal movements occur 
primarily based on food resources (Pellew 1984, p. 65; Brown et al. 
2023, p. 7; Fennessy 2009, p. 324). Because giraffes engage in small-
scale seasonal movements based on changes in the distribution of food 
resources, they need adequate space within which to move and find high-
quality food that meets their metabolic needs. Within their home 
ranges, giraffes also need access to mates.
    Giraffes, in some regions of sub-Saharan Africa, are affected by 
civil unrest and political instability. Most wars in sub-Saharan Africa 
have been civil conflicts fought within the boundaries of a single 
sovereign country (State Failure 2001, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, 
p. 141). However, internal conflicts may overspill defined boundaries, 
affecting both a country and its neighbors for substantial lengths of 
time (Commission for Africa, 2005, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 
141). Civil unrest does not usually directly target ecological 
resources in pursuit of a military outcome, but impacts to wildlife 
occur because of resource exploitation during periods of lawlessness 
(Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 7, citing many authors; Dudley et al. 2002, 
p. 326). However, large mammals (when available) are often a vital food 
source for isolated military or paramilitary groups operating within 
war zones and disputed territories (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 271; 
Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). Additionally, wildlife products are often 
sold or bartered for food, arms, ammunition, or other goods and 
services (Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). Civil unrest also causes 
significant displacement of people (Badiora 2017, p. 316; Davis 2019, 
p. 180; Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 141). Refugee encampments are often 
associated with severe environmental degradation from the use of slash-
and-burn agriculture and the overharvesting of vegetation for fuel, 
food, and construction materials. This, in turn, results in widespread 
deforestation and erosion, and takes a heavy toll on wildlife and 
habitats in affected areas (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 326; Pech 1995, in 
Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). Relative political stability within the 
range of the Angolan and South African giraffe reduces the likelihood 
that these subspecies of giraffe are affected by poaching and other 
effects of civil unrest, and increases the ability of range country 
governments to enact and enforce regulatory protections.
    At the subspecies level, Angolan and South African giraffes require 
multiple populations with high population abundances, large effective 
population sizes, and sufficient, high-quality (nutritious and 
unfragmented) habitat distributed across heterogeneous environments.

Determination of Status: Background

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424 set forth the procedures for determining whether a species 
meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of 
any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We consider these five factors and 
the species' responses to these factors when making these 
determinations.
    Section 3 of the Act defines ``endangered species'' and 
``threatened species.'' An endangered species is a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a threatened species is a species that is likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Both definitions include not only the 
phrase ``throughout all,'' but also the phrase ``or a significant 
portion of its range.'' Thus, there are ultimately four bases for 
listing a species under the Act (in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range, in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion 
of its range, likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, or likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a 
significant portion of its range). These four bases are made up of two 
classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) and two components 
(i.e.,

[[Page 92530]]

throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its 
range).
    Beginning in 2001, a number of judicial opinions addressed our 
interpretation of the phrase ``or a significant portion of its range'' 
(the SPR phrase) in these statutory definitions. The seminal case was 
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) 
regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii). The court 
in that case held that the SPR phrase in the Act was ``inherently 
ambiguous,'' finding that it was something of an oxymoron to speak of a 
species being at risk of extinction in only a portion of its range (id. 
at 1141); because the Act does not define a ``significant portion, the 
Secretary has wide discretion to delineate it (id. at 1145). However, 
the court found that, even with wide discretion, the interpretation we 
had applied in analyzing the status of the flat-tailed horned lizard 
was unacceptable because it would allow for a species to warrant 
listing throughout a significant portion of a species' range only when 
the species ``is in danger of extinction everywhere'' (id. at 1141). 
The court held that the SPR phrase must be given independent meaning 
from the ``throughout all'' phrase to avoid making the SPR phrase in 
the statute superfluous.
    In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into 
question our approach to evaluating whether a species is endangered or 
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Services 
jointly published the ``Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 
`Significant Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species Act's 
Definitions of `Endangered Species' and `Threatened Species' '' (2014 
SPR Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The December 9, 2011, notice 
announcing the draft policy and requesting public comments on it 
provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the SPR 
phrase (76 FR 76987). The 2014 SPR Policy includes four elements:
    (1) Consequence--that the consequence of determining that a species 
warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its 
range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
    (2) Significance--a definition of the term ``significant'';
    (3) Range--that the species' ``range'' is the current range of the 
species; and
    (4) Distinct population segment (DPS)--that, if a species is 
endangered or threatened in an SPR, and the population in that SPR is a 
distinct population segment (DPS), the Service will list just the DPS.
    Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of 
``significant'' contained in the 2014 SPR Policy (Ctr. for Biological 
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (``CBD v. 
Jewell''), and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F. 
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (``Desert Survivors''). The 
courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR Policy set too high a 
threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous, 
failing to give it independent meaning from the ``throughout all'' 
phrase.
    In 2020, another court (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (``Everson'')) also vacated the 
specific aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy under which, ``if the Services 
determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the 
Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range'' (id. at 98). This was an extension 
of the definition of ``significant,'' which required that for a portion 
of the range of a species to be significant, the species must not be 
currently endangered or threatened throughout its range. In an 
extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and Desert 
Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of the 
2014 SPR Policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because it 
``rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range' basis 
for listing superfluous,'' but also ``inconsistent with ESA 
principles'' and ``not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.'' 
Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in 
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range, 
even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future (i.e., it 
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species) throughout all of 
its range. The remaining three elements of the 2014 SPR Policy remain 
intact and have not been invalidated or questioned by the courts.
    In short, courts have directed that the definition of 
``significant'' must afford the phrase ``or a significant portion of 
its range'' an independent meaning from the ``throughout all of its 
range'' phrase. Therefore, to determine whether any species warrants 
listing, we determine for each classification (endangered and 
threatened) the appropriate component to evaluate (throughout all of 
its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).
    We make this determination based on whether the best scientific and 
commercial data indicate that the species has a similar extinction risk 
in all areas across its range (at a scale that is biologically 
appropriate for that species). When a species has a similar extinction 
risk in all areas across its range, we analyze its regulatory status 
using the component ``throughout all of its range.'' For example, in 
some cases, there is no way to divide a species' range in a way that is 
biologically appropriate. This could be because the range is so small 
that there is only one population or because the species functions as a 
metapopulation such that effects to one population directly result in 
effects to another population. On the other hand, when the species' 
extinction risk varies across its range, we analyze its regulatory 
status using the component ``throughout a significant portion of its 
range.''
    For either classification (endangered or threatened), we consider 
the five factors and the species' responses to those factors regardless 
of which component (throughout all of its range or throughout a 
significant portion of its range) we have determined is appropriate for 
that classification. When assessing whether a species is endangered or 
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address 
two questions because we must determine whether there is any portion of 
the species' range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant'' 
(the significance question) and (2) the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout that portion (the status question). We 
may address the significance question or the status question first. 
Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative 
answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not 
need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' 
range.

Determination of Status: Angolan Giraffe

    The Angolan giraffe does not meet the Act's definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. As stated above, we 
determine a species' classification based upon its regulatory status 
throughout all of its range when the species has similar extinction 
risk in all areas across its range at a scale that is biologically 
appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the extinction risk varies 
across its range, we determine a species' classification based upon its 
regulatory status throughout a significant portion of its range. Either 
way, we begin by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate 
for that species. For many species, we can

[[Page 92531]]

divide the range in an infinite number of ways. As discussed above, 
Angolan giraffe populations primarily occur in three Angolan giraffe 
units (Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe) and while Angolan giraffe may 
periodically interact within these units, we do not expect interactions 
among giraffes among these units given their geographic separation. 
Although information on the smaller, introduced populations of Angolan 
giraffe is limited, the best available information indicates that 
threats and the subspecies' responses to those threats are similar in 
any introduced small populations for which we lack information. In 
summary, the ``Angolan giraffe unit'' is the unit that provides the 
most appropriate scale at which to assess extinction risk for the 
Angolan giraffe.

Endangered Species Classification

    We evaluated whether the Angolan giraffe has a similar risk of 
extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction 
risk in each Angolan giraffe unit. Our review indicated that the 
Angolan giraffe's extinction risk is similar in all areas across its 
range. Therefore, we evaluated whether it may be endangered based upon 
the ``throughout all of its range'' component. In undertaking this 
analysis of whether the Angolan giraffe is endangered throughout all of 
its range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding threats to the subspecies, the subspecies' 
responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures; 
we then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and 
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We 
examined the following threats: habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation (Factor A), predation and disease (Factor C), and hunting 
and poaching (Factor B), all of which may be exacerbated by increasing 
human populations, effects from climate change (including the inter-
related effects such as civil unrest and human food insecurity) and low 
genetic diversity (Factor E), as well as cumulative effects. 
Additionally, the maintenance of private lands for activities such as 
personal use, tourism, and hunting (Factor E) impacts the subspecies 
because private lands in southern Africa comprise large proportions of 
the respective populations.
    Angolan giraffes need multiple healthy, resilient populations that 
are distributed across the subspecies' range to reduce the risk of 
extinction. After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing 
the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, 
and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by ongoing and near-term 
effects of human population growth, climate change, as the threats with 
the greatest potential to affect the subspecies' near-term viability. 
We also considered potential threats such as predation and disease, and 
while individuals are affected by these threats, there is no 
information to suggest population-level or subspecies-level effects.
    The best estimate of current population size for the Angolan 
giraffe is approximately 18,626 individuals (20,192 including 
extralimital populations) (Brown et al. 2021, p. 11). The current 
estimated population size is approximately 124 percent of the estimated 
historical population size (15,000 individuals), and the population has 
increased from about 5,000 individuals in the 1970s to about 10,000 
individuals in 2004 to 18,626 individuals in 2020, or by approximately 
0.7-2.7 percent per year. Because there is uncertainty in the range of 
Angolan giraffe, there are discrepancies in the historical data. For 
the purposes of the historical population estimate, we added both 
historical estimates for Angolan giraffe from Muller et al. 2018 
(supplement, p. 2) that equate to 15,000 individuals.
    Large populations occur in all three Angolan giraffe units: Namibia 
(e.g., Etosha National Park), Botswana (Central Kalahari Game Reserve 
and adjacent Khutse Game Reserve), and Zimbabwe (Bubye Valley 
Conservancy). Namibia holds approximately 78 percent of the population 
(14,500 individuals), with approximately half of these occurring on 
private lands (du Raan et al. 2016, pp. 10-11). Populations in central 
Botswana and Zimbabwe are smaller and comparable to each other 
(approximately 2,000 in Botswana and 2,000-4,000 individuals in 
Zimbabwe) (Brown et al. 2021, pp. 11-12).
    While best available information indicates the subspecies is 
increasing overall, the population trends vary among the three units 
(Brown et al. 2021, p. 12). Angolan giraffes are increasing in Namibia. 
In Botswana, the population is stable based on data since 1989 
indicating that populations of giraffes in protected areas are stable 
or have increased in recent years (KAZA Secretariate 2022, p. 7; Chase 
2015, p. 75; Chase et al. 2018, p. 86; Ferguson et al. 2021, p. 7). In 
Zimbabwe, while populations continue to decline in certain populations 
(Bubye Valley Conservancy), they are increasing in other populations, 
such as the Save Valley and Nuanetsi Conservancies, that have adequate 
resources for management and enforcement (KAZA Secretariat 2022, p. 11; 
GCF 2022a, unpaginated).
    Large, connected populations remain within each of the three 
analysis units (AUs) where Angolan giraffes can meet their needs. The 
best available information indicates that any combined effects of 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation and of poaching are not 
causing declines in resiliency or redundancy of wild populations in the 
near term in any of the three AUs. While some Zimbabwe populations have 
experienced recent declines, these populations continue to be large in 
abundance, and GCF has partnered with ZimParks and landowners in the 
country to conserve giraffe populations. Angolan giraffes are also 
managed by range countries where hunting is legal to sustain ecotourism 
and trophy-hunting activities, which in turn are managed to produce 
revenues that may be used by range countries and local communities for 
giraffe conservation activities such as anti-poaching, reintroduction, 
and habitat preservation and restoration to benefit giraffes in the 
country. The private sector has contributed significantly to the 
increase in the subspecies' population through management and by 
helping restore the subspecies to many parts of its former range (du 
Raan 2016, p. 3; GCF 2016, unpaginated; Marais et al. 2020b, entire).
    Although the Angolan giraffe has experienced some declines in 
habitat and area of occupancy outside of the three Angolan giraffe 
units (e.g., within Angola), resiliency and redundancy are increasing 
since the 1970s with increasing abundance in several populations. The 
subspecies occurs throughout much of its historical range and maintains 
ecological representation, including large, connected populations in 
each of the Angolan giraffe units (Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe). 
With the recent and near-term projected increasing population trend, 
expansion of range in Namibia and stable ranges in Botswana and 
Zimbabwe, and existence of multiple healthy, resilient populations (at 
least one in each Angolan giraffe unit), the Angolan giraffe exhibits 
representation, redundancy, and resiliency such that the subspecies is 
not in danger of extinction. Overall, while threats are ongoing, given 
the large population sizes for the three Angolan giraffe units in the 
near term, these threats are not of

[[Page 92532]]

such a magnitude that the subspecies is in danger of extinction in any 
of the Angolan giraffe units.
    In summary, we find that the Angolan giraffe is not in danger of 
extinction in any of the Angolan giraffe units. Thus, there is no 
portion of the range where the Angolan giraffe may be endangered. After 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
conclude that because there is no portion of the range in which the 
Angolan giraffe is endangered, it is necessarily not in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. Because we have determined that 
there is no portion of the range where the subspecies may be endangered 
(i.e., the subspecies is also not in danger of extinction throughout a 
significant portion of its range), we proceed with determining whether 
Angolan giraffe is threatened (i.e., is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range).

Threatened Species Classification

    The statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in 
danger of extinction. An endangered species is in danger of extinction, 
and a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future. We evaluated whether the 
Angolan giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable 
future in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk 
within each Angolan giraffe unit. Because our review indicated that the 
Angolan giraffe's extinction risk is similar in all areas across its 
range, we then evaluated whether it may be threatened based upon the 
``throughout all of its range'' component. In undertaking this analysis 
of whether the Angolan giraffe is threatened throughout all of its 
range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding threats to the subspecies, the subspecies' responses to those 
threats, and any associated conservation measures; we then assessed the 
cumulative effects of those threats and conservation measures under the 
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. For the threatened species 
determination, we examined the same threats that we evaluated for the 
endangered species determination.
    As mentioned above, Angolan giraffes need multiple healthy, 
resilient populations that are distributed across the subspecies' range 
to reduce the risk of extinction. After evaluating threats to the 
subspecies and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the 
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, 
and fragmentation, and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by 
human population growth and climate change, and low genetic diversity 
are the threats with the greatest potential to affect the subspecies' 
viability within the foreseeable future.
    Habitat loss, fragmentation, or alteration is unlikely on protected 
lands (government or private) and is otherwise expected to continue in 
parts of each Angolan giraffe unit. Drought duration, frequency, and 
intensity are projected to increase within the range of the Angolan 
giraffe similarly in each Angolan giraffe unit. By 2100, across the 
subspecies' range, human population size is projected to just more than 
double under the lower scenario, and to increase almost ninefold under 
the upper scenario. In turn, Angolan giraffes may face reductions in 
food quality and availability, and restriction of their movement 
patterns and ability to access necessary resources. Additionally, 
although we were unable to quantify potential future increases in 
poaching, we anticipate that poaching will likely continue in each 
Angolan giraffe unit with increased food insecurity associated with 
rapid human population growth and climate change. While plausible 
future conditions indicate that habitat conditions will decline, human 
populations will increase, and climate change will increase the 
duration, frequency, and intensity of drought, there is no evidence 
suggesting that the subspecies' response to any of these threats will 
differ in the future.
    The overall Angolan giraffe population has increased to 18,626 
individuals (20,192 including extralimital populations), which 
represents an increase of approximately 0.7-2.7 percent per year since 
the 1970s. The population increase includes populations in formally 
protected areas such as Etosha National Park and private lands. The 
population is unlikely to continue growing into the future at the 
recent rate, given the low starting abundances. Additionally, 
population trends in the future are dependent upon the continued 
protections afforded the subspecies by private lands such as those used 
for ecotourism and sport-hunting. Population trends may be stable or 
increasing if private landowners continue to conserve Angolan giraffe 
at their current extent or increase. We find it most likely based on 
the best available data and past and present trends that private 
landowners will continue to conserve giraffe at rates comparable to the 
present. However, protections from these sources are not guaranteed, 
and giraffe abundance may decline if those do not continue and/or 
climate change impacts are not sufficiently mitigated.
    Even should populations decline, the Angolan giraffe occurs in 
three units with populations that are large, connected, and with 
adequate resiliency to sustain some reductions. Poaching, which is a 
driving factor in the decline of other giraffe species across the 
African continent, may be tempered by the relative political stability 
in the range of the Angolan giraffe. Habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation are not likely to cause population-level declines to the 
point that the subspecies is likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future due to the Angolan giraffe's versatility 
and diverse diets, as well as to the future decisions of how southern 
African countries in how giraffes are managed. Angolan giraffes are 
also managed by range countries where hunting is legal to sustain 
ecotourism and trophy-hunting activities, which in turn may be managed 
to produce revenues that are used by range countries and local 
communities for giraffe conservation activities such as anti-poaching, 
reintroduction, and habitat preservation and restoration to benefit and 
address threats to giraffes in the country. The private sector has 
contributed significantly to the increase in the subspecies' population 
through management, including by helping restore the subspecies to many 
parts of its former range (du Raan 2016, pp. 3-11; GCF 2016, 
unpaginated; Marais et al. 2020b, entire). The subspecies is expected 
to continue to occur throughout much of its historical range and 
maintain ecological representation in each of the Angolan giraffe units 
(Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe). Overall, while threats are projected 
to increase in magnitude over time, given the large, connected 
populations in each Angolan giraffe unit, the threats are not of such a 
magnitude that the subspecies is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future in any of the Angolan giraffe 
units.
    In summary, we find that the Angolan giraffe is not likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in any 
areas (i.e., in any of the Angolan giraffe units). Thus, there is no 
portion of the range where the Angolan giraffe may be threatened. Based 
on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that 
the Angolan giraffe is not likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range.

[[Page 92533]]

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the Angolan giraffe does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Angolan 
giraffe under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors is not warranted at 
this time.

Determination of Status: South African Giraffe

    The South African giraffe does not meet the Act's definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. As stated above, we 
determine a species' classification based upon its regulatory status 
throughout all of its range when the species has similar extinction 
risk in all areas across its range at a scale that is biologically 
appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the extinction risk varies 
across its range, we determine a species' classification based upon its 
regulatory status throughout a significant portion of its range. Either 
way, we begin by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate 
for a classification determination for that species. For many species, 
we can divide the range in an infinite number of ways. As discussed 
above, South African giraffe populations primarily occur in six South 
African giraffe units (KAZA TFCA, South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique, 
Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve), 
and while South African giraffes may periodically interact within these 
countries, we do not expect interactions among these units because 
there is no connectivity between the units. While information about any 
South African giraffe populations other than these six South African 
giraffe units is limited, the best available data indicate that threats 
and the subspecies' response to those threats are similar in any other 
populations for which we lack information. In summary, the South 
African giraffe unit is the unit that provides the appropriate scale to 
assess extinction risk for the South African giraffe.

Endangered Species Classification

    We evaluated whether the South African giraffe has a similar risk 
of extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction 
risk in each South African giraffe unit. Our review indicated that the 
South African giraffe's extinction risk is similar in all areas across 
its range. Therefore, we evaluated whether it may be endangered based 
upon the ``throughout all of its range'' component. In undertaking this 
analysis of whether the South African giraffe is endangered throughout 
all of its range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding threats to the subspecies, the subspecies' 
responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures; 
we then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and 
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. For the 
endangered species determination, we examined the following threats: 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation (Factor A), predation and 
disease (Factor C), and poaching and hunting (Factor B), all of which 
may be exacerbated by increasing human populations, effects from 
climate change (including the inter-related effects of civil unrest and 
human food insecurity), and low genetic diversity (Factor E), as well 
as cumulative effects. Additionally, the maintenance of private lands 
for activities such as personal use, tourism, and hunting (Factor E) 
impacts the subspecies because private lands with wild giraffes in 
southern Africa comprise large proportions of the respective 
populations.
    South African giraffes need multiple healthy, resilient populations 
that are distributed across the subspecies' range to reduce the risk of 
extinction. After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing 
the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, 
and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by ongoing and near-term 
effects of human population growth and climate change, are the threats 
with the greatest potential to affect the subspecies' near-term 
viability. We also considered potential threats such as predation and 
disease, and while individuals are affected by these threats, there is 
no information to suggest population-level or subspecies-level effects.
    The current total population size is approximately 29,390 
individuals, which is 367 percent of the population size of 8,000 in 
1979 (Muller et al. 2018, supplement, p. 2). This represents an 
increase of approximately 2.7-3.2 percent per year since 1979. The 
private sector has been largely responsible for restoring giraffes to 
many parts of their former natural range in South Africa (Deacon and 
Parker 2016, p. 5), in which thousands of private farms account for 
about 50 percent of the total South African giraffe population (Deacon 
and Tutchings 2018, p. 46; Deacon and Parker 2016, pp. 3-5). However, 
population increases have also occurred on formally protected areas as 
well over the last few decades (Deacon and Parker 2016, p. 1).
    Large, connected populations remain within the KAZA TFCA and South 
Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique units, and smaller populations occur on 
protected lands in the Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and 
Maputo Special Reserve units, where the South African giraffe can meet 
its needs. The best available information indicates that any combined 
effects from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and from 
poaching, are not causing population-level declines in the near term. 
South African giraffes are also managed by range countries where 
hunting is legal to sustain ecotourism and trophy-hunting activities, 
which in turn may be managed to produce revenues that are used by range 
countries and local communities for giraffe conservation activities 
such as anti-poaching, reintroduction, and habitat preservation and 
restoration to benefit and address the threats to giraffes in the 
country.
    Although the South African giraffe has experienced some declines in 
habitat and area of occupancy, the resiliency and redundancy of the 
subspecies has increased from historical levels with introduced 
populations and increasing abundance in all South African giraffe 
units. The subspecies occurs throughout much of its historical range 
and maintains ecological representation, including large, connected 
populations in the KAZA TFCA and South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique 
units. With the recent and near-term projected increasing population 
trend, expansion of range in the South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique unit 
and Eswatini and Malawi units, reintroduction of giraffes into the 
Zinave and Maputo units, the stable range in KAZA TFCA, and the 
existence of multiple healthy, resilient populations (at least one in 
each South African giraffe unit), the South African giraffe exhibits 
representation, redundancy, and resiliency such that the subspecies is 
not in danger of extinction. Overall, while threats are ongoing, given 
the large population sizes for two South African giraffe units and 
protected nature of the remaining four units, in the near term, these 
threats are not of such a magnitude that the subspecies is in danger of 
extinction in any of the South African giraffe units.
    In summary, we find that the South African giraffe is not in danger 
of extinction in any of the South African giraffe units. Thus, there is 
no portion of the range where the South African giraffe may be 
endangered. After

[[Page 92534]]

assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
conclude that because there is no portion of the range in which the 
South African giraffe is endangered, it is necessarily not in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. Because we have determined that 
there is no portion of the range where the subspecies may be endangered 
(i.e., the species is also not in danger of extinction throughout a 
significant portion of its range), we proceed with determining whether 
South African giraffe is threatened (i.e., is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range).

Threatened Species Classification

    The statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in 
danger of extinction. An endangered species is in danger of extinction, 
and a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future. We evaluated whether the 
South African giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the 
foreseeable future in all areas across its range by assessing its 
extinction risk within each South African giraffe unit.
    For the threatened classification, we evaluated whether the South 
African giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable 
future in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk 
within each South African giraffe unit. Because our review indicated 
that the South African giraffe's extinction risk varies across its 
range, we then evaluated whether it may be threatened based upon the 
``throughout a significant portion of its range'' component. We 
evaluated the portion of the range that includes the South African 
giraffe units where the South African giraffe may be threatened--the 
Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve 
units. In the remaining South African giraffe units of KAZA TFCA and 
South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique, the South African giraffe is not 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, 
because the populations are large, interconnected, and have increasing 
population trends, so we are not including those units in the portion 
that we are evaluating for the threatened classification.
    As mentioned above, South African giraffes need multiple healthy, 
resilient populations that are distributed across the subspecies' range 
to reduce the risk of extinction. After evaluating threats to the 
subspecies and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the 
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, 
and fragmentation, and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by 
human population growth, climate change, and low genetic diversity, are 
the threats with the greatest potential to affect the subspecies' 
viability within the foreseeable future.
    Habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation is unlikely on 
protected lands (government or private) and is otherwise expected to 
continue in parts of each South African giraffe unit. Drought duration, 
frequency, and intensity are projected to increase within the range of 
the South African giraffe similarly in each South African giraffe unit. 
Human population size is projected to increase by approximately 27 
percent under the lower scenario and to increase almost sixfold under 
the upper scenario across the subspecies' range by 2100. In turn, South 
African giraffes may face reductions in food quality and availability, 
and restriction of their movement patterns and ability to access 
necessary resources. Additionally, although we were unable to quantify 
potential future increases in poaching, we anticipate that poaching 
will likely continue in each South African giraffe unit with increased 
food insecurity associated with rapid human population growth and 
climate change. While plausible future conditions indicate that habitat 
conditions will decline, human populations will increase, and climate 
change will increase the duration, frequency, and intensity of drought, 
there is no evidence suggesting a change in the subspecies' past 
response to any of these threats in the future.
    The overall South African giraffe population has increased to 
29,390 individuals, 367 percent of the population size of 8,000 in 
1979, which represents an increase of approximately 2.7-3.2 percent per 
year over this time The population is unlikely to continue growing into 
the future at the recent rate given the low starting abundances. 
Additionally, population trends in the future are dependent upon the 
continued protections afforded the subspecies by private lands such as 
those used for tourism and private game farms. The population outside 
of private lands has increased since the 1970s, and population trends 
may be stable or increasing if private landowners continue to conserve 
South African giraffe at their current extent or increase. We find it 
most likely based on the best available data and past and present 
trends that private landowners will continue to conserve giraffe at 
rates comparable to the present. However, protections from these 
sources are not guaranteed, and giraffe abundance may decline if those 
do not continue and/or climate change impacts are not sufficiently 
mitigated.
    Even should populations decline, both the KAZA TFCA and South 
Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique units have populations that are large, 
connected, and that have adequate resiliency to sustain some 
reductions. Poaching, which is a driving factor in the decline of other 
giraffe species across the African continent, may be tempered by the 
relative political stability in the range of the South African giraffe. 
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are not likely to cause 
population-level declines to the point that the subspecies is likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future due to the 
South African giraffe's versatility and diverse diets, as well as to 
the future decisions of southern African countries in how giraffes are 
managed. South African giraffes are also managed by range countries 
where hunting is legal to sustain ecotourism and trophy[hyphen]hunting 
activities, which in turn may be managed to produce revenues that are 
used by range countries and local communities for giraffe conservation 
activities such as anti-poaching, reintroduction, and habitat 
preservation and restoration to benefit and address the threats to 
giraffes in the country. The private sector has contributed 
significantly to the increase in the subspecies' population through 
management, including by helping restore the subspecies to many parts 
of its former range. Overall, while continued threats are projected, 
given the large population sizes for the KAZA TFCA and South Africa/
Zimbabwe/Mozambique units, the threats are not of such a magnitude that 
the subspecies is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future. However, the rest of the range contains much 
smaller populations that are more vulnerable to these threats into the 
future. In summary, we find that the South African giraffe is not 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
in either the KAZA TFCA or the South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique units, 
but it may be threatened in a portion of the range--the Malawi, 
Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve units.
    When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened 
throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions 
because we must determine whether there is any portion

[[Page 92535]]

of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant'' 
(the significance question) and (2) the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout that portion (the status question). We 
first addressed the significance question. In undertaking this analysis 
of whether any portion of the range is significant based on its 
conservation value for the subspecies, we considered whether (1) the 
portion is a sufficiently large proportion of the current range such 
that it necessarily provides an important conservation value for the 
subspecies or (2) the portion otherwise contributes an important 
conservation value for the subspecies. The combined geographical size 
of the Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special 
Reserve units is a very small proportion (approximately 2 percent) of 
the current range of the South African giraffe. This portion of the 
range also does not otherwise contribute an important conservation 
value for the subspecies. The portion does not currently or recently 
contain high abundance or density of individuals or populations of the 
subspecies relative to its geographic size. Additionally, the 
populations in Malawi and Eswatini are likely extralimital populations 
introduced outside of the historical range. The reintroduced 
populations at Zinave National Park and Maputo Special Reserve are 
still quite small (fewer than 50 giraffes at each location). The 
portion of the range does not contain important habitat features for 
the subspecies' conservation that are not found elsewhere within the 
range. The portion of the range does not connect other more significant 
populations and does not increase genetic diversity because these 
populations were reintroduced from other populations of southern 
giraffe. Among the similar habitat features, across the range, the 
portion does not contain geographical areas of any specific higher or 
unique value. We therefore find that the Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave 
National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve units portion is not 
significant. As a result of our finding that this portion of the range 
is not ``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the South 
African giraffe is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range.
    Because no portion of the subspecies' range is significant, there 
is no basis to determine that the subspecies is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a 
significant portion of its range. In reaching this conclusion, we did 
not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition 
of ``significant,'' that courts have held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the South African giraffe does not meet the definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the 
South African giraffe under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors is not 
warranted at this time.

II. Proposed Listing Determinations for the West African Giraffe, 
Kordofan Giraffe, Nubian Giraffe, Reticulated Giraffe, and Masai 
Giraffe

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
northern giraffe (which consists of three subspecies: West African 
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian giraffe), reticulated giraffe, 
and Masai giraffe is presented in each species' respective SSA report 
(Service 2024a, entire; Service 2024b, entire; Service 2024c, entire).
    Giraffes are the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest 
ruminant on Earth. Life-history traits of multiple giraffe species have 
been reported from several locations across their ranges and 
demonstrate both a strong degree of consistency of traits across 
regions as well as a large amount of individual variation (Bercovitch 
and Berry 2009, p. 535). No difference in behavior or development among 
species has been reported (San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance (SDZWA) 
2023, unpaginated). Therefore, we consider all giraffes to have similar 
needs and life-history traits.
    The giraffe's primary activity is feeding, and they consume a 
variety of leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits (Dagg 2019, p. 24; Muller 
et al. 2016, p. 6). Because giraffes have high metabolic and 
reproductive requirements, they need to consume large quantities of 
food throughout the year (Parker and Bernard 2005, p. 207). Giraffes 
have been noted to forage on at least 100 different plant species, 
although Acacia, Commiphora, and Terminalia species are major staples 
(Kingdon 1997, p. 494; Muller et al. 2016, p. 6). Acacia trees or 
bushes are a preferred resource and are fed on in high proportions 
wherever giraffes occur (Dagg 2019, p. 25).
    Giraffes need high-quality forage year-round to maintain their 
high-energy budget; this is particularly true for females, which have 
long gestation periods and are pregnant for most of their adult lives. 
Each population has a diverse diet, and the food that the giraffes 
select throughout the year largely depends on the seasonal changes in 
the phenology of plant species (Pellew 1984, p. 74) or, for females, 
whether they are nursing (Caister et al. 2003, p. 209; Saito and Idani 
2018, p. 15). Generally, giraffes do not show large-scale seasonal 
migrations, but within individual home ranges, small-scale seasonal 
movements occur primarily based on food resources (Pellew 1984, p. 65; 
Brown et al. 2023, p. 7; Fennessy 2009, p. 324). Additionally, because 
giraffes engage in small-scale seasonal movements based on changes in 
the distribution of food resources, they need adequate space within 
which to move and find high-quality food that meets their metabolic 
needs. Within their home ranges, giraffes also need access to mates.
    Giraffes live in a complex society characterized by loose subgroup 
composition, a pattern of sexual segregation, and longer-term 
relationships that are typical in fission-fusion societies (Bercovitch 
et al. 2006, p. 314; Carter et al. 2013, p. 390; Dagg 2019, p. 39). 
Females are sexually mature at around 4-5 years old, and the average 
gestation period is about 15 months; thus, females produce their first 
offspring at around 5 to 6 years old (Pratt and Anderson 1982, p. 481; 
Berry and Bercovitch 2012, p. 159; Dagg 2019, p. 140). The calving 
interval can be highly variable, with a mean of 20 months, and is 
influenced by survival of the first calf and food quality (Pellew 1983, 
pp. 280-281; Lee and Strauss 2016, p. 5, citing many authors).
    Giraffes are versatile and have adapted to a variety of habitats, 
ranging from desert landscapes to woodland and savanna ecosystems, 
forming a wide arc across sub-Saharan Africa covering west, central, 
east, and southern Africa (Muller et al. 2016, p. 2; O'Connor et al. 
2019, p. 286). Giraffes are most often found in savanna and woodland 
habitats and always near trees or bushes (Dagg 1971, p. 4). Northern, 
reticulated, Masai, and southern giraffes occur in multiple countries 
in sub-Saharan Africa (see table 1).

[[Page 92536]]



                Table 1--Four Species of Giraffes and the Countries in Which They Occur in Africa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Northern giraffe              Reticulated giraffe         Masai giraffe           Southern giraffe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameroon.............................  Ethiopia...............  Kenya..................  Angola.
Central African Republic.............  Kenya..................  Rwanda.................  Botswana.
Chad.................................  .......................  Tanzania...............  Eswatini.
Democratic Republic of the Congo.....  .......................  Zambia.................  Malawi.
Ethiopia.............................  .......................  .......................  Mozambique.
Kenya................................  .......................  .......................  Namibia.
Niger................................  .......................  .......................  South Africa.
South Sudan..........................  .......................  .......................  Zambia.
Uganda...............................  .......................  .......................  Zimbabwe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, and issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Services 
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the 
species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not 
identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. 
We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using 
the best available data and taking into account considerations such as 
the species' life-history characteristics, threat projection 
timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make 
reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA reports do not represent our decision 
on whether these species should be proposed for listing as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, they do 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess the viability of northern giraffe, reticulated giraffe, 
Masai giraffe, and southern giraffe, we used the three conservation 
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the 
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic 
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy 
is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for 
example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the 
ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes 
in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate 
conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase 
with increases in (and decrease with

[[Page 92537]]

decreases in) resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 
2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified these species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing these species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated these individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of these species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how these species arrived 
at their current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about these species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA reports; the full SSA reports can be found at Docket FWS-HQ-ES-
2024-0157 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the West 
African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, 
Masai giraffe, and their resources, and the threats that influence 
these species' current and future condition, to assess their overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. We analyze these factors 
both individually and cumulatively to determine the current condition 
of these species and project their future condition under plausible 
future scenarios.

Species Needs

    We consider all giraffe species to have similar needs because no 
difference in behavior or development among species has been reported 
(SDZWA 2023, unpaginated). Therefore, West African, Kordofan, and 
Nubian, reticulated, and Masai giraffes have the same requirements to 
have high viability; they need to maintain representation (adaptive 
capacity) by having multiple, robust populations broadly distributed 
across diverse environments with spatial heterogeneity.
    Giraffes need high-quality forage year-round to maintain their 
high-energy budget, this is particularly true for females, which have 
long gestation periods and are pregnant for most of their adult lives. 
Each population has a diverse diet, and the food that giraffes select 
throughout the year largely depends on the seasonal changes in the 
phenology of plant species (Pellew 1984, p. 74) or, for females, 
whether they are nursing (Caister et al. 2003, p. 209; Saito and Idani 
2018, p. 15). Anthropogenic influences strong affect the giraffe's use 
of space (Brown et al. 2023, p. 8), physical and geographic barriers 
such as rivers, fencing, and urbanization (Fennessy et al. 2009, p. 
324; Le Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 350; Perry 1978, p. 80). Because 
giraffes engage in small-scale seasonal movements based on changes in 
the distribution of food resources, they need adequate space to move 
and find high-quality food that meets their metabolic needs. Within 
their home ranges, giraffes also need access to mates.
    Giraffe populations with robust abundances, population growth 
rates, and quality habitat are more resilient than populations that are 
less genetically or demographically healthy. Populations of giraffes 
that are distributed broadly across varying ecological conditions are 
more resilient to regional-scale environmental stochasticity; a broad 
distribution also reduces the chance that all populations (individuals) 
will experience catastrophic events concurrently. Giraffe evolutionary 
potential is maximized in large, connected populations (Coimbra et al. 
2021, p. 2935), and a broad distribution of giraffe populations 
facilitates the development of unique ecological adaptations in 
different populations. Maintaining connectivity between populations 
fosters population-level genetic diversity (heterozygosity) via gene 
flow and increased evolutionary potential of these species.
    The combination of life-history traits of giraffes that enhance 
their adaptive capacity also limits their reproductive output and 
creates a complex dynamic. Giraffes can utilize diverse food resources 
and cover large areas as resource availability becomes more variable 
(Dagg 2019, pp. 26-27; Muller et al. 2016, p. 6; Pellew 1984, p. 78; 
McQualter et al. 2015, p. 3), but their slow reproductive rates (Pratt 
and Anderson 1982, p. 481; Berry and Bercovitch 2012, p. 159; Dagg 
2019, p. 140; Pellew 1983, pp. 280-281; Lee and Strauss 2016, p. 5, 
citing many authors) may prevent them from effectively responding to 
rapid environmental changes. Thus, giraffe viability requires high 
population abundances, large effective population sizes, and 
sufficient, high-quality (nutritious and unfragmented) habitat 
distributed across heterogeneous environments.

Factors Influencing Giraffe Viability

    In this discussion, we first review the factors that influence the 
condition of all giraffe species, which are changing habitat conditions 
(causing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation) and poaching; 
these factors are exacerbated by rapid human population growth and 
climate change. We then review any additional details regarding these 
threats and any additional factors (e.g., disease) that influence each 
species' or subspecies' current and future condition, to assess overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.
Changing Habitat Conditions
    Changing habitat conditions affect giraffes directly or indirectly 
through reduced food availability and reduced or obstructed movements 
to find necessary resources, which negatively affect giraffe's survival 
and recruitment. The sources of habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation are conversion of natural habitats and natural vegetation 
to croplands and rangelands, urbanization, deforestation, production of 
fuelwood, and climate change. Changing habitat conditions also result 
in increased risk of human conflict (e.g., war) and human-wildlife 
conflict (e.g., retaliation and poaching).
    Africa is the fastest growing region in the world (Sakho-Jimbira 
and Hathie 2020, p. 3). In sub-Saharan Africa, the human population is 
approximately 1.2 billion people (WorldBank 2023, unpaginated). Annual 
population growth has ranged from 2.5 to 2.9 percent over the last 35 
years, and the sub-Saharan African population is projected to double by 
2050 and triple by 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) 2022, p. 1294). The exponential growth of the human population 
and the demand for land and resources are causing giraffes to explore 
new areas in search of food (Suraud et al. 2012, p. 581; Ferguson et 
al. 2020, p. 5). Conversion of natural habitats into farmlands and 
urban development not only affects giraffes through loss of food, but 
also contributes to the fragmentation of their habitats, making it more 
difficult for giraffes to find suitable feeding, drinking, breeding, 
and sheltering areas (Ali et al. 2023, p. 178). Because of habitat 
fragmentation, giraffes need to find alternative routes, often 
traversing through farmlands, feeding on crops, and increasing the risk 
of human-wildlife conflict (Ali et al. 2023, entire).

[[Page 92538]]

    Giraffes always occur near trees and/or bushes and rely on them for 
food. Therefore, forest loss, while not a direct measure of impacts to 
giraffe habitat, can be considered a reasonable surrogate for changing 
habitat conditions for giraffes. The rate of net forest loss has 
increased in Africa in each of the three decades since 1990, and Africa 
had the highest global annual rate of forest loss from 2010 to 2020 at 
3.9 million hectares (ha) (Food and Agricultural Organization of the 
United Nations (FAO) 2020, p. 15). Large declines in ``other wooded 
land'' (canopy cover of 5 to 10 percent) were also recorded from 1990-
2020 in all African subregions (FAO 2020, p. 24).
    One source of habitat loss is charcoal production. One billion 
people--roughly four of every five--in sub-Saharan Africa rely on 
cooking fuels used in open fires or basic stoves (IEA 2023, p. 14). 
Wood removal associated with fuelwood increased in all regions of 
Africa between 1990 and 2018 (FAO 2020, pp. 112-113). Woody vegetation, 
particularly Acacia trees, is the main source of charcoal production in 
the giraffe's range (Kiruki et al. 2017, p. 476; Abera et al. 2022, p. 
10; Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). Acacia trees also are a preferred food 
source of giraffes; therefore, a reduction of Acacia trees due to the 
demand for fuelwood reduces the availability of high-quality food 
resources for giraffes. Charcoal production also results in overall 
woodland degradation because it exacerbates vegetation loss, soil 
erosion, and creation of associated access roads (Kiruki et al. 2017, 
pp. 476, 478).
    Related effects from increased human population growth and land use 
changes--With a rapidly increasing human population, pastoralists 
(livestock farmers) across Africa are experiencing large-scale loss of 
rangeland access because of agriculture expansion, private ranches, 
wildlife reserves, and urbanization (Holechek et al. 2017, p. 275; 
Brottem 2021, p. 2). The threat to the livelihood of pastoralists 
intensifies human conflicts, and this breakdown of traditional pastoral 
and subsistence agricultural systems is a principal factor of civil 
unrest in Africa (Holechek et al. 2017, p. 275, citing many authors).
    Most wars in sub-Saharan Africa have been civil conflicts fought 
within the boundaries of a single sovereign country (State Failure 
2001, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 141). However, internal 
conflicts may overspill defined boundaries, affecting both a country 
and its neighbors for substantial lengths of time (Commission for 
Africa, 2005, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 141). Civil unrest does 
not usually directly target ecological resources in pursuit of a 
military outcome, but impacts to wildlife occur because of resource 
exploitation during periods of lawlessness (Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 7, 
citing many authors; Dudley et al. 2002, p. 326). However, large 
mammals (when available) are often a vital food source for isolated 
military or paramilitary groups operating within war zones and disputed 
territories (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 271; Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). 
Additionally, wildlife products are often sold or bartered for food, 
arms, ammunition, or other goods and services (Dudley et al. 2002, p. 
322). Civil unrest also causes significant displacement of people 
(Badiora 2017, p. 316; Davis 2019, p. 180; Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 
141). Refugee encampments are often associated with severe 
environmental degradation from the use of slash-and-burn agriculture 
and the overharvesting of vegetation for fuel, food, and construction 
materials. This, in turn, results in widespread deforestation and 
erosion, and takes a heavy toll on wildlife and habitats in affected 
areas (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 326; Pech 1995, in Dudley et al. 2002, 
p. 322).
Poaching
    Poaching is a primary threat to the giraffe's overall survival 
throughout Africa (Giraffe Conservation Foundation 2022, p. 22; Lee et 
al. 2023, p. 346; Muller et al. 2018, p. 7). The reasons for illegally 
killing giraffes vary greatly across Africa, with local context playing 
a significant role in shaping human-giraffe interactions (Ruppert 2020, 
chapter 2). Poverty, tradition, and lack of economic opportunity drives 
wildlife poaching (Knapp 2012, p. 443; Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 33). 
Poaching also tends to spike when food-shortages are severe, and when 
the demand for agricultural labor is low (Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 5), a 
common impact of drought (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9, 
Engelbrecht et al. 2024, p. 178). Additionally, highly organized 
poachers, individuals linked to international criminal networks, and 
military personnel are involved in the killing or theft of wildlife 
resources, including giraffes (Douglas and Alie 2014, p. 273, citing 
many authors; Humphreys and Smith 2011, pp. 131-137; Wildlife Justice 
Commission 2023, p. 7; Interpol 2024, unpaginated). The COVID-19 
pandemic caused a large reduction in tourism worldwide and resulted in 
economic hardship for many people throughout Africa. The loss of income 
in an already poverty-stricken area resulted in increased poaching of 
giraffe for bushmeat to feed families (Krein 2021, p. 75).
    Bushmeat is preferred in rural areas because it is normally cheaper 
than domesticated meat alternatives, whereas in urban areas bushmeat is 
considered a luxury (Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 6; Bowen-Jones et al. 
2002, p. 11; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, p. 940; Petrozzi et al. 2016, 
p. 546). Bushmeat consumption is consistently more prevalent closer to 
human settlements, although increasing national and international 
demand is driving commercialization of bushmeat (Lindsey et al. 2012, 
p. 6). Killing for bushmeat is more severe in poorer countries, in 
those countries with high human population densities, and during 
periods of political instability (Lindsey et al. 2011, p. 97).
    In summary, the primary threats of changing habitat conditions and 
poaching are directly influenced by rapid human population growth and 
climate change, which also influence these threats through increased 
human-wildlife conflicts. The combination of these threats works 
synergistically to affect all giraffe species.

Factors Influencing Northern Giraffe

    Factors that influence West African, Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes 
(the three subspecies of northern giraffe), are generally similar 
within and among populations, with differences in magnitude. Those 
factors include a combination of human actions that threaten the 
northern giraffe's viability as well as conservation efforts and 
regulatory measures that aim to benefit and protect northern giraffes. 
Because northern giraffes overlap with humans and domesticated 
livestock, they rely on the same natural resources. Human-wildlife 
conflicts occur when wildlife and humans compete for the same resources 
(Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) 2018, p. 49).
    The primary threats to the northern giraffe include changing 
habitat conditions caused by habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid human 
population growth as well as climate change through drought and extreme 
rainfall (Huho and Mugalavai 2010, entire; Lam et al. 2023, entire; 
Scholte et al. 2018, p. 2). However, other threats affect northern 
giraffes directly or compound these primary threats, such as low 
genetic diversity. We also considered potential threats such as 
predation and disease, and while individuals may be affected by these 
two threats, the best available information does not indicate 
population-level or species-level effects.

[[Page 92539]]

    Multiple studies show concurrent deforestation or loss of woody 
cover (giraffe foraging habitat and cover) with increases in cropland 
and settlements directly within the range of the northern giraffe. The 
degree of forest loss from 2001-2023 was variable across the subspecies 
of the northern giraffe. West African giraffe lost minimal (less than 1 
ha) forest area from 2001-2023, but already had low forest cover by 
2000. However, in non-forested areas the subspecies experienced a high 
degree of cropland development within and between its two populations 
from 2003 to 2019 (Potapov et al. 2021, p. 19). Most of the forest loss 
within the range of the northern giraffe occurred in the range of the 
Nubian giraffe subspecies (29.3 kha of tree cover, equivalent to a 2.5 
percent decrease). Across the full range of the Nubian giraffe, the 
primary driver of forest loss was shifting agriculture, defined as 
small- to medium-scale forest and shrubland conversion for agriculture 
(Curtis et al. 2018, p. 1108). Similarly, the primary driver of forest 
loss for Kordofan giraffe was shifting agriculture (Curtis et al. 2018, 
p. 1108), equating to a loss of tree cover across its range from 2001-
2023, or a 0.55 percent decrease (GFW 2024, unpaginated). Substantial 
crop development has also occurred between populations for all three 
subspecies from 2003-2019, which can limit dispersal and gene flow 
between populations, and can restrict access to water resources 
(Potapov et al. 2021, p. 19).
    Civil unrest is a longstanding and significant ongoing concern 
throughout the range of the northern giraffe. Armed conflicts have been 
ongoing for years in Niger. There was a coup in July 2023, and military 
authorities continue to run the government (British Broadcasting 
Corporation (BBC) 2024, entire). Insecurity is also caused from 
neighboring countries; in the border area between Burkina Faso, Mali, 
and Niger, attacks by non-state armed groups affiliated with either al-
Qaeda or the Islamic State continue to force thousands of people to 
flee (United Nations Security Council 2023, p. 1; United Nations 
Refugee Agency (UNHCR) 2021, entire).
    In the range of the Kordofan giraffe, ethnic conflicts have 
increased insecurity in the region and wildlife populations suffered 
heavy losses due to the widespread proliferation of guns in this region 
(Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2017, unpaginated; Bouch[eacute] 
et al. 2011, p. 7008; Ruggiero 1984, p. 12). Waza National Park in 
Cameroon, Garamba National Park in the DRC, and the Northern Central 
African Republic (CAR) are situated in areas with hostilities, with 
armed poachers and various rebel groups (Bouch[eacute] et al. 2009, p. 
995; Elkan et al. 2015, p. 4; Bouch[eacute] et al. 2011, p. 7008; 
Ruggiero 1984, p. 12). Waza National Park in Cameroon, which contains 
the second largest population of Kordofan giraffes, has suffered from 
the rise of the Boko Haram insurgence that has caused a major security 
threat to the northern regions of the country and has effectively 
halted any wildlife conservation or surveillance in the park since 2015 
(Roland 2018, cited in Marias et al. 2019, p. 3; Elkan et al. 2015, p. 
4). While terrorist activities currently remain relatively far from 
Zakouma National Park, where 50 percent of the Kordofan giraffe 
population exists, they do pose threats to other regions that may have 
remnant giraffe populations (Marais et al. 2020c, p. 3).
    This pattern of destabilization across regions, combined with 
refugee migration, is characteristic of armed conflicts in west, 
central, and east Africa (Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). As stated above, 
refugee encampments are often associated with severe environmental 
degradation from the use of slash-and-burn agriculture and the 
overharvesting of vegetation for fuel, food, and construction 
materials. This, in turn, results in widespread deforestation and 
erosion, and takes a heavy toll on wildlife and habitats in affected 
areas (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 326; Pech 1995, in Dudley et al. 2002, 
p. 322).
    In summary, changing habitat conditions because of habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation, primarily due to agriculture expansion, 
urbanization, and fuelwood production, are considered historical, 
ongoing, and imminent threats to the West African, Kordofan, and Nubian 
giraffes. Changing habitat conditions reduce the availability of high-
quality food and reduce foraging habitat, protective cover, and 
connectivity for giraffes, and these threats are anticipated to 
continue in the future, exacerbated by the increased pressure placed on 
land use and natural resources from a rapidly increasing human 
population and climate change (including the inter-related effects such 
as civil unrest and human food insecurity).
Poaching
    The reasons for illegally killing giraffes vary greatly across 
Africa, with local context playing a significant role in shaping human-
giraffe interactions (Ruppert 2020, chapter 2). Poaching has reduced 
the numbers of West African, Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes. Many 
populations have been extirpated or have been severely reduced by 
poaching. Currently, there has been limited effectiveness in reducing 
poaching with a few successes, like the West African population in 
Niger and Zakouma National Park in Chad.
    Illegal killing drove local extirpations of the West African 
giraffe in the 1970s and 1980s, which culminated with only an estimated 
49 individuals remaining by 1996 in a single area in Niger 
(Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 2). This population has 
increased, partially because of the launch of several community 
projects that effectively reduced poaching of giraffe by locals 
(Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 5). The Government of Niger 
made concerted efforts to enforce legislation preventing the illegal 
killing of giraffes in the mid-1990s, further supported by a community 
education and awareness campaign (Suraud et al. 2012, p. 577; Ferguson 
et al. 2020, pp. 2-4).
    For the Kordofan giraffe, poaching has resulted in severe 
reductions in giraffe populations (D'haen et al. 2019, p. 11403; Bouche 
et al. 2011, pp. 6-11). In countries where there is significant 
political and social instability, such as in CAR and the DRC, funding 
and management of protected areas is insufficient to eliminate 
poaching. One of the few exceptions is Zakouma National Park in Chad, 
which is the only park in central Africa with increasing numbers of 
megaherbivores (including giraffes) because of a high number of 
rangers, long-term European Union funding, and political support 
(Scholte 2021, pp. 4-6). The population of Kordofan giraffe is 2,297 
individuals (Brown et al. 2021, p. 6). Zakouma National Park holds 
approximately 50 percent of the population of Kordofan giraffes (Brown 
et al. 2021, p. 6; Marais et al. 2020c, p. 4).
    Populations of Nubian giraffe in Uganda have declined as much as 90 
percent from the 1960s due to increased poaching because of political 
and social instability across their historical range (UWA 2018, p. 43). 
Overall, only a few small and isolated populations of Nubian giraffe 
remain in Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, and Ethiopia (Wube et al. 2018, 
p. 1; Fennessy et al. 2018, pp. 1-2; Muneza et al. 2024, p. 1275). The 
Nubian giraffe's total population is 3,022 giraffes (Brown et al. 2021, 
pp. 4, 7). Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda holds approximately 
60 percent (2,250 individuals) of the total population of Nubian 
giraffes. While populations have rebounded in areas where there is 
better security and management (i.e., in the

[[Page 92540]]

protected areas in Uganda and Kenya where most of the giraffes occur), 
poaching remains a threat where populations are smallest, such as in 
South Sudan. In Kenya, Nubian giraffes have rebounded from near 
extirpation in the 1970s to roughly 1,000 individuals distributed among 
13 populations. This rebound is attributed to better security and 
management in protected areas that has reduced poaching (Muneza et al. 
2024, p. 1279). Poaching remains a threat in South Sudan, where Nubian 
giraffe populations are smallest and less protected; however, poaching 
has been reduced in the areas with the most Nubian giraffes in Uganda 
and Kenya.
Climate Change
    The mechanisms by which climate change can affect the giraffe's 
fitness are complex, multifaceted, and contingent on a range of 
interacting factors. The primary influence of climate change on the 
viability of the West African, Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes is changes 
in precipitation patterns, notably drought and extreme precipitation 
pattern. Drought reduces water availability and food quality for 
giraffes. Giraffes are generally less able to access high-quality 
browse during times of drought due to an increase in tree mortality and 
a decline in browse abundance (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9, 
Engelbrecht et al. 2024, p. 178), as well as increased competition with 
other browsing species (Birkett and Stevens[hyphen]Wood 2005, entire). 
Less access to high-quality food leads to giraffes needing to expand 
their home range, which in turn increases the relative proportion of 
time searching for food and can lead to human-wildlife conflicts and 
the increased risk of poaching. Giraffes can also be affected by 
extreme precipitation. High precipitation events were correlated with 
reduced survival in both adult and subadult giraffes, as higher 
rainfall can increase cover for predators, increase parasite and 
disease prevalence, and reduce food quality (Bond et al. 2023, pp. 
3185-3193).
    Indirectly, human food insecurity, brought on by both drought and 
heavy precipitation events, affects the giraffe's viability. Drought 
impacts pasture quality, livestock survival and production, crop 
yields, and malnutrition rates (Lam et al. 2023, p. entire). Heavy 
precipitation and flooding events in Kenya resulted in crop damages and 
impacts to 5 million people (1997); losses of life, property, and crops 
leading to human displacement (2002); and impacts to 112,000 people and 
crops (2013) (Kogo et al. 2021, p. 36). Impacts to current crops or 
livestock leads to changes in farming practices (Huho and Mugalavai 
2010, pp. 66-70). Many of these changes may result in the loss, 
degradation, or fragmentation of giraffe habitat.
    In summary, climate change directly affects giraffes through 
reduced forage and competition with other browsing species. Decreased 
availability of high-quality forage may cause giraffes to expand their 
home range in search of high-quality forage, which increases the risks 
of poaching and human-wildlife conflict because of changing habitat 
conditions. Indirectly, drought affects giraffes because human food 
insecurity leads to changing land-use practices that in turn affect 
habitat conditions. Extreme precipitation events influence predation, 
disease, and food quality, the consequences of which can lead to direct 
mortality of, and reduced recruitment for, giraffes.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Our evaluation of the status of the species takes into account the 
extent to which threats are reduced or removed as a result of 
conservation efforts or existing regulatory mechanisms. Across Africa 
and throughout the ranges of the West African, Kordofan, and Nubian 
giraffe, many conservation organizations are dedicated to the 
conservation of giraffes in the wild. National wildlife departments, 
nongovernmental organizations, and international organizations aid with 
conservation efforts for giraffes that include a multitude of actions 
such as translocations, anti-poaching efforts, capacity building and 
education, and technical and financial assistance. The conservation 
efforts that are ongoing within the range of the West African, 
Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes focus on enforcement of anti-poaching 
laws, minimizing human-wildlife conflicts and commercial trade, and 
working with communities where these subspecies occur. However, these 
efforts are not likely to counter the ongoing and anticipated changes 
in land use and associated effects to the West African, Kordofan, and 
Nubian giraffe from human population growth and climate change because 
of the magnitude of the impacts in these areas, the small population 
sizes for these subspecies, and/or the currently downward trajectory of 
giraffes' abundance.
West African Giraffe
    There are two primary conservation efforts for the West African 
giraffe in Niger: the Giraffe Zone and the re-establishment of a 
population in the Gadabedji Biosphere Reserve. The Giraffe Zone occurs 
in the arid Sahelian scrubland east of the capital Niamey and is part 
of the transition zone of Niger's W National Park Biosphere Reserve, 
which includes: (1) the central zone of Kour[eacute], (2) the Dallol 
Bosso, and (3) the Fakara Plateau (Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 5; Ciofolo 
1995, p. 579; Le Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 342). The Giraffe Zone is 
an unprotected and unfenced area where giraffes move freely between the 
three areas and migrate based on seasonal availability of forage, 
giraffe carrying capacity in the core area, and increasing pressure 
from a growing human population (Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 5). Giraffes 
share their living space with local villagers and livestock, and their 
movements are synchronized with human activities based on habitat and 
forage availability (Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 351).
    The Giraffe Zone does not provide any formal protections for West 
African giraffes, but poaching currently appears to be rare. The West 
African giraffe is fully protected under Niger's ``Loi N[deg] 82-002 du 
28 Mai 1982 portant r[eacute]glementation de la chasse'' (as amended by 
Law 98-07 of April 29, 1998, regulating hunting and wildlife 
protection) and may not be hunted (Food and Agriculture Organization 
database of national legislation (FAOLEX) 2024, unpaginated; Republic 
of Niger 1998). The Government of Niger made concerted efforts to 
enforce legislation preventing the illegal killing of giraffes in the 
mid-1990s, further supported by a community education and awareness 
campaign (Suraud et al. 2012, p. 577; Ferguson et al. 2020, pp. 2-4). 
Since 2000, incidents of poaching have been rare (Suraud et al. 2012, 
p. 577; GCF 2019, entire; Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 5). However, within 
the Giraffe Zone, habitat loss (including land degradation and habitat 
fragmentation) is well documented and continues to occur (Morou 2011, 
in Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al.

[[Page 92541]]

2020, p. 4; Abdou 2005, in Suraud et al. 2012, p. 581).
    Starting in 2018, 12 West African giraffes were translocated to 
reestablish the Gadabedji Biosphere Reserve population. The population 
has expanded, with five calves born, showing early signs of success in 
the first 5 years after the initial translocation 
(Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 8). This is a protected area, 
but the current population size is very small and long-term post-
translocation monitoring is crucial to evaluate the translocation 
success and advise on future translocations to the Reserve and other 
sites in the country or regionally (Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 
2024, p. 8).
Kordofan Giraffe
    Most individuals (approximately 80 percent) of the Kordofan giraffe 
currently occur in Zakouma National Park in southern Chad 
(approximately 1,200 giraffes) and Waza National Park in northern 
Cameroon (approximately 500 giraffes). In the near term, only the 
population in Zakouma National Park appears protected from habitat loss 
and poaching within a larger, intact, protected area. Zakouma National 
Park is part of the 28,162-square-kilometer (km\2\) Greater Zakouma 
Ecosystem, managed by African Parks in partnership with the Government 
of Chad. In 2022, the Government of Chad signed a revised agreement 
with African Parks, which extends until 2027. Zakouma National Park is 
the only park in Central Africa with increasing numbers of large 
herbivores because of its unique long-term European Union funding, many 
rangers, and political support (Scholte et al. 2021, pp. 4-6). The 
current management agreement for Zakouma only extends until 2027. The 
situation is quite different in Waza National Park in Cameroon. In Waza 
National Park and other protected areas in Cameroon, threats to the 
Kordofan giraffe remain and have been documented in multiple instances, 
such as lack of enforcement, tree removal, livestock grazing, and 
events of civil unrest (Kelly 2014, pp. 737-738; Scholte et al. 2021, 
entire; Garcia et al. 2022, p. 62). Political support for Waza National 
Park ended in the mid-1980s; thus, funding for the park was drastically 
reduced (Kelly 2014, p. 737). All the other national parks where 
Kordofan giraffes occur have very few giraffes remaining, largely due 
to poaching and a lack of management.
Nubian Giraffe
    Rangewide, 60 percent of Nubian giraffes occur at Murchison Falls 
National Park in Uganda, a 3,840-km\2\ park managed by the Uganda 
Wildlife Authority. The park (3,840 km\2\), Karuma Wildlife Reserve 
(678 km\2\), and Bugungu Wildlife Reserve (474 km\2\) are part of the 
Murchison Falls Protected Area, the largest landscape of protected 
areas in Uganda (Plumptre et al. 2015, p. 4). The protected area (and 
its wildlife) has been described as likely the hardest hit of any of 
Uganda's protected areas during the civil unrest of the 1970s and 1980s 
(UWA 2018, pp. 5, 43). It was only following the political 
stabilization associated with establishment of the current government 
in Uganda that protection measures have increased large mammal 
populations, including giraffes (Plumptre et al. 2015, p. 4; UWA 2018, 
p. 53).
    Since the 1990s, the Murchison Falls population has gradually 
increased to approximately 2,250 individuals. However, the park is 
becoming increasingly isolated. Settlement around the park has reduced 
potential wildlife corridors to other parks or available habitat (Fuda 
2015, p. 26). In addition, oil and gas development is ongoing within 
Murchison Falls (Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) 2024, 
entire; Akisiimire et al. 2022, pp. 21-23).
    There are four other small populations (fewer than 100 individuals 
each) in eastern and southern Uganda, and the rest of Nubian giraffes 
occur in small populations in Kenya, South Sudan, and Ethiopia.
    The Boma-Jonglei ecosystem of South Sudan is a largely intact 
savanna and woodland habitat that includes Boma and Badingilo National 
Parks linked by wildlife movement corridors and key transboundary 
biodiversity areas (WCS 2019, unpaginated; Morjan et al. 2017, p. 367). 
Both Boma and Badingilo National Parks are proposed United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World 
Heritage Sites (African Parks 2024, unpaginated). Nubian giraffes only 
exist in small populations around these two national parks in South 
Sudan. The ecosystem has a direct transboundary linkage with Gambella 
National Park in Ethiopia (WCS 2019, unpaginated). The small population 
of Nubian giraffes in Ethiopia currently reside in and around Gambella 
National Park, and there may be a small population existing in the Omo-
Tama regions (Marais et al. 2020d, p. 3; Brown et al. 2021, p. 7). 
Several of Ethiopia's parks are designated protected areas but lack 
enforcement and management to achieve their stated conservation 
purposes (Jacobs and Schloeder 2001, p. 10).
    The Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA), established 
in 2008, is the country's primary wildlife protection agency that 
oversees the protection, administration, and sustainable use of 
Ethiopia's fauna. Their principal goals are the conservation of 
endangered species, the repair and extension of protected areas, and 
the development of wildlife-based tourism that does not deplete natural 
resources (EWCA 2024, pp. 1-3). Giraffes are protected species in 
Ethiopia (Council of Ministers Regulations No. 163/2008, p. 35). 
However, the few trained staff and field-based wildlife rangers that 
the EWCA currently has are not enough to combat illegal wildlife trade 
and poaching even within the protected areas (Tessema 2017, p. 36). To 
help build enforcement capacity, the EWCA is supported by international 
organizations. For example, community members around the Gambella 
National Park were selected and trained on wildlife crime 
interventions, wildlife crime information collection techniques, and 
conservation awareness skills (Tessema 2017, p. 38).
    The last remaining endemic population of Nubian giraffes in Kenya 
at Soi Ranch supplied giraffes for countrywide translocations in the 
1960s and 1970s (Brenneman 2009, p. 712; Muruana et al. 2021, p. 8). 
Nubian giraffes have been translocated to national parks, private 
reserves, and other protected areas in western Kenya (Fennessy et al. 
2018, p. 2; Muruana et al. 2021, p. 7), and now they occur in 13 
locations (Muneza et al. 2024, table 1; Muruana et al. 2021, pp. 13-15, 
citing many authors). Most of the introductions were into private 
fenced wildlife areas (Brenneman et al. 2009, p. 712; Muruana et al. 
2021, p. 4).
    Kenya has developed a National Recovery and Action Plan for Giraffe 
in Kenya (2018-2022) (Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) 2018, entire) and a 
national Wildlife Strategy 2030 (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife 2018, 
entire). The National Recovery and Action Plan for Giraffe in Kenya is 
aimed at having viable, free-ranging populations of three giraffe 
species in Kenya (Masai, reticulated, and northern giraffe (including 
Nubian giraffe)) and addressing challenges for sustainable conservation 
and management of these species (KWS 2018, entire). One of the 
strategic objectives of the National Recovery and Action Plan for 
Giraffe in Kenya is to reduce the proportion of giraffe illegally 
killed by 50 percent within 5 years of 2018 (KWS 2018, p. 31).

[[Page 92542]]

    As discussed above, in Kenya, the Nubian giraffe has rebounded from 
near extirpation in the 1970s to roughly 1,000 individuals distributed 
among 13 populations. This rebound is attributed to better security and 
management in protected areas that has reduced poaching (Muneza et al. 
2024, p. 1279). Population estimates by KWS have increased with these 
efforts to increase penalties on crimes related to threatened species 
such as giraffes, although this increase is also attributed to the 
inclusion of more updated data in the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021, 
p. 110). The National Wildlife Strategy 2030 outlines a vision for 
wildlife conservation and describes Kenya's needs for wildlife 
conservation strategies because human population pressure, habitat 
loss, rapid development in key wildlife areas, poaching, insecurity, 
and overexploitation have accelerated the decline of wildlife 
populations and habitat degradation (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife 
2018, p. 7).
    Additionally, the National Human-Wildlife Coexistence Strategy and 
Action Plan 2024-2033 is aimed at fostering sustainable wildlife 
conservation while effectively mitigating human-wildlife conflicts (KWS 
2024, unpaginated). The KWS has a security division with an overall 
goal and primary mandate to strengthen law enforcement, protect 
wildlife and their habitats, enhance tourist security in protected 
areas, and safeguard KWS assets. Population estimates by KWS have 
increased with these efforts to increase penalties on crimes related to 
threatened species, although this increase is attributed to the 
inclusion of more updated data in the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021, 
p. 110).
    Giraffes are also protected by international mechanisms that 
include protections, regulation of international trade, and awareness 
of giraffe conservation efforts in Africa. These mechanisms include the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES), Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of 
Wild Animals (Convention), and the African Union, all of which are 
international agreements where member countries agree to implement 
measures to minimize illicit trade of wildlife including giraffes. 
Trade is not the primary cause of the decline of wild giraffe 
populations; however, trade has an additive effect when combined with 
the main causes of decline (habitat loss and poaching). Giraffes have 
historically been sought for their hair and tails, and their parts have 
been used for medicinal purposes, but, more recently, giraffes have 
been increasingly hunted and poached for bushmeat. Giraffe parts are 
frequently in international commercial trade, but their country of 
origin, the subspecies (or species), and whether the specimens in trade 
were legally acquired can be uncertain (CITES 2019a, pp. 5-6).

Current Condition of Northern Giraffe

    We describe the current condition of the northern giraffe and its 
three subspecies in terms of the primary influences affecting 
population abundance and trends, as well as the range contraction of 
the subspecies. The three subspecies are genetically distinct and 
separated by geographical or physical barriers and thus demographically 
distinct. The northern giraffe only remains in a small fraction of its 
historical range with small, isolated populations scattered across 
west, central, and east Africa with no connectivity between 
populations.
    The population of the northern giraffe was estimated at 5,919 in 
2020 (at least 600 West African, 2,297 Kordofan, and 3,022 Nubian) 
(Brown et al. 2021, p. 5). A historical estimate for the northern 
giraffe is not readily available; however, the combined estimate of the 
historical (i.e., 1985) populations of the subspecies that comprise the 
northern giraffe places the historical population at 25,653 individuals 
(Muller et al. 2018, p. 6). Thus, the current population represents a 
77 percent decline from the historical population.
    The reason for the decline of the northern giraffe is primarily 
related to changing habitat conditions and poaching. Converting natural 
habitats has resulted in habitat loss and degradation of natural 
vegetation; fragmentation of the giraffe's range, which has 
historically been a more connected landscape of suitable habitat for 
northern giraffes; and increased risk of human-wildlife conflict, 
including poaching. Changing habitat conditions affect giraffes 
directly or indirectly through reduced food availability and reduced or 
obstructed movements to find necessary resources, which negatively 
affect survival and recruitment. Land use pressures within the range of 
the northern giraffe to meet the demands of the human population for 
their livelihoods, including agriculture, pastoralism, and other uses, 
come at the detriment of the giraffe's requirements for food and space. 
Poaching directly reduces the giraffe's condition through mortality, 
mainly reducing adult survival. In addition, the three northern 
subspecies have the second highest levels of genetic diversity among 
giraffe species and subspecies (the reticulated giraffe has the highest 
levels). However, compared to other mammal species, their levels of 
heterozygosity are low, and levels of inbreeding are moderately high, 
especially for the West African and Nubian subspecies.
    The influences on the three subspecies of the northern giraffe 
(West African, Kordofan, and Nubian) are generally similar within and 
among their populations, with differences in magnitude. All three 
subspecies are impacted by changing habitat conditions. The West 
African giraffe is less impacted by poaching pressure than the Kordofan 
and Nubian giraffes, although the Nubian giraffe is less impacted by 
poaching in its range in Kenya and Uganda than in the remainder of its 
range in Ethiopia and South Sudan. Except for the Giraffe Zone in 
Niger, all populations are in protected areas; however, enforcement is 
higher in Kenya and Uganda.
West African Giraffe
    Historically, the West African giraffe was distributed widely from 
Senegal to Nigeria but has been extirpated across most of its range 
because of changing habitat conditions, drought, and poaching (Fennessy 
et al. 2018, p. 2; Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 2). The 
drastic decline in abundance and redundancy of the West African giraffe 
has limited the subspecies to two remaining populations in Niger. 
Giraffes in Niger are not currently experiencing population declines 
(since near extirpation by the mid-1990s). The population has steadily 
increased since 1996, which is attributed to reduced poaching pressure 
on the population. Most giraffes occur in the Giraffe Zone (Brown et 
al. 2021, p. 8; Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 6). The current population 
size of 690 is an increase of 1,308 percent from the 1995 population 
size of 49. The populations in Niger are currently not subject to 
poaching; however, they are currently affected by habitat loss, land 
degradation, and habitat fragmentation (Morou 2011, in 
Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2020, p. 4; Abdou 2005, in Suraud et al. 
2012, p. 581). The primary factors influencing the viability of the 
West African giraffe are the continuation of conservation initiatives, 
as well as threats from ongoing and imminent habitat loss and 
fragmentation, civil unrest, human food insecurity, poaching, and 
exacerbation of these threats with increasing human populations and 
climate change. Overall, the resiliency and redundancy of the West 
African giraffe are reduced due to declines in abundance and the 
subspecies being limited to two small areas in Niger. The two remaining

[[Page 92543]]

populations are small and isolated, and this lack of redundant healthy 
populations increases the risk of effects of catastrophic drought.
    While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide 
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive 
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly 
constrain the giraffe's ability to respond to the rapidly changing 
conditions associated with human population growth and climate change. 
Similarly, the West African giraffe's ability to shift its range in 
response to changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely 
because populations are mostly confined to protected areas isolated 
from other populations. Therefore, West African giraffes have limited 
options to avoid the risks associated with habitat loss and poaching, 
and threats associated with rapidly increasing human populations and 
climate change.
Kordofan Giraffe
    The Kordofan giraffe was formerly widespread across central African 
countries in the northern savanna woodlands and Sahel zone (Fennessy et 
al. 2018, p. 2; East 1999, pp. 95-97). The Sahel is a band of territory 
in Africa that stretches from the Atlantic coast of Senegal and 
Mauritania to the four countries bordering Lake Chad (United Nations 
Development Programme 2024, unpagainted). The Sahel acts like a buffer 
or transition zone between the Sahara Desert to the north and the 
fertile savannahs to the south. While the Kordofan giraffe currently 
occurs in its historical range countries of Cameroon, CAR, Chad, DRC, 
and South Sudan, population abundance has been declining over the last 
40 to 60 years, the area of occupancy is greatly reduced, and the 
subspecies is restricted to small, disjunct populations.
    In the 1950s, there were an estimated 6,360 to 7,360 individuals of 
the Kordofan giraffe across the DRC, Cameroon, Chad, and CAR; please 
note that South Sudan is not included in this estimate. Currently, the 
best estimate of current population size for the Kordofan giraffe is 
2,297 individuals (Brown et al. 2021, p. 6) spread across five 
countries in central Africa. Thus, Kordofan giraffe is only 31-36 
percent of the population size in the 1950s, a decline of approximately 
1.5 to 7.0 percent per year. Approximately 80 percent of the remaining 
individuals now occur within just two populations (approximately 1,200 
in Zakouma National Park in Chad, and approximately 500 in Waza 
National Park in Cameroon) (Brown et al. 2021, p. 6). The remaining 
populations are small with little interaction between groups (Brown et 
al. 2021, p. 6; Marais et al. 2019, p. 4).
    The primary causes of this historical and ongoing decline include 
poaching, giraffe-human conflict (via civil unrest), and habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation, all of which are strongly driven by the 
rapidly increasing human population and climate change. While the 
Kordofan giraffe exhibits traits that provide adaptive ability, its 
long lifespan, low reproductive output, high energetic demands, dietary 
needs, and limited gene flow strongly constrain its ability to 
evolutionarily respond to rapidly changing conditions associated with 
human population growth and climate change. Similarly, the ability of 
Kordofan giraffes to shift their range in response to deteriorating 
habitat and climate conditions is highly unlikely. There are limited 
options for giraffes to avoid the risks associated with habitat loss, 
poaching, and threats associated with rapidly increasing human 
populations and climate change threats.
    The continued reductions in the availability and quality of food 
resources, coupled with increased mortality due to intensifying human 
conflicts, place additional pressure on already stressed giraffe 
populations. To date, conservation efforts have been insufficient to 
address ongoing threats, and the best available information indicates 
that such efforts will not halt the declining trends. Given the degree 
of isolation among populations, the likelihood of demographic rescue 
following such events appears minimal. Reductions in the health, 
number, and distribution of populations, in turn, diminish the 
subspecies' capacity to withstand normal environmental stochasticity 
and recover from disturbances and catastrophic events.
Nubian Giraffe
    The historical distribution of Nubian giraffe was north of the Nile 
River and ranged from the Rift Valley of central-west Kenya across 
Uganda, and northward into South Sudan and Ethiopia (Marais et al. 
2017, p. 3, citing many authors; Brown et al. 2021, p. 7). Nubian 
giraffes were historically more widely distributed than they are 
currently (Sidney 1965, pp. 149, 151; Dagg 1962, p. 502). Murchison 
Falls National Park in Uganda holds approximately 2,250 individuals, or 
60 percent of the total population of Nubian giraffes (GCF 2023, p. 1). 
Overall, only a few small and isolated populations of the Nubian 
giraffe remain in Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, and Ethiopia (Wube et al. 
2018, p. 1; Fennessy et al. 2018, pp. 1-2). There is little or no 
potential for dispersal between sites and limited capacity for 
expansion (Fennessy et al. 2018, p. 1).
    The current population size (3,022) of the Nubian giraffe is 14 
percent of the population size of approximately 22,000 individuals in 
the 1960s-1980s (Brown et al. 2021, p. 7; Muller et al. 2018, 
supplement, p. 2). The population has declined from about the 1960s to 
2020 at approximately 4.0-4.9 percent per year. The primary causes of 
decline are poaching and civil unrest. These threats are compounded by 
rapid human population growth and climate change. Poaching led to near 
extirpation of Nubian giraffes in Uganda, Kenya, and South Sudan in the 
1970s and 1980s, as poaching increased due to widespread political and 
social instability. Poaching rates have been reduced in Uganda and 
Kenya, although poaching pressure remains as human food sources are 
currently less secure due to ongoing human population growth and 
climate change and inter-related effects of civil unrest. Other threats 
include extensive land use changes, disease, and low genetic diversity.
    While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide 
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive 
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly 
constrain the Nubian giraffe's ability to respond to rapidly changing 
conditions associated with human population growth and climate change. 
Similarly, the subspecies' ability to shift its range in response to 
changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely because 
populations are confined to protected areas isolated from other 
populations. Therefore, Nubian giraffes have limited options to avoid 
the risks associated with habitat loss, poaching, and threats 
associated with rapidly increasing human populations and climate 
change.
    Overall, the resiliency and redundancy of the Nubian giraffe are 
reduced due to declines in abundance and area of occupancy. Only one 
population of the Nubian giraffe (Murchison Falls National Park) 
appears resilient; this resiliency stems from protective measures 
(conservation initiatives to reduce poaching and habitat conversion) 
that allowed this population to gradually increase since the 1990s. 
However, this population is still vulnerable to habitat loss, 
degradation, and alteration from ongoing oil and gas development; 
climate change impacts; and increased isolation as habitat conversion 
continues around and within the park. Poaching also continues to be 
documented within the park.

[[Page 92544]]

    The remaining populations of the Nubian giraffe throughout the 
subspecies' range are small and isolated, and vulnerable to normal 
environmental stochasticity, disturbances, and catastrophic drought 
events. Given the degree of isolation among populations, the likelihood 
of demographic rescue following such events appears minimal. Reductions 
in the health, number, and distribution of populations, in turn, 
diminish the subspecies' capacity to withstand normal environmental 
stochasticity and recover from disturbances and catastrophic events. To 
date, the population in Murchison Falls National Park has gradually 
increased as did the population in Kenya, but, for the most part, 
conservation efforts across the range of the Nubian giraffe have been 
insufficient to address ongoing threats. The limited capacity of the 
Nubian giraffe to cope with and adapt to rapidly changing environmental 
conditions exacerbates the risks posed by its declining resiliency and 
redundancy.
Summary of the Northern Giraffe's Current Condition
    Resiliency and redundancy for the three subspecies of the northern 
giraffe is reduced from historical conditions. The overall population 
has declined approximately 77 percent since 1985, from 25,653 
individuals to 5,919 individuals, and the species has been extirpated 
from numerous countries in west Africa. The reason for the historical, 
ongoing, and imminent decline of the northern giraffe is primarily 
related to changing habitat conditions and poaching, exacerbated by 
rapid human population growth and climate change. The sources of 
changing habitat conditions that are causing habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and degradation are ongoing. Because of rapid human 
population growth and climate change-induced droughts and extreme 
rainfall events, the pressure on available land and natural resources 
in west, central, and east Africa has produced and is expected to 
continue to produce changes to the northern giraffe's natural habitat. 
The influences for the three subspecies of northern giraffe are 
generally similar within and among their populations with some 
differences in magnitude. All three subspecies are impacted by changing 
habitat conditions, although poaching pressure is lower for the West 
African giraffe than for the Kordofan and Nubian giraffes. Most 
populations are in protected areas or afforded anti-poaching measures; 
however, enforcement is higher in Niger, Kenya, and Uganda, and limited 
to Zakouma National Park in Chad. There are limited options for 
northern giraffes to avoid the risks associated with habitat loss, 
poaching, and threats associated with rapidly increasing human 
populations and the effects of climate change, particularly as 
populations are small and isolated.

Future Condition of Northern Giraffe

    We developed two future condition scenarios for the northern 
giraffe to capture the plausible range of uncertainties regarding the 
primary threats and projected responses by the three subspecies of 
northern giraffe. These scenarios were the same for the three 
subspecies of the northern giraffe. We projected a lower and upper 
scenario with habitat condition based on historical rates of forest 
loss, projected moderate and higher human population increases, and 
climate change scenarios as described below. In one scenario, we assume 
that poaching will remain similar to current conditions and anti-
poaching efforts continue, while in the other, we assume an increase in 
poaching. We also assume civil unrest will continue under both 
scenarios.
    A climate scenario describes possible future climate conditions 
associated with a specific set of assumptions about societal actions 
and how the climate system will respond. For our climate scenarios, we 
used both the current generation of IPCC climate scenarios (shared 
socio-economic pathways or SSPs) and the previous generation of IPCC 
climate scenarios (representative concentration pathways or RCPs), 
depending on availability for each type of projected data (e.g., 
temperature projections vs. drought projections). RCPs reflect 
different levels of emissions and climate change, and SSPs reflect 
different socio-economic development pathways. We used SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5 
and SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5 scenarios out to 2100. More information on these 
pathways is available at https://apps.ipcc.ch/glossary/. Because we 
determined that the current condition of the West African, Nubian, and 
Kordofan giraffes is consistent with the Act's definition of an 
endangered species (see the determination of status for each of the 
three subspecies of northern giraffe, below), we are not presenting the 
results of future scenarios for these subspecies in this proposed rule.

Factors Influencing Reticulated Giraffe

    Factors that affect the reticulated giraffe in Kenya and Ethiopia 
are the same in each country and include a combination of human actions 
that threaten the giraffe's viability as well as conservation efforts 
and regulatory measures that aim to benefit and protect giraffes. The 
primary threats to the reticulated giraffe include changes to the 
species' habitat condition resulting from habitat loss, fragmentation, 
and degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid 
human population growth and effects from climate change (including the 
interrelated effects such as civil unrest and human food insecurity).
Changing Habitat Conditions
    The sources of the changing habitat conditions in east Africa, 
including Ethiopia and Kenya where reticulated giraffes occur, are 
conversion of natural habitats and natural vegetation to croplands and 
rangelands, urbanization, deforestation, and production of fuelwood. 
Converting natural habitats and vegetation results in the loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation of suitable habitat, and increased 
human-wildlife conflict, including poaching. Changing conditions affect 
giraffes directly or indirectly through reduced food availability and 
reduced or obstructed movements to find necessary resources, which 
negatively affect survival and recruitment. Because reticulated 
giraffes overlap with humans and domesticated livestock, they rely on 
the same natural resources. Human-wildlife conflicts occur when 
wildlife and humans compete for the same resources (UWA, p. 49). 
Additionally, reticulated giraffes have been known to feed on cash 
crops (such as mangoes), causing economic losses for farmers and 
exacerbating conflict between humans and wildlife in Kenya (Ali et al. 
2023, p. 175). Changing habitat conditions increase the risk of human 
conflicts and human-wildlife conflicts.
    In Kenya, the agricultural sector employs more than 40 percent of 
the total population and more than 70 percent of Kenya's rural 
population (FAO 2024a, unpaginated). The rural population accounts for 
71.5 percent of Kenya's population, increasing from 19.5 to 39.2 
million people, or by approximately 100 percent, between 1990 and 2020 
(FAOSTAT 2024a, unpaginated). In Ethiopia, the rural population is 77 
percent of the total population in 2023, increasing from 41.8 million 
people in 1990 to 97.2 million people in 2023 (FAOSTAT 2024c, 
unpaginated). Because of human population growth, towns are 
overpopulated, causing people to relocate to rural areas (Ali et al. 
2023, p. 178). Conversion of natural habitats into farmlands and urban 
development not only affects giraffes through loss of

[[Page 92545]]

food, but also contributes to the fragmentation of their habitats, 
making it more difficult for giraffes to find suitable feeding, 
drinking, breeding, sheltering areas (Ali et al. 2023, p. 178).
    In northeastern Kenya, expansion of agricultural activities has led 
to the clearing of bushy woodlands, a vital ecosystem for giraffes and 
other wildlife (Ali et al. 2023, p. 178). Between 2001 and 2019, the 57 
percent loss of Acacia-Commiphora trees within the reticulated 
giraffe's range in Kenya and Ethiopia was primarily because of cropland 
expansion (Abera et al. 2022, p. 10). Woody vegetation, particularly 
Acacia trees, are also the main source of charcoal production in Kenya 
and Ethiopia (Kiruki et al. 2017, p. 476; Abera et al. 2022, p. 10; 
Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). Acacia trees are a preferred food source 
of giraffes; therefore, reduction of Acacia trees for fuelwood reduces 
the availability of high-quality food resources for giraffes. Charcoal 
production also results in overall woodland degradation because it 
exacerbates vegetation loss, soil erosion, and the creation of 
associated access roads (Kiruki et al. 2017, pp. 476, 478).
    In east Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, 
and Zambia), remote sensing over 20 years (1988 to 2017) showed 
increases of cropland and settlement of 35 percent and 43 percent, 
respectively, while all other land-use classes decreased, including a 
decline of 18.9 million (+/-1.6 million) ha in naturally vegetated land 
uses (grasslands, forests, and vegetated wetland) (Bullock et al. 2021, 
pp. 5-6). This trend is emblematic of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, in 
which the growing demand for food is forcing agricultural expansion 
into historically less developed savannas and woodlands (Bullock et al. 
2021, p. 12).
    Livestock grazing is another important agricultural land use in 
Kenya. Because reticulated giraffes overlap with humans and 
domesticated livestock, they rely on the same natural resources. Kenya-
wide surveys over a 40-year period (1977 to 2016) show that the 
increase in human population and domesticated livestock abundance 
correlates with a substantial decline of the reticulated giraffe in 
Kenya. Reticulated giraffe abundance declined by 65 percent over that 
40-year period (Ogutu et al. 2016, supporting figures). Laikipia County 
in central Kenya represents an example of private lands where wildlife, 
people, and livestock co-occur. The human population has increased 137 
percent over a 30-year period (1989-2019), and historically larger 
ranches are being subdivided and sometimes fenced. This subdivision of 
land has led to human-wildlife conflicts as migratory corridors have 
been blocked (Litoroh et al. 2010, p. 9). The reticulated giraffe 
population in Laikipia County decreased by 27 percent over the last 40 
years.
    In the Borana region, including Borana National Park where 
reticulated giraffes occur in Ethiopia, there has been an increase in 
human-wildlife conflict because of competition for limited resources as 
the human population in the area rapidly grows. Borana National Park is 
bordered on all sides by agrarian and pastoralist communities that 
largely exploit it in search of arable land, pastureland, and fuelwood 
(Bussa 2023, p. 544, citing many authors; Wassie 2020, p. 19). Many 
national parks and protected areas in Ethiopia are under similar 
pressure (Wassie 2020, p. 19).
    In summary, changing habitat conditions from habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation because of agriculture expansion, 
urbanization, and fuelwood production are considered an historical and 
ongoing threat to the reticulated giraffe. These threats are 
anticipated to continue in the future and to be exacerbated by effects 
from increasing human population growth and climate change.
Poaching
    The reasons for killing giraffes vary greatly across Africa, with 
local context playing a significant role in shaping human-giraffe 
interactions (Ruppert 2020, chapter 2). Poaching of the reticulated 
giraffe varies across the species' range in both reason for killing and 
the magnitude/level of killing over time. While bushmeat is likely the 
primary reason for killing giraffes, the demand for giraffe parts, 
including their skin, bones, and tails, fuels illegal activities (Ali 
et al. 2023, p. 175; Muller 2008, pp. 1-4; Khalil et al. 2016, pp. 1-5; 
Dunn et al. 2021, pp. 9-10). Giraffes are also hunted and killed in 
retaliation for crop damage that leads to economic hardship for farmers 
(Ali et al. 2023, p. 175). Poaching affects adult giraffes more than 
subadults or calves (Lee et al. 2016, p. 1021). Additionally, 
population structure may shift so that there are fewer adults relative 
to immatures, fewer adult males relative to adult females and more 
calves per adult female (Lee et al. 2023, p. 349).
    Local opinions of giraffes and law enforcement are important to 
conservation efforts and dictate actions when there is a human-wildlife 
conflict. Local conservation programs in Kenya have increased the 
conservation of giraffes (Ruppert 2020, pp. 29, 84). However, the best 
available information suggests that rangewide poaching has not been 
eliminated or even reduced in the range of the reticulated giraffe over 
time.
    Historically, poaching caused a marked decrease in Ethiopia's 
giraffe populations (East 1999, p. 97; Yalden et al. 1984, p. 81). 
Giraffes are primarily hunted in Ethiopia for their tail, which is used 
in highly prized traditional necklaces, and for their meat (Wube 2013, 
p. 3; Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). In Kenya, the hunting or killing of 
any species of giraffe is illegal (Republic of Kenya 2013, pp. 1304-
1305). Giraffe meat, hides, and tail hair are valued commodities in 
Kenya (East 1999, pp. 97-98; Ali et al. 2023, p. 175). Reticulated 
giraffes were severely poached by the tribesmen of the Northern 
Province, who use giraffe hide and hair from giraffes' tails (J. 
Doherty pers. obs., cited in Muneza et al. 2018, p. 5). Poaching can be 
widespread during the dry season, and there were several reports of 
giraffes being found injured or dead because of poaching-related 
injuries (Muller 2008, p. 7).
    Armed conflicts have plagued northern Kenya for decades because of 
civil unrest and terrorist activities originating from the neighboring 
countries of Ethiopia and Somalia (Muruana et al. 2021, p. 4). Civil 
unrest does not usually directly target ecological resources in pursuit 
of a military outcome, but impacts to wildlife occur because of 
resource exploitation during periods of lawlessness (Glew and Hudson 
2007, p. 7, citing many authors; Dudley et al. 2002, p. 326). While 
human conflict can directly result in the killing of wildlife, it can 
also result in indirect negative impacts on wildlife, such as weakened 
protections or enforcement of protections and the proliferation of 
guns, which can increase poaching (Beyers et al. 2011, p. 6; Dudley et 
al. 2002, p. 322). Wildlife products are also often sold or bartered 
for food, arms, ammunition, or other goods and services (Dudley et al. 
2002, p. 322). Civil unrest remains a significant concern in Kenya, 
Ethiopia, and Somalia; these countries have current U.S. State 
Department travel advisories in each country due to crime, terrorism, 
kidnapping, and civil unrest (U.S. Department of State, 2024, 
unpaginated).
Climate Change
    The mechanisms by which climate change can affect the giraffe's 
fitness are complex, multifaceted, and contingent on a range of 
interacting factors. The primary influence of climate change on the 
reticulated giraffe's viability is changes in precipitation patterns,

[[Page 92546]]

notably drought and extreme precipitation patterns. Drought reduces 
water availability and food quality for giraffes. Giraffes are 
generally less able to access high-quality browse during times of 
drought due to an increase in tree mortality and a decline in browse 
abundance (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9, Engelbrecht et al. 2024, 
p. 178), as well as increased competition with other browsing species 
(Birkett and Stevens[hyphen]Wood 2005, entire). Less access to high-
quality food leads to giraffes needing to expand their home range, 
which in turn increases the relative proportion of time searching for 
food and can lead to human-wildlife conflicts and increase the risk of 
poaching.
    Indirectly, drought affects the giraffe's viability via human food 
insecurity. Drought impacts pasture quality, livestock survival and 
production, crop yields, and malnutrition rates (Lam et al. 2023, p. 
entire). Impacts to current crops or livestock leads to changes in 
farming practices (Huho and Mugalavai 2010, pp. 66-70), many of which 
result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of giraffe habitat. While 
only about 20 percent of Kenyan land is suitable for farming (United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID) 2022, unpaginated), 
agriculture supports up to 75 percent of the Kenyan population and 
generates almost all the country's food requirements. In arid and semi-
arid areas of Kenya, livestock accounts for 90 percent of employment 
and 95 percent of family incomes (Huho and Mugalavai, 2010, pp. 63, 
68). An increasing number of households are losing the capacity to 
participate economically and to grow their own food through the 
practice of rain-fed agriculture (Huho and Mugalavai, 2010, p. 62). 
Effects of increased population growth, climate change, food security, 
and human conflict are interrelated. These influences link to the 
habitat, human-wildlife conflict, and poaching.
    Giraffes can also be affected by extreme precipitation. High 
precipitation events were correlated with reduced survival in both 
adult and subadult giraffes, as higher rainfall can increase cover for 
predators, increase parasite and disease prevalence, and reduce food 
quality (Bond et al. 2023, pp. 3185-3193). Heavy precipitation events 
can also contribute to food insecurity. Heavy precipitation and 
flooding events resulted in crop damages and impacts to 5 million 
people (1997); losses of life, property, and crops, leading to human 
displacement (2002); and impacts to 112,000 people and crops (2013) 
(Kogo et al. 2021, p. 36).
    In summary, climate change directly affects giraffes through 
reduced forage and competition with other browsing species. Decreased 
availability of high-quality forage may cause giraffes to expand their 
home range in search of high-quality forage, which increases the risk 
to poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Indirectly, drought affects 
giraffes because human food insecurity leads to changing land use 
practices that in turn affect habitat conditions and food insecurity. 
Extreme precipitation events influence predation, disease, and food 
quality, the consequences of which can lead to direct mortality and 
competition for resources.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    Conservation measures for the reticulated giraffe include anti-
poaching efforts and population monitoring, and many organizations 
provide human, financial, and/or logistical resources to support these 
efforts. As mentioned above, Kenya has developed a National Recovery 
and Action Plan for Giraffe in Kenya (2018-2022) (KWS 2018, entire) and 
a national Wildlife Strategy 2030 (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife 
2018, entire). Objectives of the National Recovery and Action Plan for 
Giraffe in Kenya are to have viable, free-ranging populations of all 
three giraffe species in Kenya (including reticulated giraffe) and 
reduce the proportion of giraffes illegally killed by 50 percent within 
5 years (of 2018) (KWS 2018, p. 31). The National Wildlife Strategy 
2030 outlines a vision for wildlife conservation because human 
population pressure, habitat loss, rapid development in key wildlife 
areas, poaching, insecurity, and overexploitation have accelerated the 
decline of wildlife populations and habitat degradation (Ministry of 
Tourism and Wildlife 2018, p. 7). The National Human-Wildlife 
Coexistence Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2033 is aimed at fostering 
sustainable wildlife conservation while effectively mitigating human-
wildlife conflicts (KWS 2024, unpaginated). The KWS has a security 
division with an overall goal and primary mandate to strengthen law 
enforcement, protect wildlife and their habitats, enhance tourist 
security in protected areas, and safeguard KWS assets. Wildlife 
population estimates by KWS have increased with these efforts, although 
this increase is attributed to the inclusion of more updated data in 
the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021, p. 110).
    Other community-owned and privately owned reserves and 
conservancies have been successful in preserving giraffe habitats and 
connectivity in the region, by increasing security and anti-poaching 
efforts, protecting habitat, and raising awareness among local 
communities (O'Connor et al. 2019, pp. 294-295). The Hirola 
Conservation Programme monitors population trends and mortalities of 
giraffes in eastern Kenya. San Diego Zoo Global, in collaboration with 
KWS, Northern Rangelands Trust, Loisaba Conservancy, Lewa Conservancy, 
The Nature Conservancy, and the Giraffe Conservation Foundation, 
established the Twiga Walinzi team (giraffe guards), composed of locals 
who monitor giraffe populations, and engage in work involving human 
dimensions, and community engagement and education in Loisaba and 
Namunyak Wildlife conservancies (Muneza et al. 2018, p. 5). 
Additionally, even though giraffes no longer occur in Somalia, the 
Somali Giraffe Project contributes to the conservation of reticulated 
giraffes in eastern Kenya through anti-poaching efforts, and community 
engagement (Somali Giraffe Project 2024, unpaginated).
    As mentioned earlier, the EWCA is Ethiopia's primary wildlife 
protection agency that oversees the protection, administration, and 
sustainable use of Ethiopia's fauna. The EWCA's principal goals are the 
conservation of endangered species, the repair and extension of 
protected areas, and the development of wildlife-based tourism that 
does not deplete natural resources (EWCA 2024, pp. 1-3). Giraffes are 
protected species in Ethiopia (Council of Ministers Regulations No. 
163/2008, p. 35). However, the few trained staff and field-based 
wildlife rangers that the EWCA currently has are not enough to combat 
illegal wildlife trade and poaching even within the protected areas 
(Tessema 2017, p. 36).
    In summary, the conservation efforts that are ongoing within the 
range of the

[[Page 92547]]

reticulated giraffe focus on enforcing anti-poaching laws, minimizing 
human-wildlife conflicts and commercial trade, and working with 
communities where reticulated giraffes occur. However, these efforts 
are not likely to counter the ongoing and anticipated future changes in 
land use and associated effects to the reticulated giraffe from human 
population growth and climate change because of the anticipated 
magnitude of the impacts within the species range and the projected 
downward trajectory of giraffes' abundance.

Current Condition of Reticulated Giraffe

    We describe the current condition of the reticulated giraffe based 
on population abundance and trends, historical range contraction, 
habitat quality, influences affecting these metrics, and life-history 
traits of the species that determine its ability to rapidly recover 
from disturbances and population losses.
    Until the early 2000s, the rangewide population was above 30,000 
giraffes, but since then the population has been declining. The most 
recent population estimate is 15,985 individuals, with 99 percent of 
the population in Kenya (Brown et al. 2021, p. 10). Based on these 
population estimates, the current population of the reticulated giraffe 
has declined 3.2-4.4 percent annually and is 33-44 percent of the 
historical population size, meaning the population has declined 56-67 
percent.
    Reticulated giraffes have always had a relatively limited range, 
occupying portions of three countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, and southern 
Somalia. Currently, most individuals occur in northern Kenya, with a 
small population persisting in Borana National Park in southern 
Ethiopia on the border with northern Kenya. Giraffes still occur within 
their historical range in Kenya, and in southern Ethiopia; however, 
giraffes no longer occur in Somalia (Gedow et al. 2017, p. 23).
    The decline in abundance and redundancy of reticulated giraffe 
populations is primarily related to changing habitat conditions and 
poaching. Because of rapid human population growth and the pressure on 
available land and natural resources, east Africa (including Ethiopia 
and Kenya) has undergone changes to its natural habitat. Since 1985, 
human populations in Kenya and Ethiopia have increased by 183 percent 
and 214 percent, respectively. Most of the human population in these 
countries live in rural areas (71.5 percent in Kenya; 77 percent in 
Ethiopia) and is agricultural and reliant on natural resources. Thus, 
the conversion of natural vegetation to croplands, rangelands, 
urbanization, and fuelwood results in the loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation of habitats across the historical range of the 
reticulated giraffe. The increase in anthropogenic habitats also 
increased the risk of human-wildlife conflict, including poaching. 
Therefore, changing habitat conditions that affect resource 
availability negatively affect the reticulated giraffe's survival and 
recruitment.
    Poaching is another main threat to reticulated giraffes. Giraffes 
are killed for bushmeat, hides, tails, and hair. Killing of giraffes is 
illegal in Kenya, yet it continues in the northern rangelands because 
this region has minimal enforcement. Poaching more commonly targets 
adults than juveniles or calves. Giraffe population growth is most 
sensitive to adult survival; thus, poaching strongly affects the rate 
of population growth.
    Changes in precipitation patterns, notably drought and extreme 
precipitation patterns, are the primary mechanism through which climate 
change affects giraffes. Drought reduces food availability for 
giraffes, particularly juveniles that compete with other herbivores for 
resources. Drought also affects human food security, which in turn 
increases the risk of poaching and increases the risk of civil unrest. 
Civil unrest has been and remains a concern in Kenya, Ethiopia, and 
Somalia, and has increased poaching and overexploitation of natural 
resources.
    In summary, multiple threats are interacting to affect the 
reticulated giraffe. Threats associated with habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and degradation are ongoing and projected to continue to 
escalate because of rapid human population growth. Land use within the 
range of the reticulated giraffe will need to meet the demands of the 
human population to the detriment of the giraffe's requirements for 
food and space. The threat of poaching will continue, but KWS is 
anticipated to continue its efforts to reduce poaching of reticulated 
giraffes.
    Conservation measures for the reticulated giraffe include anti-
poaching efforts, population monitoring, and the efforts of numerous 
organizations that provide human, financial, and/or logistical 
resources to support these efforts. However, conservation measures for 
giraffes may not adequately address climate change or the rapid human 
population growth that exacerbates the primary threats of changing 
habitat condition and poaching.
    While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide 
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive 
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly 
constrain the giraffe's ability to evolutionarily respond to the 
rapidly changing conditions associated with human population growth and 
climate change. Similarly, the species' ability to shift its range in 
response to changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely. There 
are limited options for reticulated giraffes to avoid the risks 
associated with habitat loss, poaching, and threats associated with 
rapidly increasing human populations and climate change.

Future Condition of Reticulated Giraffe

    We now describe our analysis of the future conditions of the 
reticulated giraffe, considering how the past and current influences, 
and any additional influences, will act on the species into the future.
    We developed two future condition scenarios for the reticulated 
giraffe to capture the plausible range of uncertainties regarding 
threats, and we projected responses by the reticulated giraffe to those 
threats. We projected a lower scenario and upper scenario with habitat 
conditions based on historical rates of forest loss, projected human 
population increases in east Africa, and lower bound (SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5) 
and upper bound (SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5) climate change scenarios as described 
below. In one scenario, we assume that poaching will remain similar to 
current conditions and anti-poaching efforts continue, while in the 
other, we assume an increase in poaching. We also assume civil unrest 
will continue under both scenarios (Service 2024b, p. 47). When 
possible, we report the magnitude of change under a lower bound climate 
change scenario (SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5) and an upper bound climate change 
scenario (SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5) at different time steps in the future. In 
cases where studies report only a single time step (end of century), a 
single scenario, or a specific temperature increase (e.g., 1.5 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C)), we provide a qualitative description of expected 
change into the future.
    The ongoing threats associated with habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation are ongoing and projected to escalate because of 
projected human population growth and the effects of climate change. 
Changes to the reticulated giraffe's habitat condition were projected 
as forest loss within the range of the species based on the historical 
lowest and highest rates observed between 2000 and 2023. Forest loss, 
while not a direct measure of impacts to giraffe habitat, can be 
considered a reasonable surrogate for

[[Page 92548]]

changing habitat conditions for giraffes because giraffes always occur 
near trees and/or bushes and rely on them for food.
    Human population size in Kenya is projected to increase from 56 
million in 2024 to 104 million people in 2100 (United Nations, 
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2024). 
In Ethiopia, the population is projected to increase from 132 million 
in 2024 to 367 million people in 2100 (United Nations, Department of 
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2024).
    Africa continues to be a hot spot for climate change (Nooni et al. 
2021, p. 2). Temperature increases are expected to occur faster in 
Africa than the global average, and many African countries are expected 
to experience a large increase in the frequency of daily temperature 
extremes sooner than other nations (Trisos et al. 2022, pp. 1320-1321). 
There is high confidence that mean and maximum annual temperatures will 
increase across the entire continent in the future (Trisos et al. 2022, 
p. 1322). Surface temperatures are projected to continue to increase 
across the range of the reticulated giraffe, with divergence among 
future climate scenarios becoming discernible around mid-century 
(WorldBank 2024, unpaginated). As temperature continues to rise, 
drought extent, frequency, duration, and intensity increase as well. 
For example, the current increasing trend in percent of area affected 
by drought (extent) continues under both RCP4.5 and 8.5, and despite 
high inter-annual variability, the signal of an increasing trend over 
time is clear (Haile et al. 2020, p. 6). Additionally, drought duration 
and intensity are projected to increase. Drought frequency is projected 
to continually increase to the end of the century under RCP4.5 and 8.5, 
with higher drought frequency under RCP8.5 (Haile et al. 2020, p. 14). 
Drought duration is projected to increase from an average of 8 months 
during the historical baseline (1981-2010), with a slight decrease to 
4-7 months during the 2020 decade, to 10-32 months at mid-century and 
29-108 months at late-century under RCP4.5 and 8.5, respectively 
(Hailie et al. 2020, pp. 10, 12-13). The projected frequency, duration, 
and intensity of drought events is variable across east Africa, with 
drought trends within southeastern Ethiopia and Kenya projected lower 
than elsewhere (Haile et al. 2020, p. 14). However, increasing drought 
trends are still apparent in areas occupied by reticulated giraffes. 
While droughts are projected to be more frequent, an increase in 
extreme rainfall events is also expected to occur across most of the 
continent (Trisos et al. 2022, p. 1320; Seneviratne et al. 2021, p. 
1565).
    Multiple agencies and conservation organizations are working to 
reduce the threat to reticulated giraffes of poaching; however, 
poaching will likely continue. With human population size and drought 
projections, the human population will likely live under chronic and 
increasing food insecurity. Therefore, we expect that under the lower 
plausible scenario it is likely that current and ongoing conservation 
efforts can maintain or somewhat reduce poaching levels, while the 
upper scenario expectation is an increase in poaching rates due to the 
expected human population and drought increases.
    We do not attempt to project the prevalence or severity of future 
occurrences of civil unrest; however, it is expected that civil unrest 
will likely occur in the future. Climate-induced displacement is 
widespread in Africa because poor conditions for agricultural and 
pastoral livelihoods cause people to relocate in search of better 
opportunities (Trisos et al. 2022, pp. 1350, 1360). Relatedly, the risk 
of violent conflict increases because of reduced economic opportunities 
caused by increased temperature and extreme weather events (Trisos et 
al. 2022, p. 1394; Elias and Abdi 2010, pp. 4-20; Pica-Ciamarra et al. 
2007, pp. 10-11).
    We describe the future condition of the reticulated giraffe given 
the plausible projections of threats described above. We summarize the 
influences driving future conditions and the expected trends in 
population abundance and range. The primary factors influencing the 
viability of the reticulated giraffe (habitat changes and poaching) are 
expected to continue with increasing magnitude.
    Human population growth is projected to increase through 2060 under 
the lower bound scenario, and through 2100 or later in the upper bound 
scenario in Kenya, but the increase will be steady through 2100 under 
both scenarios in Ethiopia. The projected changes in drought extent, 
frequency, intensity, and duration, coupled with human population 
growth, are likely to increasingly limit the sustainability of the 
drought-coping strategies in Kenya's arid landscapes. Therefore, most 
of the Kenyan populace is expected to live under chronic food shortages 
(Huho and Mugalavai 2010, p. 70). Risks associated with food insecurity 
lead to changing habitat conditions and human-wildlife conflicts, 
including poaching and civil unrest; these risks are likely to increase 
given continued human population growth and worsening climate 
conditions and their impacts on livelihoods in the range of the 
reticulated giraffe.
    Human population growth and climate change will lead to further 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation through the loss of forest 
and woody cover. Projecting this rate of loss into the future, there is 
expected to be an additional 8 to 38 kha (1.9 to 8.9 percent) loss of 
forest cover across the lower and upper bound scenarios. The continued 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation will result in further 
reduced food quality and availability for reticulated giraffes, and 
further restrict their movement patterns and ability to access 
necessary resources. These reductions in food quality and need for 
greater movement or larger home ranges reduce reproduction and survival 
rates, especially in times of drought, which will increase in the 
future.
    Apart from Kenya, only a small population of reticulated giraffes 
persists on the border of Kenya and Ethiopia in Borana National Park. 
With increasing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, this 
population is at increasing risk of extirpation in the future. 
Therefore, it is likely the reticulated giraffe population will be 
restricted to Kenya in the future. In Kenya, increasing habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation in the foreseeable future will likely 
lead to a continued decrease in density of reticulated giraffe 
populations and greater distances between them (Directorate of Resource 
Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), cited in KWS 2018, p. 44; Service 
2024b, p. 11).
    We simulated future population trajectories based on the current 
population size and upper and lower growth rate estimates for the 
reticulated giraffe. We assessed the potential change in future 
population size if historical trends and conditions continue unchanged. 
On average, the population is projected to decline to less than 5 
percent (across the two growth rate scenarios, mean = 1.3-4.1 percent, 
95 percent confidence interval (CI) = 0.7-6.8 percent) of the 
historical size by 2100 (Service 2024b, p. 49), or an estimated mean 
population size of 624-1,459 (95 percent CI = 333-2,451) individuals. 
The projections of giraffe populations are based on historical rates of 
decline and do not incorporate the full range of biological complexity, 
uncertainty, or anticipated increases in the magnitude of threats 
facing reticulated giraffes in the future. Nevertheless, we anticipate 
that the rate of decline in reticulated giraffe

[[Page 92549]]

populations will increase over time because the ongoing threats are 
increasing in magnitude, with increasing human population growth and 
climate change increasing the effects.
    In summary, resiliency and redundancy for the reticulated giraffe 
will be further reduced from historical conditions. The overall 
population is projected to decline to less than 5 percent of its 
historical size by the end of the century. The reason for the decline 
of the reticulated giraffe population is primarily related to changing 
habitat conditions and poaching; however, other threats affect giraffes 
directly or compound the primary threats, which are expected to 
increase in the future because of human population growth and the 
effects of climate change, which will intensify. The magnitude of 
influences is the same across the range of the reticulated giraffe, and 
the species will have limited options to avoid the risks associated 
with habitat loss, poaching, and threats associated with rapidly 
increasing human populations and the effects of climate change.

Factors Influencing Masai Giraffe

    Factors that affect the Masai giraffe across Kenya, Tanzania, 
Zambia, and Rwanda are generally similar in each country with 
differences in magnitude. The Masai giraffe faces minimal threats from 
poaching in Rwanda given its habitat is fenced and protected there; 
however, threats from climate change remain. In Kenya, Tanzania, and 
Zambia, Masai giraffes face similar threats and benefit from 
conservation efforts and regulatory measures to protect giraffes. 
However, populations in Zambia and Rwanda experience fewer impacts from 
changing habitat conditions and poaching. The threats to the Masai 
giraffe affect the species' habitat condition. resulting in habitat 
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and affect the magnitude of 
poaching, but other threats, such as negative genetic effects from 
population bottleneck events, affect giraffes directly or compound the 
primary threats to Masai giraffes. The primary threats to the Masai 
giraffe are exacerbated by rapid human population growth and effects 
from climate change. We also considered the potential threats of 
predation, hunting, and disease, and while individuals may be affected 
by these threats, the best available information does not indicate 
population-level or species-level effects.
Changing Habitat Conditions
    The sources of the changing habitat conditions (habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation) in east Africa, including Kenya, 
Tanzania, and Zambia, are conversion of natural habitats and natural 
vegetation to croplands and rangelands, urbanization, deforestation, 
production of fuelwood, and climate change. Converting natural habitats 
results in habitat loss and degradation of natural vegetation; 
fragmentation of the giraffe's range, which has historically been a 
more open landscape of suitable habitat for Masai giraffes; and 
increased risk of human-wildlife conflict, including poaching. Changing 
habitat conditions affect giraffes directly or indirectly through 
reduced food availability and reduced or obstructed movements to find 
necessary resources, which negatively affect survival and recruitment. 
These changes also result in increased risk of effects from human 
conflict (e.g., war) and human-wildlife conflict (e.g., retaliation and 
poaching). Because Masai giraffes overlap with humans and domesticated 
livestock, they rely on the same natural resources. Human-wildlife 
conflicts occur when wildlife and humans compete for the same resources 
(UWA 2018, p. 49). Additionally, giraffes have been known to feed on 
cash crops (such as mangoes), causing economic losses for farmers and 
exacerbating conflict between humans and wildlife in Kenya (Ali et al. 
2023, p. 175).
    The agricultural sector employs more than 40 percent of the total 
population and more than 70 percent of Kenya's rural population (FAO 
2024a, unpaginated). The rural population accounts for 71.5 percent of 
Kenya's population, increasing from 19.5 to 39.2 million people, or by 
approximately 100 percent, between 1990 and 2020 (FAOSTAT 2024a, 
unpaginated). More than 80 percent of the population in Tanzania is 
employed in agriculture, and 64 percent of the population is rural, 
which has increased from 20.6 to 41.4 million people between 1990 and 
2020 (FAOSTAT 2024b, unpaginated). Almost 72 percent of the Zambian 
population is engaged in agricultural activities (FAO 2024b, 
unpaginated). Rwanda's economy remains predominantly dependent on 
agriculture, with 69 percent of rural households involved in small-
scale farming on limited land.
    Deforestation and loss of woody cover with increases in cropland 
and settlements is ongoing within the range of the Masai giraffe 
(Bullock et al. 2021, pp. 6-8). As mentioned above, this trend is 
emblematic of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole: growing demand for food is 
forcing agricultural expansion in historically less developed savannas 
and woodlands (Bullock et al. 2021, p. 12).
    In western Kenya (just west of the Masai giraffe's range), 
landcover changes within the Migori River watershed over the past 40 
years (1980 to 2020) occurred with decreases in shrub land (40.6 
percent), grassland (84.9 percent), forests (52.9 percent), water (82 
percent), and wetland (38.4 percent) at the same time as increases 
occurred in cultivated land (34.3 percent), bare land (132.3 percent), 
and built-up area (461.2 percent) (Opiyo et al. 2022, pp. 223-224, 
229). In southeastern Kenya, between 1985 and 2020 in the Tsavo 
landscape, Acacia woodland decreased by an average of 44 percent, with 
increases of settlement areas (55.6 percent), bare land (43.2 percent), 
and agricultural lands (35 percent) (Kabue 2021, p. 31). These land-use 
cover changes correspond to declining Masai giraffe populations in the 
same region (Kabue 2021, p. 41). One region with extensive woody cover 
loss in Kenya during this time (2002-2012) was near Tsavo East National 
Park and was mainly due to agricultural expansion (Abera et al. 2022, 
p. 8). In addition, between 1977 and 2016, Masai giraffes in southern 
Kenya decreased by 64 percent concurrent with an increase in numbers of 
domesticated livestock (sheep, goats, and camels) (Ogutu et al. 2016, 
pp. 10-14).
    The landcover changes and uses in Tanzania are similar to those in 
Kenya. Agriculture is the backbone of the Tanzanian economy, and 
national campaigns have often involved promoting rural agricultural 
activities to improve incomes and standards of living (Noe 2003, p. 
18). Additionally, Masai pastoralists traditionally have depended on 
livestock production, a type of agricultural practice that coexisted 
with wildlife. However, these pastoral areas are gradually shifting 
away from exclusive pastoralism towards both subsistence and commercial 
agriculture (Kiffner et al. 2015, p. 2; Noe 2003, p. 15). The growth in 
the agricultural sector from 2008 to 2014 was a result of increasing 
the land area under cultivation, from 8.3 million ha in 2008 to 13 
million ha in 2014, representing a 9 percent annual growth rate 
(Wineman et al. 2020, p. 697).
    Pastoralists and farmers in Tanzania have a long history of 
conflict over land and resources (Benjaminsen et al. 2009, pp. 436-438; 
Gwaleba and Silayo 2019, p. 2). Conflicts between farmers and 
pastoralists are most noticeable during drought seasons when resources 
are

[[Page 92550]]

limited (Mwalimu and Matimbwa 2019, p. 27). Because agriculture is the 
driver of the Tanzanian economy, the exclusion of pastoralists from 
their traditional grazing lands to expand agricultural lands has 
spurred conflicts with farming communities (Mwamfupe 2015, p. 1; 
Benjaminsen et al. 2009, p. 436). Traditionally, land use conflicts 
were on the margins between pastoral land and national parks. In recent 
decades, conflicts have increased in magnitude and spread southward and 
eastward (Mwamfupe 2015, p. 2). Civil unrest is a significant concern 
in Kenya and Tanzania, with current U.S. State Department travel 
advisories due to crime, terrorism, kidnapping, and civil unrest (U.S. 
Department of State 2024, unpaginated).
    As mentioned above, cropland expansion was the main source of woody 
cover loss in east Africa in recent decades; however, fuelwood 
extraction was also a source of this loss (Abera et al. 2022, p. 10). 
Woody vegetation, particularly Acacia trees, is the main source of 
charcoal production in Kenya (Kiruki et al. 2017, p. 476; Abera et al. 
2022, p. 10; Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). Acacia trees are a preferred 
food source of giraffes, and reduction of Acacia trees because of the 
demand for fuelwood reduces the availability of high-quality food 
resources for giraffes. Charcoal production also results in overall 
woodland degradation because it exacerbates vegetation loss, soil 
erosion, and creation of associated access roads (Kiruki et al. 2017, 
pp. 476, 478).
    Charcoal production is also a source of woody cover loss in Zambia, 
altering 197.4 km\2\ of miombo woodlands annually (Sedano et al. 2022, 
p. 12). Remote-sensing-based analysis in Zambia identified that rather 
than agricultural expansion, charcoal production is the main driver of 
tree cover loss there (Sedano et al. 2022, p. 13). While Sedano et al. 
(2022, entire) focused their research in central Zambia, charcoal 
production also occurs in the Luangwa Valley (Lukama 2003, 
unpaginated).
Summary of Changing Habitat Conditions
    In summary, changing habitat conditions from habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation because of agriculture, urbanization, 
and fuelwood production are considered historical and ongoing threats 
to the Masai giraffe (in all populations except Rwanda). These threats 
are anticipated to continue in the future and to be exacerbated by 
effects from increasing human population growth and climate change.
Poaching
    The reasons for killing giraffes vary greatly across Africa, with 
local context playing a significant role in shaping human-giraffe 
interactions (Ruppert 2020, chapter 2). Poaching of Masai giraffes 
varies across the species' range in both reason for killing and the 
magnitude/level of killing over time. While bushmeat is likely the 
primary reason for poaching, the demand for giraffe parts, including 
their skin, bones, and tails, fuels poaching activities (Ali et al. 
2023, p. 175; Muller 2008, pp. 1-4; Khalil et al. 2016, pp. 1-5; Dunn 
et al. 2021, pp. 9-10). Giraffes are also killed in retaliation 
killings as a response to crop damage that leads to economic hardship 
for farmers (Ali et al. 2023, p. 175). Giraffe products are also used 
for traditional medicine. In northern Tanzania, some people believe 
that giraffe bone marrow and brains can be used to cure HIV (human 
immunodeficiency virus) and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), 
and tail-hair and other products are used to make bracelets and 
trinkets for tourists (GCF 2022b, unpaginated; Muneza et al. 2017, p. 
2, citing many authors).
    Local opinions regarding giraffes and of law enforcement are 
important to conservation efforts and dictate actions when there is a 
human-wildlife conflict. Local conservation programs and enforcement in 
Kenya increased conservation of giraffes and reduced poaching (Ruppert 
2020, pp. 29, 84). However, the best available information suggests 
that rangewide poaching has not been eliminated or even reduced in the 
range of the Masai giraffe over time.
    Poaching is rampant in Tanzania, particularly outside fully 
protected areas (Kiffner et al. 2015, p. 2). In northern Tanzania, the 
giraffe population declined in Serengeti National Park, and the major 
reasons for that decline are poaching, disease, and food limitations 
(Strauss et al. 2015, pp. 509-510; Muneza et al. 2017, p. 5). A 67-86 
percent reduction in giraffe density in the Serengeti between 1975 and 
2010 mirrors a 68-85 percent decline in giraffe abundance between 1977 
and 2009 in the adjacent Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya (Strauss 
et al. 2015, p. 512). Poaching also has had substantial impacts in 
parts of the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem, Arusha National Park, and 
Mkomazi National Park in eastern Tanzania (Kiffner et al. 2015, p. 8; 
Muneza et al. 2017, p. 6; Lee et al. 2023, p. 350). Poaching is also 
reported to be widespread in the Katavi-Rukwa ecosystem in western 
Tanzania (Caro 2008, pp. 110-112) and in the Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem in 
southern Tanzania (Muneza et al. 2017, p. 6, citing many authors). A 
study in the Serengeti National Park found that giraffe made up almost 
half of the animals being caught in illegal snares and observed that 
the number of giraffes live-snared increased dramatically after the 
first cell phone tower became operational in the park (Strauss et al. 
2015, p. 513). Poaching more commonly targets adults than subadults or 
calves (Lee et al. 2016, p. 1021). Additionally, population structure 
may shift so that there are fewer adults relative to immature giraffes, 
fewer adult males relative to adult females, and more calves per adult 
female (Lee et al. 2023, p. 349). Giraffe consumption may be 
underreported in Tanzania because the giraffe is the country's national 
symbol and poachers face fines and jail time (Strauss et al. 2015, p. 
514).
    In Zambia, local people are not a substantial threat to the giraffe 
population (Bercovitch et al. 2018, p. 6). It seems unlikely that the 
giraffe was ever hunted purely for its meat, as the local Akunda people 
are apparently averse to eating it (Berry 1973, p. 78). The giraffe is 
not subjected to poaching in the Luangwa Valley, and its numbers are 
likely regulated by factors such as the availability of food (which is 
related to elephant density) (East 1999, p. 98). The hunting of giraffe 
in Zambia was illegal until 2015. Currently, professional hunters can 
obtain a license to hunt giraffes in ``game management areas'' and on 
private land in Zambia. However, the stronghold of giraffe in Zambia is 
the South Luangwa National Park, an area that prohibits hunting 
(Bercovitch et al. 2018, p. 6). Even though poaching and hunting pose 
potential threats to giraffe, these activities are not major threats 
influencing the Masai giraffe's population size in Zambia (Bercovitch 
et al. 2018, p. 6).
    By the late 1970s in Rwanda, Akagera National Park was subject to 
massive levels of poaching (African Parks 2024, unpaginated). However, 
when African Parks assumed management of the park, the law enforcement 
strategy was overhauled, and reintroductions of wildlife took place 
(African Parks 2024, unpaginated). For example, Akagera National Park 
is surrounded by an electric fence with a canine unit trained to track 
and restrain poachers (Shabahat 2017, unpaginated). In addition, a team 
of more than 100 rangers (mainly local community members) patrol, 
track, and deter illegal activities. Engaging the local community has 
reduced poaching and prioritized conservation of wildlife

[[Page 92551]]

in the park (African Parks 2024, unpaginated). Since 2010, there have 
not been any recorded incidents of illegally killed giraffes, or 
carcasses found. However, giraffes have been sighted in snares and with 
other injuries; thus, poaching is still considered a threat (S. Hall 
pers. comm., cited in Marais et al. 2012, p. 2).
Disease
    There are at least two known diseases that have been documented in 
giraffes (giraffe skin disease (GSD) and giraffe ear disease (GED)) 
that may pose a threat to the Masai giraffe, primarily in Tanzania. GSD 
is a disorder that is characterized by proliferative, crusty lesions. 
It manifests as chronic and severe scabs, wrinkled skin, encrustations, 
and dry or oozing blood on the legs, shoulders, or necks of giraffes 
(Epaphras et al. 2012, p. 62; Lee and Bond 2016, p. 753). GED causes 
wounds and lesions on the outer ear (Lyaruu 2010, pp. 43-46). GED has 
only been observed in Tanzania and was first discovered in Mikumi 
National Park (Brown and Fennessy 2014, cited in Muneza et al. 2017, p. 
3; Muneza et al. 2016, p. 146).
    The causes of GSD have not been identified, and whether the spatial 
variation in GSD and manifestation of lesions across the giraffe's 
range is due to different infectious agents remains unknown (Muneza et 
al. 2016, pp. 153-155). The disease was first observed in 1999 in 
Tanzania (Mlengeya and Lyaruu 2005, p. 52). Seven countries in sub-
Saharan Africa have detected GSD: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, 
Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa. GSD is also present in zoos on six 
continents (Muneza et al. 2016, pp. 149-150). Thus, GSD affects wild 
and captive giraffes. In the most affected areas, about 10 percent of 
giraffes were observed with a severe form (Mlengeya and Lyaruu 2005, p. 
52; Lyaruu 2010, p. 32).
    Tanzania is a hotspot for GSD and has the highest reported rates in 
Africa (Muneza et al. 2016, p. 146). GSD was first observed in Ruaha 
National Park in 2000, and 86 percent of giraffes in this park have the 
disease (Epaphras et al. 2012, entire). Additionally, as many as 63 
percent and 23 percent of the giraffe population in Tarangire National 
Park and Serengeti National Park, respectively, show signs of the skin 
disease (Muneza et al. 2017, p. 3). Unconfirmed reports also suggest 
that GSD affects giraffe populations in the Selous-Mikumi ecosystem 
(Brown and Fennessy 2014, unpublished report cited in Muneza et al. 
2016, p. 150). In Kenya, a few cases of GSD infections on Masai 
giraffes were observed.
    Both GSD and GED present a potential threat to giraffes. However, 
no studies have been conducted to determine the extent to which these 
infections affect the giraffe's fitness and condition, and the best 
available information does not currently indicate that infections are 
fatal or having a population-level effect (Muneza et al. 2017, p. 3; 
Muneza et al. 2016, pp. 152, 155).
Climate Change
    As mentioned above, the mechanisms by which climate change can 
affect the giraffe's fitness are complex, multifaceted, and contingent 
on a range of interacting factors. The primary influence of climate 
change on the Masai giraffe's viability is changes in precipitation 
patterns, notably drought and extreme precipitation pattern. Drought 
reduces water availability and food quality for giraffes. Giraffes are 
generally less able to access high-quality browse during times of 
drought due to an increase in tree mortality and a decline in browse 
abundance (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9, Engelbrecht et al. 2024, 
p. 178), as well as increased competition with other browsing species 
(Birkett and Stevens[hyphen]Wood 2005, entire). Less access to high-
quality food leads to giraffes needing to expand their home range, 
which in turn increases the relative proportion of time searching for 
food and can lead to human-wildlife conflicts and an increased risk of 
poaching. Giraffes can also be affected by extreme precipitation. High 
precipitation events were correlated with reduced survival in both 
adult and subadult giraffes, as higher rainfall can increase cover for 
predators, increase parasite and disease prevalence, and reduce food 
quality (Bond et al. 2023, pp. 3185-3193).
    Indirectly, human food insecurity, brought on by both drought and 
heavy precipitation events, affects the giraffe's viability. Drought 
impacts pasture quality, livestock survival and production, crop 
yields, and malnutrition rates (Lam et al. 2023, p. entire). Heavy 
precipitation and flooding events in Kenya resulted in crop damages and 
impacts to 5 million people (1997); losses of life, property, and crops 
leading to human displacement (2002); and impacts to 112,000 people and 
crops (2013) (Kogo et al. 2021, p. 36). Impacts to current crops or 
livestock leads to changes in farming practices (Huho and Mugalavai 
2010, pp. 66-70). Many of these changes may result in loss, 
degradation, or fragmentation of giraffe habitat.
    In summary, climate change directly affects giraffes through 
reduced forage and competition with other browsing species. Decreased 
availability of high-quality forage may cause giraffes to expand their 
home range in search of high-quality forage, which increases the risk 
of poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Indirectly, drought affects 
giraffes because human food insecurity leads to changing land use 
practices that in turn affect habitat conditions. Extreme precipitation 
events influence predation, disease, and food quality, the consequences 
of which can lead to direct mortality and competition for resources.
    Genetic studies indicate Masai giraffes have among the lowest 
levels of heterozygosity and highest levels of inbreeding across the 
giraffe species and subspecies (Bertola et al. 2024, pp. 1578-1580; 
Coimbra et al. 2021, p. 2935; Coimbra et al. 2022, pp. 8-10; Lohay et 
al. 2023, pp. 10, 13). The high level of inbreeding has been attributed 
to past population bottleneck events between the 1890s to 1960s that 
resulted from recurring epidemics of rinderpest (an infectious viral 
disease of even-toed ungulates, including giraffes, which was 
characterized by fever, oral erosions, diarrhea, lymphoid necrosis, and 
high mortality). These epidemics affected giraffes directly through 
infection and indirectly through impacts on food availability (Lohay et 
al. 2023, p. 13). Inbreeding levels were slightly lower in the eastern 
Tanzanian populations than in the western Tanzanian populations (Lohay 
et al. 2023, p. 10). Overall, the low genetic diversity and high level 
of inbreeding suggest poor genetic health for this species.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    As mentioned above, Kenya has developed a National Recovery and 
Action Plan for Giraffe in Kenya (2018-2022) (KWS 2018, entire) and a 
national Wildlife Strategy 2030 (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife 2018, 
entire). Objectives of the National Recovery and Action Plan for 
Giraffe in Kenya are to have viable, free-ranging populations of all 
three giraffe species in Kenya (including Masai giraffe) and reduce the 
proportion of giraffes illegally killed by 50 percent within 5 years 
(of 2018) (KWS 2018, p. 31). The National Wildlife Strategy 2030 
outlines a vision for wildlife conservation because human population 
pressure, habitat loss, rapid development in key wildlife areas, 
poaching, insecurity, and overexploitation have accelerated the decline 
of wildlife populations and habitat degradation (Ministry of

[[Page 92552]]

Tourism and Wildlife 2018, p. 7). The National Human-Wildlife 
Coexistence Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2033 is aimed at fostering 
sustainable wildlife conservation while effectively mitigating human-
wildlife conflicts (KWS 2024, unpaginated). The KWS has a security 
division with an overall goal and primary mandate to strengthen law 
enforcement, protect wildlife and their habitats, enhance tourist 
security in protected areas, and safeguard KWS assets. Wildlife 
population estimates by KWS have increased with these efforts, although 
this increase is attributed to the inclusion of more updated data in 
the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021, p. 110).
    The Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), in collaboration 
with Tanzania National Parks, Tanzania Management Authority, Ngorongoro 
Conservation Area Authority, United States Agency for International 
Development, and Giraffe Conservation Foundation, developed the 
National Giraffe Conservation Plan (2020-2024) (TAWIRI 2019, entire). 
The giraffe is the national animal of Tanzania and, as such, is 
protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 of 2009, which 
prohibits people from killing, wounding, capturing, or hunting giraffes 
(TAWIRI 2019, p. 6); however, TWRI recognizes that poaching remains an 
ongoing threat in Tanzania.
    The core habitat area in Luangwa Valley, Zambia, is protected by 
several national parks and game management areas, with some giraffes 
also present on private game ranches. However, the level of protection 
provided by the parks and game management areas varies depending upon 
the ownership and the threat. The Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 provided 
for establishment of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) (now renamed 
Department of National Parks and Wildlife), which is responsible for 
managing protected areas (Lindsey et al. 2014, p. 2). Nevertheless, 
there is a general ineffectiveness of these conservation areas for 
conserving wildlife (Freitsch et al. 2023, entire; Lindsey et al. 2014, 
entire). The Zambia Wildlife Act of 2015 banned hunting on national 
parks and controls hunting on game management areas (ZAWA 2015, 
entire). Well-managed trophy hunting and tourism can provide money for 
conserving wildlife and also bring resources to local communities. 
However, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia remits 
a small proportion back to the communities but retains most of the 
income from hunting in game management areas. Income from wildlife is 
often paid late and does not create a clear link between conservation 
and earnings, while the land is under customary tenure and belongs to 
the community (Lindsey et al. 2014, p. 7). Earnings for communities 
from trophy hunting are lower than estimated earnings from bushmeat and 
create weak incentives for the conservation of wildlife in this region 
(Lindsey et al. 2014, p. 7).
    As mentioned above, Akagera National Park in Rwanda is managed by 
African Parks. One of the reasons for the incredible renewal of Akagera 
National Park and its wildlife is an effective conservation law 
enforcement strategy. A team of more than 100 rangers (mainly local 
community members) patrol, track, and deter illegal activities. 
Engaging the local community has reduced poaching and prioritized 
conservation of wildlife in the park (African Parks 2024, unpaginated).
    In summary, the conservation efforts that are ongoing within the 
range of Masai giraffes focus on enforcing anti-poaching laws, 
minimizing human-wildlife conflicts and commercial trade, and working 
with communities where Masai giraffes occur. However, these efforts are 
not likely to counter the ongoing and anticipated future changes in 
land use and associated effects to Masai giraffe from future human 
population growth and climate change because of the anticipated 
magnitude of the impacts within the species range and the projected 
downward trajectory of giraffes' abundance.

Current Condition of Masai Giraffe

    We describe the current condition of the Masai giraffe based on 
population abundance and trends, historical range contraction, habitat 
quality, influences affecting these metrics, and life-history traits of 
the species that determine its ability to rapidly recover from 
disturbances and population losses. Formal protection appears to 
influence Masai giraffe concentrations.
    Given available population data, we identified five analysis units 
(AUs): (1) Kenya/Tanzania west--west of the Gregory Rift escarpment, 
(2) Kenya/Tanzania east--east of the Gregory Rift escarpment, (3) West 
Tanzania, (4) Zambia, and (5) Rwanda. Available information suggests 
limited connectivity among these units.
    Resiliency and redundancy for the Masai giraffe are reduced from 
historical conditions. Before the 1980s, the rangewide population for 
the Masai giraffe was approximately 68,000 giraffes, but, since then, 
the population has been declining by approximately 1.0 to 3.3 percent 
per year for a total decline of 32 to 34 percent. Over a recent 40-year 
period (1977-2016), the abundance of Masai giraffes in Kenya has 
declined (Ogutu et al. 2016, pp. 10-14, supplemental data), while the 
population of giraffes in Tanzania has also experienced a similar trend 
over a recent 30-year period (1986-2016). The population in Zambia has 
likely been stable or increasing since the 1950s (du Raan et al. 2015, 
pp. 5-7), and the population in Rwanda has been increasing since its 
introduction (Macpherson 2021, p. 5 and appendix 5; Brown and Bantlin 
2023, cited in African Parks Network 2023, p. 9). The most recent 
population estimate for the species is 45,402 individuals (66 to 68 
percent of its historical abundance), with most of the population in 
southern Kenya and northern Tanzania on both sides of the Gregory Rift 
escarpment.
    By combining population assessments conducted for individual 
countries, counties, and parks, we estimated the proportion of total 
abundance in each analysis unit: Kenya/Tanzania east AU comprises 
approximately 42 percent of the total Masai giraffe population, Kenya/
Tanzania west AU approximately 35 percent, West Tanzania AU 
approximately 21 percent, Zambia AU approximately 2 percent, and Rwanda 
AU less than 1 percent (Brown et al. 2021, p. 9; Ogutu et al. 2016, 
supplement table S1; TAWIRI 2019, pp. 31-40). It is difficult to 
quantify the exact rate of decline of the Masai giraffe population in 
the three Kenya/Tanzania AUs; however, these three Kenya/Tanzania AUs 
collectively comprise approximately 98 percent of the global Masai 
giraffe population, and it is likely each of these AUs is declining at 
a rate close to the rangewide rate of approximately 1.0 to 3.3 percent 
per year.
    The Masai giraffe's historical range includes portions of three 
countries: Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. Currently, the Masai giraffe 
occurs throughout much of southern and eastern Kenya and central and 
northern Tanzania (East 1999, p. 98; Brown et al. 2021, p. 9; Bolger et 
al. 2019, p. 4). Masai giraffes are widely distributed in the southern 
part of Kenya (Dagg 1962, p. 6; Muruana et al. 2021, p. 6; Sidney 1965, 
p. 149) and occur both in protected areas and unprotected rangeland on 
public, private, and communal land (Brown et al. 2021, p. 9). In 
Tanzania, Masai giraffes are distributed throughout substantial parts 
of their historical range in Tanzania, which includes much of the 
country north of the Rufiji River (Dagg 1962, p. 6; East 1999, p. 98). 
While Masai giraffes remain widespread over much of their historical 
range, by the 1990s, they had

[[Page 92553]]

disappeared from extensive areas of central and coastal Tanzania (East 
1999, p. 98). Therefore, the overall range is likely less than the 
historical range in Tanzania. Additionally, the area of occupancy and 
density in occupied areas has likely declined because of ongoing 
threats. In Zambia, the range is likely similar to its historical 
distribution in the Luangwa Valley. The species' current range also 
extends into Rwanda, as an extralimital population established via 
introduction in 1986. The only population of Masai giraffes in Rwanda 
occurs in Akagera National Park. The park represents the only protected 
savannah in Rwanda and the largest protected wetland in central Africa 
(African Parks Network 2023, p. 5).
    The reason for the decline of the Masai giraffe population is 
primarily related to changing habitat conditions and poaching. Because 
of rapid human population growth, from 56 million to 157.2 million 
people over 40 years across the four countries where Masai giraffes 
occur, and recent droughts and extreme rainfall events, the pressure on 
available land and natural resources in east Africa in Kenya, Tanzania, 
Zambia, and Rwanda has produced changes to the Masai giraffe's natural 
habitat. Land use pressures within the range of the Masai giraffe to 
meet the demands of the human population for their livelihoods, 
including agriculture, pastoralism, and other uses, come at the 
detriment of the giraffe's requirements for food and space. Thus, the 
conversion of natural vegetation to croplands, rangelands, 
urbanization, and fuelwood results in the loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation of habitats across the historic range of the Masai 
giraffe. The increase in anthropogenic habitats also increased the risk 
of human-wildlife conflict, increasing poaching. Therefore, changing 
habitat conditions that affect resource availability negatively affect 
the Masai giraffe's survival and recruitment.
    Poaching is another main threat to Masai giraffes. They are killed 
for bushmeat, hides, tails, and hair. Killing of giraffes is illegal in 
Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda, yet poaching continues. The Zambia 
Wildlife Act of 2015 banned killing giraffes on national parks and 
controls it on game management areas (ZAWA 2015, entire). Poaching 
targets adults more than juveniles or calves. Giraffe population growth 
is most sensitive to adult survival; thus, poaching strongly affects 
the rate of population growth.
    Changes in precipitation patterns, notably drought and extreme 
precipitation patterns, are the mechanisms through which climate change 
affects Masai giraffes. Drought reduces food availability for giraffes, 
particularly juveniles that compete with other herbivores for 
resources. Drought and heavy precipitation also affect human food 
security, which, in turn, increases the risk of poaching and further 
increases the risk of human conflict. High precipitation events were 
correlated with reduced survival in both adult and subadult giraffes 
(Bond et al. 2023, pp. 3185-3193), as higher rainfall can increase 
cover for predators, increase parasite and disease prevalence, and 
reduce forage nutrient concentration (food quality).
    Civil unrest has been and remains a concern in Kenya and Tanzania 
and has resulted in increased poaching and overexploitation of natural 
resources. Pastoralists and farmers in Tanzania have a long history of 
conflict over land and resources. In addition, the Masai giraffe 
currently has low genetic diversity and high levels of inbreeding that 
likely result from past bottleneck events associated with rinderpest 
epidemics.
    In summary, threats to the condition of the Masai giraffe's habitat 
work synergistically, exacerbating the primary threats to Masai 
giraffes of poaching and of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and 
degradation of natural vegetation. The threats associated with habitat 
loss and fragmentation are ongoing and projected to continue to 
escalate because of rapid human population growth and reliance of 
people within the range of the Masai giraffe on agriculture and 
pastoralism for their livelihoods. Thus, anthropogenic land use change 
within the range of the Masai giraffe to meet increasing human demands 
will negatively affect giraffe's requirements for food and space. 
Threats of poaching will continue, but KWS, the Tanzanian authorities, 
and African Parks will continue their efforts to reduce the incidents 
of poaching of Masai giraffes.
    Conservation measures for Masai giraffes include anti-poaching 
efforts; monitoring of populations; and human, financial, and/or 
logistical resources provided by many organizations to support these 
efforts. Formal protection appears to influence Masai giraffe 
concentrations. However, conservation measures for giraffes may not 
adequately address climate change or the rapid human population growth 
that exacerbates the primary threats of changing habitat condition and 
poaching.
    While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide 
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive 
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly 
constrain the giraffe's ability to evolutionarily respond to the 
rapidly changing conditions associated with human population growth and 
climate change. Similarly, the species' ability to shift its range in 
response to changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely. In 
addition to physical (fencing, topography) and physiological barriers 
to large scale migration, there is limited habitat available nearby to 
avoid the anticipated risks from climate change. There are limited 
options for giraffes to escape the risks associated with habitat loss, 
poaching, and threats associated with rapidly increasing human 
populations and climate change.

Future Condition of Masai Giraffe

    We now describe our analysis of the future conditions of the Masai 
giraffe, considering how the past and current influences, and any 
additional influences, will act on the species into the future.
    We developed two future condition scenarios for the Masai giraffe 
to capture the plausible range of uncertainties regarding threats and 
projected responses to these threats by the Masai giraffe. We projected 
a lower scenario and upper scenario with habitat condition based on 
historical rates of forest loss, assumed human population increases in 
east Africa, and lower bound (SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5) and upper bound (SSP5-
8.5/RCP8.5) climate change scenarios as described below. In one 
scenario, we assume that poaching will remain similar to current 
conditions and anti-poaching efforts continue, while in the other, we 
assume an increase in poaching. We also assume civil unrest will 
continue under both scenarios (Service 2024c, p. 47). When possible, we 
report the magnitude of change under a lower bound climate change 
scenario (SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5) and an upper bound climate change scenario 
(SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5) at different time steps in the future. In cases where 
studies report only a single time step (end of century), a single 
scenario, or a specific temperature increase (e.g., 1.5 [deg]C), we 
provide a qualitative description of expected change into the future.
    The ongoing threats associated with habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation are ongoing and projected to escalate because of 
projected human population growth and the effects of climate change. 
Changes to the Masai giraffe's habitat condition were projected as 
forest loss within the range of the species based on the historical 
lowest and highest rates observed between 2000 and 2023. Forest loss,

[[Page 92554]]

while not a direct measure of impacts to giraffe habitat, can be 
considered a reasonable surrogate for changing habitat conditions for 
giraffes because giraffes always occur near trees and/or bushes and 
rely on them for food.
    The median human population size in African countries within the 
range of the Masai giraffe is projected to nearly triple by 2100, from 
160 million to 464 million people, with a 95 percent CI of 223 million 
to 1 billion people (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social 
Affairs, Population Division, 2024).
    Africa continues to be a hot spot for climate change (Nooni et al. 
2021, p. 2). Temperature increases are expected to occur faster in 
Africa than the global average, and many African countries are expected 
to experience a large increase in the frequency of daily temperature 
extremes sooner than other nations (Trisos et al. 2022, pp. 1320-1321). 
There is high confidence that mean and maximum annual temperatures will 
increase across the entire continent in the future (Trisos et al. 2022, 
p. 1322). Surface temperatures are projected to continue increasing 
across the range of the Masai giraffe, with divergence among future 
climate scenarios discernible around mid-century (WorldBank 2024, 
unpaginated). As temperature continues to rise across east Africa, 
drought extent, frequency, duration, and intensity increase as well. 
For example, the current increasing trend in percent of area affected 
by drought (extent) continues under both RCP4.5 and 8.5, and despite 
high inter-annual variability, the signal of an increasing trend is 
clear. Additionally, drought duration and intensity are projected to 
increase. Drought frequency is projected to continually increase to the 
end of the century under RCP4.5 and 8.5, with higher drought frequency 
under RCP8.5 (Haile et al. 2020, p. 14). Drought duration is projected 
to increase from an average of 8 months during the historical baseline 
(1981-2010), with a slight decrease to 4-7 months during the 2020 
decade, to 10-32 months at mid-century and 29-108 months at late-
century under RCP4.5 and 8.5, respectively (Hailie et al. 2020, pp. 10, 
12-13). An increasing trend in frequency, coupled with increasing 
severity, portend worse droughts in the future (Haile et al. 2020, p. 
17). Similarly, in the Zambia portion of the species' range, recent 
warming trends continue, with projected increases in drought magnitude, 
frequency, and severity across southern Africa, including in the range 
of the Masai giraffe (Engelbrecht et al. 2024, p. 171; Trisos et al. 
2022, p. 1328 and references within; Seneviratne et al. 2021, p. 1519). 
While droughts are projected to be more frequent, an increase in 
extreme rainfall events is also expected to occur across most of the 
continent (Trisos et al. 2022, p. 1320; Seneviratne et al. 2021, p. 
1565).
    Poaching in the future will be driven by the variety of factors 
mentioned above. As habitat conditions change from the effects of 
climate change and human population increases, poaching is likely to 
increase in many areas of Africa, including within the range of the 
Masai giraffe (Ruppert 2020, p. 45; Bond et al. 2023, p. 6694; 
Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] 2024, p. 8). However, a study using data 
including the Masai giraffe in Tanzania (Manyara Ranch and Tarangire 
National Park) showed that the strongest predictor for population 
decline was a reduction in law enforcement leading to more poaching 
(Bond et al. 2023, p. 6706).
    While there are multiple agencies and conservation organizations 
working to reduce the threat of poaching for Masai giraffes, poaching 
will likely continue. As mentioned above, killing for bushmeat is more 
severe in poorer countries and in those areas with high human 
population densities, and it is consistently more prevalent closer to 
human settlements (Lindsey et al. 2011, p. 97). Poaching tends to spike 
when food shortages are severe, and when the demand for agricultural 
labor is low (Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 5). With the projections for 
human population size and drought, the human population is likely to 
live under chronic and increasing food insecurity. Therefore, we expect 
that under the lower plausible scenario it is likely that current and 
ongoing conservation efforts can maintain or somewhat reduce poaching 
levels, while the upper scenario expectation is an increase in poaching 
rates due to the expected increases in human population size and 
drought.
    We do not attempt to project the prevalence or severity of future 
occurrences of civil unrest; however, it is expected that civil unrest 
will likely occur in the future. Climate-induced displacement is 
widespread in Africa because poor conditions for agricultural and 
pastoral livelihoods cause people to relocate in search of better 
opportunities (Trisos et al. 2022, pp. 1350, 1360). Relatedly, the risk 
of violent conflict increases because of fewer economic opportunities 
caused by increased temperature and extreme weather events (Trisos et 
al. 2022, p. 1394; Elias and Abdi 2010, pp. 4-20; Pica-Ciamarra et al. 
2007, pp. 10-11).
    We describe the future condition of the Masai giraffe given the 
plausible projections of threats described above. We summarize the 
influences driving future conditions and the expected trends in range 
and population abundance. The primary factors influencing the viability 
of the Masai giraffe (habitat changes and poaching) are expected to 
continue with increasing magnitude.
    The median projected human population size in the four countries 
that contain the Masai giraffe's range is expected to nearly triple by 
2100 (from 160 million in 2024 to 464 million people in 2100). Under 
the lower bound scenario, human population size by 2100 is projected to 
double in Tanzania and remain nearly stable in the other three nations. 
However, under the upper bound scenario, the population increases more 
than fivefold across the range of the species, with a fourfold increase 
in Kenya and a sevenfold to eightfold increase in the other nations. 
The projected changes in drought frequency and drought duration, 
coupled with human population growth, are likely to increasingly limit 
the sustainability of drought-coping strategies. With an increase in 
drought frequency and severity, most of the Kenyan populace is expected 
to live under chronic food shortages (Huho and Mugalavai 2010, p 70). 
Similarly, more than 80 percent of the human population in Tanzania is 
employed in agriculture, and 64 percent of the population is rural (FAO 
2024c, unpaginated); thus, climate change is likely to exacerbate 
household food insecurity in Tanzania (Randell et al. 2022, entire). 
Risks associated with food insecurity lead to changing habitat 
conditions; lead to human-wildlife conflicts, including poaching and 
civil unrest; and are likely to increase given continued human 
population growth, worsening climate conditions, and their impacts on 
livelihoods in the range of the Masai giraffe.
    Human population growth and climate change will lead to further 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation for the Masai giraffe. 
Forest and woody cover are expected to continue to decline. Assuming 
the rate of forest cover loss between 2000 and 2023 continues 
(approximately 10 percent), an additional 9 to 64 percent (697-5305 
kha, lower and upper bound scenarios, respectively) loss of forest 
cover would occur by 2100. The continued habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation will further reduce food quality and availability for the 
Masai giraffe and further restrict the species' movement patterns and 
ability to access

[[Page 92555]]

necessary resources. These reductions in food quality and the increased 
need for longer movements or larger home ranges will further reduce 
reproduction and survival rates, especially in times of drought, which 
will be more frequent in the future.
    Under both future scenarios, the ranges of the Masai giraffe in 
Rwanda and Zambia are unlikely to exhibit a decline in area from 
accumulating influences. However, due to their limited area and 
abundance, a catastrophic event (e.g., multi-year, unprecedented 
drought) could result in the loss of these populations. Neither 
population is likely to expand its range: the population in the Rwandan 
AU is bounded by fencing (Shabahat 2017, unpaginated), and the Zambia 
population is near the unit's carrying capacity (Berry and Bercovitch 
2016, p. 723; Bercovitch et al. 2018, p. 5). With projected habitat 
loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and poaching in Kenya and 
Tanzania, where nearly the entire population (98 percent) of Masai 
giraffes occur, the trend of decreasing density of populations and 
greater separations between them observed over the last 30 years will 
likely continue.
    We simulated future population trajectories based on the current 
population size and growth rate estimates for the Masai giraffe to 
assess the potential change in future population size if historical 
trends and conditions continue unchanged. On average, the population is 
projected to decline to 5-24 percent (across the two growth rate 
scenarios, 95 percent, CI = 4-30 percent) of the historical size by 
2100 (Service 2024c, p. 78), or an estimated mean population size of 
3,725-16,074 (95 percent, CI = 2,899-20,175) individuals. The 
projections of Masai giraffe populations are based on historical rates 
of decline and do not incorporate the full range of biological 
complexity, uncertainty, or anticipated increases in the magnitude of 
threats facing Masai giraffes in the future. Due to a lack of 
consistent data to estimate the rate of population change for each AU, 
we did not separately project future population trends for each AU.
    In summary, resiliency and redundancy for the Masai giraffe will be 
further reduced from historical conditions. The overall population is 
projected to decline to 5-24 percent of its historical size by the end 
of the century. The species will likely remain in its current range in 
Rwanda and Zambia, and its occupancy and distribution will likely 
decline in the future in Kenya and Tanzania (where most Masai giraffes 
occur). The reason for the projected continued decline of the Masai 
giraffe population is primarily related to changing habitat conditions 
and poaching, which are expected to increase in the future because of 
human population growth and the effects of climate change, which will 
intensify. The magnitude of influences is the same across the range of 
the Masai giraffe. Masai giraffes currently move through ecosystems and 
cross the Kenya-Tanzania border, although formal protection appears to 
influence Masai giraffe concentrations. However, populations are 
geographically separated by the Gregory Rift escarpment (Lohay et al. 
2023, p. 14), and they will have limited options to avoid the risks 
associated with habitat loss, poaching, and threats associated with 
rapidly increasing human populations and the effects of climate change.

Determination of Status: Background

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424 set forth the procedures for determining whether a species 
meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. 
The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of 
any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We consider these five factors and 
the species' responses to these factors when making these 
determinations.
    Section 3 of the Act defines ``endangered species'' and 
``threatened species.'' An endangered species is a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a threatened species is a species that is likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Both definitions include not only the 
phrase ``throughout all,'' but also the phrase ``or a significant 
portion of its range.'' Thus, there are ultimately four bases for 
listing a species under the Act (in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range, in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion 
of its range, likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, or likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a 
significant portion of its range). These four bases are made up of two 
classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) and two components 
(i.e., throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion 
of its range).
    Beginning in 2001, a number of judicial opinions addressed our 
interpretation of the phrase ``or a significant portion of its range'' 
(the SPR phrase) in these statutory definitions. The seminal case was 
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) 
regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard.
    The court in that case held that the SPR phrase in the Act was 
``inherently ambiguous,'' finding that it was something of an oxymoron 
to speak of a species being at risk of extinction in only a portion of 
its range (id. at 1141); because the Act does not define a 
``significant portion,'' the Secretary has wide discretion to delineate 
it (id. at 1145). However, the court found that, even with wide 
discretion, the interpretation we had applied in analyzing the status 
of the flat-tailed horned lizard was unacceptable because it would 
allow for a species to warrant listing throughout a significant portion 
of a species' range only when the species ``is in danger of extinction 
everywhere'' (id. at 1141). The court held that the SPR phrase must be 
given independent meaning from the ``throughout all'' phrase making the 
SPR phrase in the statute superfluous. In an attempt to address the 
judicial opinions calling into question our approach to evaluating 
whether a species was endangered or threatened throughout a significant 
portion of its range, the Services published the 2014 SPR Policy (79 FR 
37578; July 1, 2014). The December 9, 2011, notice announcing the draft 
policy and requesting public comments on it provides more detail about 
litigation before 2014 regarding the SPR phrase (76 FR 76987). The 2014 
SPR Policy includes four elements:
    (1) Consequence--that the consequence of determining that a species 
warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its 
range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
    (2) Significance--a definition of the term ``significant'';
    (3) Range--that the species' ``range'' is the current range of the 
species; and
    (4) DPS--that, if a species is endangered or threatened in an SPR, 
and the population in that SPR is a DPS, the Service will list just the 
DPS.
    Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of 
``significant'' contained in the 2014 SPR Policy (CBD

[[Page 92556]]

v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), and Desert 
Survivors, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). The courts 
found that the definition in the 2014 SPR Policy set too high a 
threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous, 
failing to give it independent meaning from the ``throughout all'' 
phrase. In 2020, another court (Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 
2020)) also vacated the specific aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy under 
which, ``if the Services determine that a species is threatened 
throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the 
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range'' (id. at 
98). This was an extension of the definition of ``significant,'' which 
required that for a portion of the range of a species to be 
significant, the species must not be currently endangered or threatened 
throughout its range. In an extension of the earlier rulings from CBD 
v. Jewell and Desert Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the 
definition of the 2014 SPR Policy was not only inconsistent with the 
statute because it ``rendered the `endangered in a significant portion 
of its range' basis for listing superfluous,'' but also ``inconsistent 
with ESA principles'' and ``not a logical outgrowth from the draft 
policy.'' Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the 
species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of 
its range, even in cases where we have determined that the species is 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
(i.e., it meets the Act's definition of a threatened species) 
throughout all of its range. The remaining three elements of the 2014 
SPR Policy remain intact and have not been invalidated or questioned by 
the courts.
    In short, courts have directed that the definition of 
``significant'' must afford the phrase ``or a significant portion of 
its range'' an independent meaning from the ``throughout all of its 
range'' phrase. Therefore, to determine whether any species warrants 
listing, we determine for each classification (endangered and 
threatened) the appropriate component to evaluate (throughout all of 
its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).
    We make this determination based on whether the best scientific and 
commercial data indicate that the species has a similar extinction risk 
in all areas across its range (at a scale that is biologically 
appropriate for that species). When a species has a similar extinction 
risk in all areas across its range, we analyze its regulatory status 
using the component ``throughout all of its range.'' For example, in 
some cases, there is no way to divide a species' range in a way that is 
biologically appropriate. This could be because the range is so small 
that there is only one population or because the species functions as a 
metapopulation such that effects to one population directly result in 
effects to another population. On the other hand, when the species' 
extinction risk varies across its range, we analyze its regulatory 
status using the component ``throughout a significant portion of its 
range.''
    For either classification (endangered or threatened), we consider 
the five factors and the species' responses to those factors regardless 
of which component (throughout all of its range or throughout a 
significant portion of its range) we have determined is appropriate for 
that classification. When assessing whether a species is endangered or 
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address 
two questions because we must determine whether there is any portion of 
the species' range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant'' 
(the significance question) and (2) the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout that portion (the status question). We 
may address the significance question or the status question first. 
Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative 
answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not 
need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' 
range.

Determination of West African Giraffe Status

    We propose to list the West African giraffe as an endangered 
species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range. As stated above, we determine a species' classification based 
upon its regulatory status throughout all of its range when the species 
has similar extinction risk in all areas across its range at a scale 
that is biologically appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the 
extinction risk varies across its range, we determine a species' 
classification based upon its regulatory status throughout a 
significant portion of its range. Either way, we begin by determining 
the scale that is biologically appropriate for that species. For many 
species, we can divide the range in an infinite number of ways. As 
described above, for the West African giraffe there are only two 
populations that do not interact with each other. Those populations are 
the units that provide the appropriate scale to assess extinction risk 
for the West African giraffe.
    For the endangered classification, we evaluated whether the West 
African giraffe has a similar risk of extinction in all areas across 
its range by assessing its extinction risk within each population. 
Because our review indicated that the West African giraffe's extinction 
risk is similar in all areas across its range, we then evaluated 
whether it may be endangered based upon the ``throughout all of its 
range'' component. In undertaking this analysis of whether the West 
African giraffe is endangered throughout all of its range, we reviewed 
the best scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to 
the subspecies, the subspecies' responses to those threats, and any 
associated conservation measures. We then assessed the cumulative 
effects of those threats and conservation measures under the Act's 
section 4(a)(1) factors. We examined the following threats: habitat 
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and poaching, all of which are 
exacerbated by rapid human population growth and the effects from 
climate change, as well as disease and predation, including cumulative 
effects.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, 
which are and will continue to be exacerbated by increasing human 
population and effects from climate change, are the threats affecting 
the subspecies' viability in the near term. There are approximately 690 
West African giraffes. Fewer than 20 West African giraffes occur in the 
recently reintroduced population at the Gadabedji Biosphere Reserve, 
and all of the rest occur in one population in the Giraffe Zone, making 
both populations highly vulnerable to threats. While neither of these 
populations is currently subject to poaching, they are both currently 
and expected to continue to be affected in the near term by habitat 
loss, including land degradation; habitat fragmentation exacerbated by 
civil unrest; rapid human population growth; and climate change via 
drought. Civil unrest is a longstanding and significant ongoing concern 
for both populations of the West African giraffe, and both populations 
are at risk of catastrophic drought events in the near term. The best 
available information indicates that disease and predation are not 
currently resulting in population-level or species-level effects.
    Overall, the resiliency, redundancy, and adaptive capacity of the 
West African giraffe have declined due to

[[Page 92557]]

declines in abundance, a significant range contraction, and moderately 
high levels of inbreeding. Historically, the West African giraffe was 
distributed widely from Senegal to Nigeria but has been extirpated 
across most of its range; the species is now limited to two small areas 
in Niger. The two remaining populations are small and isolated, and the 
limited capacity of West African giraffes to cope with and adapt to 
rapidly changing environmental conditions exacerbates the risks posed 
by their declining resiliency and redundancy. These reductions in 
viability, in the face of ongoing and imminent threats, results in the 
near-term risk of extinction in both populations such that they 
currently lack sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
for their continued existence to be secure. In summary, we find that 
the West African giraffe is in danger of extinction in all areas (i.e., 
both populations). Thus, there is no portion of the range where the 
West African giraffe may have a regulatory status that is different 
from its status in the rest of its range.
    In summary, after evaluating threats to the subspecies, the 
subspecies' responses to those threats, and any associated conservation 
measures, and after assessing the cumulative effects of those threats 
and conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
conclude that the West African giraffe is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range due to the limited number of resiliency of 
the two extant populations; the severity, extent, and immediacy of 
threats to those populations; and the anticipated responses of the West 
African giraffe to those threats. A threatened species status is not 
appropriate because the threats to the West African giraffe are ongoing 
or imminent and have already resulted in the species being in danger of 
extinction.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the West African giraffe meets the Act's definition of 
an endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the West African 
giraffe as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 
4(a)(1) of the Act.

Determination of Kordofan Giraffe Status

    We propose to list the Kordofan giraffe as an endangered species 
because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. As 
stated above, we determine a species' classification based upon its 
regulatory status throughout all of its range when the species has 
similar extinction risk in all areas across its range at a scale that 
is biologically appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the 
extinction risk varies across its range, we determine a species' 
classification based upon its regulatory status throughout a 
significant portion of its range. Either way, we begin by determining 
the scale that is biologically appropriate for that species. For many 
species, we can divide a species' range in an infinite number of ways. 
As described above, for the Kordofan giraffe, the subspecies is spread 
across five countries in central Africa with little interactions 
between populations. Those populations are the units that provide the 
appropriate scale to assess extinction risk for the Kordofan giraffe.
    For the endangered classification, we evaluated whether the 
Kordofan giraffe has a similar risk of extinction in all areas across 
its range by assessing its extinction risk within each population. 
Because our review indicated that the Kordofan giraffe's extinction 
risk is similar in all areas across its range, we then evaluated 
whether it may be endangered based upon the ``throughout all of its 
range'' component. In undertaking this analysis of whether the Kordofan 
giraffe is endangered throughout all of its range, we reviewed the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to the 
subspecies, the subspecies' responses to those threats, and any 
associated conservation measures. We then assessed the cumulative 
effects of those threats and conservation measures under the Act's 
section 4(a)(1) factors. We examined the following threats: habitat 
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and poaching, all of which are 
exacerbated by rapid human population growth and the effects from 
climate change, as well as disease and predation, including cumulative 
effects.
    There are approximately 2,300 Kordofan giraffes, which represents a 
64 to 69 percent decline from its historical size of 6,360-7,360 in the 
1950s. The overall numbers of Kordofan giraffes have been declining and 
are projected to continue to decline at a rate of 1.5 to 7.0 percent 
per year. The majority of Kordofan giraffes occur in two populations in 
disjunct national parks (approximately 500 in Waza National Park in 
Cameroon, and approximately 1,200 in Zakouma National Park in Chad); 
together, these two populations comprise approximately 80 percent of 
all Kordofan giraffes. The remaining populations are small (each with 
fewer than 100 individuals) with little interaction between groups.
    After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
(Factor A), and poaching (Factor B), which are and will continue to be 
exacerbated by increasing human populations and effects from climate 
change (Factor E), are the threats affecting the subspecies' viability 
in the near term. In the near term, only one population across the 
Kordofan giraffe's range appears protected from habitat loss and 
poaching within a larger, intact, protected area (Zakouma National 
Park); however, the current management agreement only extends until 
2027. The remaining populations (including at Waza National Park) are 
currently subject to poaching and are currently and expected to 
continue to be affected in the near term by habitat loss, degradation, 
and fragmentation exacerbated by ongoing and near-term civil unrest; 
rapid human population growth; and climate change via drought. Civil 
unrest is a longstanding and significant ongoing concern for the 
Kordofan giraffe. In addition, all populations are at risk of 
catastrophic drought events in the near term. Ongoing conservation 
efforts are insufficient to alleviate these threats. The best available 
information indicates that disease and predation are not currently 
resulting in population-level or subspecies-level effects.
    Overall, the resiliency, redundancy, and adaptive capacity of the 
Kordofan giraffe have declined due to declines in abundance, 
significant range contraction, and moderately high levels of 
inbreeding. Historically, the Kordofan giraffe was distributed widely 
across central Africa countries in the northern savanna woodlands and 
Sahel zone, but it has been extirpated across most of its range. The 
subspecies' area of occupancy is greatly reduced, and approximately 80 
percent of individuals now occurring within just two populations. All 
populations are vulnerable to catastrophic drought events. Only one 
population (Zakouma National Park) is protected from poaching and 
habitat loss through 2027. The other larger population is facing 
ongoing and severe threats. The remaining populations are small and 
isolated, and the limited capacity of the Kordofan giraffe to cope with 
and adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions exacerbates the 
risks posed by the subspecies' declining resiliency and redundancy. 
These reductions in viability, in the face of ongoing and

[[Page 92558]]

imminent threats, results in the near-term risk of extinction in all 
populations such that they currently lack sufficient resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation for their continued existence to be 
secure. In summary, we find that the Kordofan giraffe is in danger of 
extinction in all areas (i.e., every population). Thus, there is no 
portion of the range where the Kordofan giraffe may have a regulatory 
status that is different from its status in the rest of its range.
    In summary, after evaluating threats to the subspecies, the 
subspecies' responses to those threats, and any associated conservation 
measures, and after assessing the cumulative effects of those threats 
and conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
conclude that the Kordofan giraffe is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range due to the limited resiliency of the extant 
populations; the severity, extent, and immediacy of threats to those 
populations; and the anticipated responses of the Kordofan giraffe to 
those threats. A threatened species status is not appropriate because 
the threats to the Kordofan giraffe are ongoing or imminent and have 
already resulted in the species being in danger of extinction.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the Kordofan giraffe meets the Act's definition of an 
endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the Kordofan giraffe as an 
endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the 
Act.

Determination of Nubian Giraffe Status

    We propose to list the Nubian giraffe as an endangered species 
because it is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. As 
stated above, we determine a species' classification based upon its 
regulatory status throughout all of its range when the species has 
similar extinction risk in all areas across its range at a scale that 
is biologically appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the 
extinction risk varies across its range, we determine a species' 
classification based upon its regulatory status throughout a 
significant portion of its range. Either way, we begin by determining 
the scale that is biologically appropriate for that species. For many 
species, we can divide the range in an infinite number of ways. As 
described above, populations of Nubian giraffe occur in Ethiopia, 
Kenya, South Sudan, and Uganda. Those populations are the units that 
provide the appropriate scale to assess extinction risk for the Nubian 
giraffe.
    For the endangered classification, we evaluated whether the Nubian 
giraffe has a similar risk of extinction in all areas across its range 
by assessing its extinction risk within each population. Because our 
review indicated that the Nubian giraffe's extinction risk is similar 
in all areas across its range, we then evaluated whether it may be 
endangered based upon the ``throughout all of its range'' component. In 
undertaking this analysis of whether the Nubian giraffe is endangered 
throughout all of its range, we reviewed the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding threats to the subspecies, the 
subspecies' responses to those threats, and any associated conservation 
measures. We then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and 
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We 
examined the following threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid human 
population growth and the effects from climate change, as well as 
disease and predation, including cumulative effects.
    There are approximately 3,022 Nubian giraffes, which represents an 
86 percent decline from its historical (1960s to 1980s) population size 
of 21,907, and the overall numbers of Nubian giraffes have been 
declining and are projected to continue to decline at a rate of 4-4.9 
percent per year. The majority of Nubian giraffes (approximately 60 
percent) occur in one population at Murchison Falls National Park, 
Uganda. There are four other small populations (fewer than 100 
individuals each) in eastern and southern Uganda, and the rest of 
Nubian giraffes occur in small populations in Kenya, South Sudan, and 
Ethiopia. All these populations have little chance for dispersal 
between sites or capacity for expansion.
    After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
(Factor A), and poaching (Factor B), which are and will continue to be 
exacerbated by increasing human populations and effects from climate 
change (Factor E), are the threats affecting the subspecies' viability 
in the near term. In the near term, all populations are currently 
subject to poaching and are currently and expected to continue to be 
affected in the near term by habitat loss, including land degradation; 
habitat fragmentation exacerbated by civil unrest; rapid human 
population growth; and climate change via drought. Civil unrest is a 
longstanding and significant ongoing concern for the Nubian giraffe. 
All populations are at risk of catastrophic drought events in the near 
term. Ongoing conservation efforts are not sufficient to alleviate 
these threats. While disease and predation are impacting individual 
Nubian giraffes, the best available information indicates that disease 
and predation are not currently resulting in population-level or 
subspecies-level effects.
    Overall, the resiliency, redundancy, and adaptive capacity of the 
Nubian giraffe have declined due to declines in abundance and 
significant range contraction. Nubian giraffes were historically 
distributed across central-west Kenya into Uganda, Ethiopia, and South 
Sudan, but the subspecies has been extirpated across most of its range. 
The Nubian giraffe's area of occupancy is greatly reduced, and 
approximately 60 percent of individuals now occur within just one 
population. The remaining populations are small and isolated, and the 
limited capacity of the Nubian giraffe to cope with and adapt to 
rapidly changing environmental conditions exacerbates the risks posed 
by the subspecies' declining resiliency and redundancy. All populations 
are vulnerable to catastrophic drought events; the effects of habitat 
loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and poaching. These reductions in 
viability, in the face of ongoing and imminent threats, results in the 
near-term risk of extinction in all populations such that they 
currently lack sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
for their continued existence to be secure. In summary, we find that 
the Nubian giraffe is in danger of extinction in all areas (i.e., every 
population). Thus, there is no portion of the range where the Nubian 
giraffe may have a regulatory status that is different from its status 
in the rest of its range.
    In summary, after evaluating threats to the subspecies, the 
subspecies' responses to those threats, and any associated conservation 
measures, and after assessing the cumulative effects of those threats 
and conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
conclude that the Nubian giraffe is in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range due to the limited resiliency of the two extant 
populations; the severity, extent, and immediacy of threats to those 
populations; and the anticipated responses of the Nubian giraffe to 
those threats. A threatened species status is not appropriate because 
the threats to the Nubian giraffe are ongoing or

[[Page 92559]]

imminent and have already resulted in the species being in danger of 
extinction.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the Nubian giraffe meets the Act's definition of an 
endangered species because it is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. Therefore, we propose to list the Nubian giraffe as an 
endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the 
Act.

Determination of Reticulated Giraffe Status

    We propose to list the reticulated giraffe as a threatened species 
because it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. As stated above, we 
determine a species' classification based upon its regulatory status 
throughout all of its range when the species has similar extinction 
risk in all areas across its range at a scale that is biologically 
appropriate for that species. Here, the reticulated giraffe functions 
as a single population that occurs primarily within Kenya (extending 
into Ethiopia with connectivity), and the threats affect the species 
such that it has similar extinction risk throughout its entire range. 
In other words, because of the fission-fusion behavior of reticulated 
giraffe and the roaming nature of male giraffes, effects to one part of 
the range are likely to affect the species within other parts of its 
range. Thus, there is no way to divide this species' range at a scale 
that is biologically appropriate for a classification determination. 
Reticulated giraffes are considered extirpated in Somalia, and Somalia 
is not included in the current range of this species. Therefore, we 
assessed the species' status based upon the ``throughout all of its 
range'' component.
    In undertaking this analysis of whether the reticulated giraffe is 
threatened throughout all of its range, we reviewed the best scientific 
and commercial data available regarding threats to the species, the 
species' responses to those threats, and any associated conservation 
measures. We then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and 
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We 
examined the following threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid human 
population growth and the effects from climate change, as well as 
disease and predation, including cumulative effects.
    The reticulated giraffe needs to maintain its healthy, resilient 
population (which contains multiple herds) across its range to reduce 
the risk of extinction. The species has experienced reductions in 
resiliency and redundancy over time, but we expect it will continue to 
have multiple herds with high abundance across its range in the near 
term. The statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in 
danger of extinction. An endangered species is in danger of extinction, 
and a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future. The species currently has 
an estimated 15,985 individuals, with 99 percent of the population 
occurring in Kenya. While there has been a decline from historical 
population size, this is still a large and relatively connected 
population, and, in the near term, the reticulated giraffe is 
maintaining its healthy, resilient population (which contains multiple 
herds) across its range. However, within the foreseeable future, 
declines are projected to continue to occur, as the best available 
information suggests that none of the threats are anticipated to be 
adequately mitigated or decline into the future. While threats are 
ongoing, the effects to the species are not currently at a magnitude 
that put the species in near-term risk of extinction; however, threats 
are expected to increase, resulting in an increasing risk of extinction 
over time. After evaluating the threats to the species and assessing 
the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
(Factor A), and poaching (Factor B), all of which are exacerbated by 
increasing human populations and effects from climate change (Factor 
E), are the threats affecting the species' viability within the 
foreseeable future. As human population growth and the effects of 
drought increase, human food security is expected to decrease, and, as 
a result, human-wildlife conflict will continue to increase.
    Declines in the species' resiliency are projected to continue, with 
a projected population size of 104 million people in the range of the 
reticulated giraffe by 2100. While not considered a separate 
population, given the small number of individuals and threats within 
Ethiopia, including within the last region where reticulated giraffes 
occur in Ethiopia, the likelihood of extirpation there is high. The 
continued reticulated giraffe population decline is likely because of 
the ongoing and future projected land use changes that support the 
increased human population and the effects of climate change. Although 
poaching does not currently pose a significant threat to the 
reticulated giraffe, it is anticipated to become more significant in 
the future because of the increased food insecurity anticipated from 
climate change and an increased human population. Drought duration, 
frequency, and intensity are projected to continue to increase within 
the range of the reticulated giraffe. The approximately 1 [deg]C 
temperature increase resulting from climate change observed over the 
period of the reticulated giraffe's decline is expected to increase to 
a 2-4[deg]C increase by 2100, resulting in increased drought extent, 
frequency, duration, and intensity. The range of projected human 
population size is from similar to current numbers (lower scenario) to 
quadruple current numbers (upper scenario) in Kenya and Ethiopia by 
2100.
    The current connection between these threats and giraffe viability 
is not expected to change into the future. In other words, we 
anticipate no change in species' response to changing habitat 
conditions or poaching. While currently abundant, reticulated giraffe 
populations have declined from historical levels, due to the declines 
in adult survival and recruitment that result from drought, changes in 
habitat condition, and poaching. Extrapolating the increases for the 
threats to the reticulated giraffe that have resulted in the decline to 
date, we expect ongoing risks to the reticulated giraffe's viability to 
continue and increase into the future such that the species is likely 
to have an inability to meet its needs of having a healthy, resilient 
population with multiple herds distributed across its range, resulting 
in an increased risk of extinction within the foreseeable future.
    In addition, the species' ability to shift its range in response to 
changing environmental conditions is highly limited. In addition to 
physical (fencing, topography) and physiological barriers to large-
scale migration, there is limited habitat available nearby to shift to 
escape the effects of climate change. The entire sub-Saharan region of 
Africa is considered a hot spot for climate change, which has led to 
increased frequency and severity of drought over the last four decades. 
Under a warming climate, drought risk and extreme rainfall events are 
projected to worsen in the near-term and accelerate at mid-century. 
Thus, even if the reticulated giraffe were able to shift or expand its 
range to in response to local land use-induced habitat changes, it 
appears

[[Page 92560]]

nearly certain that the species cannot avoid the long-term impacts from 
climate change.
    Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
we conclude that the reticulated giraffe is not in danger of extinction 
but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range. As discussed above, there is no way 
to divide the reticulated giraffe's range that is biologically 
appropriate. Thus, there is no portion of the range where the species 
may be in danger of extinction.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the reticulated giraffe meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species because it is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. 
Therefore, we propose to list the reticulated giraffe as a threatened 
species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Determination of Masai Giraffe Status

    We propose to list the Masai giraffe as a threatened species 
because it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. As stated above, we 
determine a species classification based upon its regulatory status 
throughout all of its range when the species has similar extinction 
risk in all areas across its range at a scale that is biologically 
appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the extinction risk varies 
across its range, we determine a species' classification based upon its 
regulatory status throughout a significant portion of its range. Either 
way, we begin by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate 
for that species. For many species, we can divide the range in an 
infinite number of ways. As described above, for the Masai giraffe, we 
divided the range into five AUs: (1) Kenya/Tanzania west--west of the 
Gregory Rift escarpment, (2) Kenya/Tanzania east--east of the Gregory 
Rift escarpment, (3) West Tanzania, (4) Zambia, and (5) Rwanda. In 
summary, those five AUs are the units that provide the appropriate 
scale to assess extinction risk for the Masai giraffe.

Evaluation for Threatened Classification

    For the threatened classification, we evaluated whether the Masai 
giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable future 
in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk within 
each of the AUs. Because our review indicated that the Masai giraffe's 
extinction risk is similar in all areas across its range and will 
likely continue to be, we then evaluated whether it may be threatened 
based upon the ``throughout all of its range'' component. In 
undertaking these analyses, we reviewed the best scientific and 
commercial data available regarding threats to the species, the 
species' responses to those threats, and any associated conservation 
measures. We then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and 
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We 
examined the following threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid human 
population growth and the effects from climate change, as well as 
hunting, disease, and predation, including cumulative effects.
    The Masai giraffe needs multiple healthy, resilient populations 
that are distributed across its range to reduce the risk of extinction. 
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a threatened 
species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in danger of 
extinction. An endangered species is in danger of extinction, and a 
threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future.
    While three AUs (Kenya/Tanzania west, Kenya/Tanzania east, and West 
Tanzania) are much larger in geographical size and population abundance 
and more likely to be able to respond to stochastic events over time 
than the other two AUs, all AUs will experience increased threats 
within the foreseeable future that are likely to be similar. After 
evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect 
of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and poaching, all of 
which are exacerbated by human population growth and the effects of 
climate change, are the threats affecting the species' viability within 
the foreseeable future.
    The following information applies to each of the AUs, unless 
explicitly stated otherwise. While current populations are either large 
and connected (Kenya/Tanzania west, Kenya/Tanzania east, and West 
Tanzania) or smaller with minimal threats (Zambia and Rwanda), within 
the foreseeable future, declines of at least 1 to 3 percent are 
projected to continue to occur within the three large AUs (Kenya/
Tanzania west, Kenya/Tanzania east, and West Tanzania), as the best 
available information suggests that none of the threats will be 
mitigated or decline into the future. While threats are ongoing, the 
effects to the species are not currently at a high magnitude but are 
expected to continue to increase, resulting in an increasing risk of 
extinction over time. Human population growth will increase, food 
security will decrease, human-wildlife conflict will increase, and the 
effects of drought will increase.
    The ongoing threats of habitat condition changes (all AUs except 
Rwanda) and poaching (all AUs except Zambia and Rwanda) are expected to 
intensify into the future, as the human population in the countries 
where the Masai giraffe occurs continues to grow (e.g., nearly doubling 
in Kenya and more than tripling in Tanzania by 2100); drought extent, 
frequency, intensity, and duration increase; and habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation increase (e.g., forest and woody cover 
will decline up to 1,860 and 5,305 kha by mid and late century, 
respectively). Drought duration, frequency, and intensity are projected 
to continue to increase within the range of the Masai giraffe. The 
approximately 1 [deg]C temperature increase resulting from climate 
change observed over the period of the Masai giraffe's decline is 
expected to increase to a 2-4 [deg]C increase by 2100, resulting in 
increased drought extent, frequency, duration, and intensity. Human 
population size is expected to increase by 60 to 800 million people 
within the four countries that contain the Masai giraffe by 2100.
    In turn, Masai giraffes in all AUs will face further reductions in 
food quality and availability, and further restriction of their 
movement patterns and ability to access necessary resources. 
Additionally, poaching will likely continue due to increased food 
insecurity associated with rapid human population growth and climate 
change. Disease may also become a greater threat, as high rainfall 
events can increase disease prevalence.
    There is no evidence suggesting a change in the species' past 
response to these threats in the future. Based on the historical rate 
of decline, the total population is projected to decline to an 
estimated 3,725-16,074 giraffes (5-24 percent of the 1970s population 
size) by 2100. These estimates are the minimum rates of future decline, 
as they do not incorporate the increasing magnitude of threats into the 
future. Thus, it is likely that the species will experience a 
substantial loss of abundance and, consequently, reductions in density 
and extent of occupancy into the future, especially for the Kenya/
Tanzania west, Kenya/Tanzania east, and West Tanzania AUs. In Zambia, a 
maximum

[[Page 92561]]

of 660 giraffes are estimated to live in their core range within the 
Luangwa River Valley, and the population is currently between 600 and 
700 individuals, suggesting it is near the carrying capacity. In 
Rwanda, available habitat is limited by the fenced area within Akagera 
National Park. These small populations are unlikely to continue 
increasing into the future and may begin to decline as risks related to 
climate change intensify.
    These reductions in abundance will, in turn, further reduce the 
species' ability to withstand environmental stochasticity and 
disturbances, catastrophic events, and changing environmental 
conditions in all AUs. Additionally, because the magnitude and 
frequency of catastrophic events (e.g., extreme drought and extreme 
rainfall events) are expected to increase into the future, the Masai 
giraffe will have increasingly low ability to recover from those events 
in any AU. Large declines in abundance will also increase the 
proportional impact from individual catastrophic events on the 
remaining population. Finally, the species' ability to relocate will 
become more limited into the future, as its habitat will continue to be 
converted to other land uses and become further fragmented. Human 
population growth and climate change are also projected to increase 
into the future, accelerating the pace of environmental changes. The 
species' ability to shift its range in response to changing 
environmental conditions is highly limited. In addition to physical 
(fencing, topography) and physiological barriers to large-scale 
migration, there is limited habitat available nearby to shift to escape 
the risks from climate change. The entire sub-Saharan region of Africa 
is considered a hot spot for climate change, which has led to increased 
frequency and severity of drought over the last four decades. Under a 
warming climate, drought risk and extreme rainfall events are projected 
to worsen in the near-term and accelerate at mid-century. Thus, even if 
the Masai giraffe were able to shift or expand its range in response to 
local land use-induced habitat changes, it appears nearly certain that 
the species cannot escape the long-term impacts from climate change. 
Together, these projections of future threats and the species' response 
to those threats suggest the ability of the Masai giraffe to adapt or 
adjust to its changing environmental conditions will likely become 
severely limited in the future. Therefore, in the future, the Masai 
giraffe is likely to be unable to meet its needs of having multiple 
healthy, resilient populations that are distributed across its range, 
resulting in an increased risk of extinction for the species.
    In summary, the Masai giraffe is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future in every AU; thus, for the 
threatened classification, there is no portion of the range where the 
Masai giraffe may have a regulatory status that is different from its 
status in the rest of its range. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, we conclude that the Masai giraffe is likely 
to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range.
    When we find a species warrants listing as a threatened species, we 
must consider whether the species is endangered throughout a 
significant portion of its range. We determine that the Masai giraffe 
is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its 
range. To reach this determination, we first assessed whether we can 
divide the species' range at a biologically appropriate scale. As 
discussed above, AUs are the units that provide the appropriate scale 
to assess extinction risk for the Masai giraffe.

Evaluation for Endangered Classification

    For the endangered classification, we evaluated whether the Masai 
giraffe has a similar risk of extinction in all areas across its range 
by assessing the Masai giraffe's extinction risk within each AU. 
Because our review indicated that the Masai giraffe's extinction risk 
is similar in all areas across its range, we then evaluated whether it 
may be endangered based upon the ``throughout all of its range'' 
component. In undertaking these analyses, we reviewed the best 
scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to the 
species, the species' responses to those threats, and any associated 
conservation measures. We then assessed the cumulative effects of those 
threats and conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors. We examined the following threats: habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and degradation, and poaching, all of which are 
exacerbated by rapid human population growth and the effects from 
climate change, as well as hunting, disease, and predation, including 
cumulative effects.
    Masai giraffes need multiple healthy, resilient populations that 
are distributed across the species' range to reduce the risk of 
extinction. Three AUs (Kenya/Tanzania west, Kenya/Tanzania east, and 
West Tanzania) are much larger in geographical size and population 
abundance (currently at an estimated 15,760, 19,070, and 9,460 
individuals, respectively) and more likely to be able to respond to 
stochastic events over time than the other two AUs. However, the 
magnitude of the impact of poaching and land use changes is greater in 
those three largest AUs, and these populations have been experiencing 
declines of 1 to 3 percent per year. Ongoing conservation efforts, such 
as CITES and other provincial protections, have likely reduced, but 
have been inadequate to halt and reverse, the declining trend of the 
Masai giraffe in Kenya and Tanzania. The population in Zambia is stable 
or increasing since the 1950s, and the population in Rwanda is 
increasing since its establishment in 1986. The population in Zambia 
occurs in a system of protected areas in the Luangwa Valley; thus, 
poaching is not influencing this population. However, habitat 
conversion (e.g., settlement and cropland expansion) is occurring 
within game management areas adjacent to the national park. The Masai 
giraffe faces minimal threats in Rwanda given their fenced and 
protected state; however, threats from climate change remain. We also 
considered the potential threats of predation, hunting, and disease, 
and while individuals may be affected by these threats, the best 
available information does not indicate population-level or species-
level effects.
    The species has experienced reductions in resiliency and redundancy 
over time, but we expect all five AUs to be resilient to stochastic 
events in the near term. The Masai giraffe currently has an estimated 
45,402 individuals, which is 66 to 68 percent of the historical 
population size in the 1970s. The overall range is likely similar to or 
less than the historical distribution in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia; 
however, the area of occupancy and density in occupied areas has likely 
declined because of ongoing threats. The species' current range also 
includes an introduced population in Rwanda. Within each AU, the 
species has a similar adaptive capacity. Overall, while threats are 
ongoing, given the large population sizes for three AUs and protections 
in two AUs in the near term, these threats are currently not of such a 
magnitude that the species is in danger of extinction. The Masai 
giraffe is currently meeting its need for multiple healthy, resilient 
populations that are distributed across the species' range. In summary, 
we find that the Masai giraffe is not in danger of extinction in any 
areas across its range (i.e., AUs).
    Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for 
determining that the species is in danger of

[[Page 92562]]

extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. In reaching 
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, 
including the definition of ``significant,'' that courts have held to 
be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
determine that the Masai giraffe meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species because it is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. 
Therefore, we propose to list the Masai giraffe as a threatened species 
in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act.
    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery 
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required 
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions 
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the 
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may 
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species 
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In 
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical 
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a 
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    With respect to all giraffe species and subspecies, no known 
actions require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Given 
the regulatory definition of ``action'' at 50 CFR 402.02, which 
clarifies that it applies to activities or programs carried out ``in 
the United States or upon the high seas,'' the giraffe is unlikely to 
be the subject of section 7 consultations, because the entire life 
cycles of the species occur in terrestrial areas outside of the United 
States and the species are unlikely to be affected by U.S. Federal 
actions. Additionally, no critical habitat will be designated for any 
giraffe species or subspecies because, under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will 
not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other 
areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
    Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the 
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and 
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to 
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened 
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage 
conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide 
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training 
of personnel.
    Additional requirements apply to activities with all giraffes, 
separate from their proposed listing as endangered species or 
threatened species. As a CITES-listed species, all international trade 
of any giraffe by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States must also comply with CITES requirements pursuant to section 9, 
paragraphs (c) and (g), of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(c) and (g)) and to 
50 CFR part 23. As ``fish or wildlife'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(8)), giraffe 
imports and exports must also meet applicable wildlife import/export 
requirements established under section 9, paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), 
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(d), (e), and (f)); the Lacey Act Amendments 
of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.); and 50 CFR part 14. Questions 
regarding whether specific activities with giraffe would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Service's 
Division of Management Authority ([email protected]; 703-358-
2104).

Additional Measures for West African, Kordofan, and Nubian Giraffe

    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) and 9(g) of the Act, and the 
Service's implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to 
cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any 
endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United 
States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial sea of 
the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife 
that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, 
or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and 
in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these 
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and 
State conservation agencies.

[[Page 92563]]

    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 
13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued: for 
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
    The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, 
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. For example, the 
provisions in section 9(b)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)(1)) provide 
a limited exemption from certain otherwise prohibited activities 
regarding wildlife specimens held in captivity or in a controlled 
environment on the date they were first subject to the Act, provided 
that such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the wildlife was 
not in the course of a commercial activity (commonly referred to as 
``pre-Act'' specimens). Therefore, if a giraffe is held in captivity 
prior to receiving protections under the Act (and the holding is not in 
the course of commercial activity), there are several activities that 
are allowed without the need for a permit (or exception in a 4(d) rule) 
in accordance with section 9(b)(1) of the Act.
    Section 9(b)(1) was amended in the 1982 amendments to the Act (96 
Stat. 1426-27), to clarify that the scope of the 9(b)(1) exemption is 
limited to only certain section 9(a)(1) prohibitions, that the 
exemption does not apply to pre-Act wildlife held or used in the course 
of a commercial activity on or after the pre-Act date for the species, 
and that the pre-Act date for species first listed after the enactment 
of the ESA is the date of publication in the Federal Register of the 
final regulation adding such species to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife for the first time (H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th 
Cong., 2nd Sess., at 35 (1982) (Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 97-418, 97th 
Cong., 2nd Sess., at 24-25 (1982)). Specifically, section 9(b)(1) of 
the Act states that the prohibitions of sections 9(a)(1)(A) and 
9(a)(1)(G) shall not apply to any fish or wildlife which was held in 
captivity or in a controlled environment on (A) December 28, 1973, or 
(B) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of a final 
regulation adding such fish or wildlife to any list of species 
published pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act (as relevant to listed 
wildlife, the list of endangered and threatened wildlife (50 CFR 
17.11(h)) that such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the 
fish or wildlife was not in the course of a commercial activity.
    Therefore, for pre-Act wildlife, there is a limited exemption from 
the prohibitions associated with: (1) import into, or export from the 
United States of any endangered wildlife, or (2) violation of 
regulations pertaining to threatened or endangered wildlife. Other 
prohibitions of section 9--including those at section 9(a)(1)(B)-(F), 
regarding take of endangered wildlife, possession and other acts with 
unlawfully taken wildlife, interstate or foreign commerce in endangered 
wildlife, and sale or offer for sale of endangered wildlife--continue 
to apply to activities with qualifying endangered pre-Act wildlife 
specimens. For threatened species, prohibitions are promulgated by 
regulation under section 4(d) of the Act, and a specimen may qualify 
for the exemption in 9(a)(1)(G) with regard to regulatory violations. 
For those specimens that continue to qualify under the ``pre-Act'' 
exemption, 4(d) rule protections do not apply. Specimens born after the 
listing date and specimens taken from the wild after the listing date 
do not qualify as ``pre-Act'' wildlife under the text of section 
9(b)(1) of the Act. If a person engages in any commercial activity with 
a ``pre-Act'' specimen, the wildlife would immediately cease to qualify 
as pre-Act wildlife and become subject to the relevant prohibitions, 
because it has been held or used in the course of a commercial 
activity.

Additional Measures for Reticulated and Masai Giraffes

    Section 9 of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for 
endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for 
threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for 
any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue 
protective regulations that are ``necessary and advisable to provide 
for the conservation of such species'' (these are referred to as ``4(d) 
rules''). Additional measures for the reticulated and Masai giraffes 
are described below in relation to the proposed 4(d) rule for the 
reticulated giraffe, Masai giraffe, Angolan giraffe, and South African 
giraffe (see IV. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act 
for Reticulated Giraffe, Masai Giraffe, Angolan Giraffe, and South 
African Giraffe, below).

III. Similarity of Appearance for the Angolan Giraffe and South African 
Giraffe

    Whenever a species that is not endangered or threatened closely 
resembles an endangered or threatened species, such unlisted species 
may be treated as either endangered or threatened if the Secretary 
makes a determination in accordance with section 4(e) of the Act for 
similarity of appearance. Section 4(e) authorizes the treatment of any 
species as an endangered or threatened species ``even though it is not 
listed'' pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the Act, if: (A) the unlisted 
species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a 
species which has been listed pursuant to section 4(a)(1) that 
enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting 
to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (B) the 
effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an 
endangered or threatened species; and (C) such treatment of an unlisted 
species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the 
policy of the Act.
    A designation of an endangered or threatened species due to 
similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act, however, does 
not extend other protections of the Act, such as consultation 
requirements for Federal agencies under section 7 and the recovery 
planning provisions under section 4(f), that apply to species that are 
listed as an endangered or threatened species under section 4(a)(1). 
The Service implements this section 4(e) authority in accordance with 
the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.50. Our analysis of the 
criteria for the proposed 4(e) rule for the Angolan giraffe and South 
African giraffe is described below for the similarity of appearance of 
the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe to the proposed 
endangered West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian giraffe, 
and proposed threatened reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe.

Do the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe so closely resemble in 
appearance, at the point in question, the West African giraffe, 
Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, or Masai giraffe 
such that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in 
attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species?

    Yes. At this time, it is not possible for law enforcement, using 
either morphology, genetics, or other forensic techniques to 
differentiate giraffe

[[Page 92564]]

species or subspecies. Morphologically, while some subspecies have been 
described to have distinct external morphological characteristics when 
provided a complete specimen (Kingdon and Hoffmann 2013, entire), there 
is considerable variation and overlap in giraffe morphology, and 
particularly in the parts and pieces that are commonly in the trade 
(e.g., small patch of skin, carved bones), which would not be able to 
be identified beyond genus. Similarly, Service law enforcement follows 
both current CITES and IUCN taxonomy, which consider the giraffe one 
species with nine subspecies. The existing genetic datasets are either 
currently not available and/or not verified to identify a specimen 
beyond the genus level when considering multiple species (as described 
in this rule) for enforcement purposes (Office of Law Enforcement 2024, 
pers. comm.).

Is the effect of this substantial difficulty an additional threat to 
West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated 
giraffe, or Masai giraffe?

    Yes. Specifically, we considered the possibility that an additional 
threat is posed to the proposed endangered West African giraffe, 
Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian giraffe, and proposed threatened 
reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe, by providing an avenue for 
persons who misrepresent West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, or Masai giraffe specimens as Angolan 
giraffe and South African giraffe specimens to engage in unauthorized 
taking, trade, or commerce. This misrepresentation contributes to 
market demand for the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe. Due to the lack of 
distinct physical characteristics and difficulty in distinguishing 
individual species or subspecies of giraffes, the similarity of giraffe 
specimens poses a problem for law enforcement officers trying to stem 
unauthorized killing and trade of giraffes.
    As stated above, poaching is a primary threat to giraffes, and 
allowing an avenue to traffic giraffes (including specimens, and the 
parts and products, of giraffes) could place additional stress on 
populations that are already small, and in most cases declining. The 
proposed listing of the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe as 
threatened due to similarity of appearance minimizes the possibility 
that private and commercial collectors will be able to misrepresent 
West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated 
giraffe, or Masai giraffe for private or commercial purposes.
    Current protections and regulation of the trade under CITES are 
insufficient to help address these concerns, because CITES taxonomy and 
CITES documents do not distinguish between giraffe species or 
subspecies. Additionally, eight range countries have taken reservations 
to the CITES listing (Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Eswatini, Namibia, South Africa, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, 
and Zimbabwe) (CITES 2024, unpaginated). While these reserving Parties 
would be required to issue CITES documents for trade with the United 
States and other CITES Parties, these reserving Parties are able to 
trade in any giraffe with each other without CITES documents. With the 
large number of reservations, current CITES protections alone are 
therefore insufficient to ensure legal, biologically sustainable, 
traceable trade in the species. We find that the difficulty enforcement 
personnel have in attempting to differentiate between the giraffe 
species and subspecies would pose an additional threat to the West 
African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, 
and Masai giraffe.

Would treatment of the two unlisted giraffes as threatened or 
endangered due to similarity of appearance substantially further the 
enforcement and policy of the Act?

    Yes. The listing of the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe 
due to similarity of appearance will facilitate Federal, State, local, 
and foreign law enforcement agents' efforts to curtail unauthorized 
taking and trade in the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe. We find that listing 
the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe due to similarity of 
appearance under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable 
prohibitions and exceptions under section 4(d) of the Act will 
substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the 
Act for the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, 
reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe.
    If the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe were not listed, 
importers and exporters could inadvertently or purposefully 
misrepresent West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, 
reticulated giraffe, and/or Masai giraffe (including specimens, and 
their parts or products) as the unlisted entity, creating a loophole in 
enforcing the Act's' protections for listed species of giraffe. The 
listing will facilitate law-enforcement efforts to curtail unauthorized 
import and trade in West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe. Extending the 
prohibitions of the Act to the similar entities (Angolan giraffe and 
South African giraffe) through the listing of those entities due to 
similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act and providing 
applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a rule issued under section 
4(d) of the Act will provide greater protection to West African 
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and 
Masai giraffe.
    Additionally, although the section 4(e) provisions of the Act do 
not contain criteria as to whether a species listed under the 
similarity of appearance provisions should be treated as endangered or 
threatened, we find that treating the Angolan giraffe and South African 
giraffe as threatened is appropriate because the proposed 4(d) rule 
would provide adequate protection for these entities. Under section 
4(e), regulations for commerce or taking may be promulgated to the 
extent deemed advisable, regardless of whether the species is treated 
as endangered or threatened. The proposed 4(d) rule would prohibit the 
same activities as those activities prohibited for endangered giraffe 
species through adoption of all of the Act's section 9(a)(1) 
prohibitions for each threatened species of giraffe, and for each 
subspecies of giraffe treated as threatened by reason of similarity of 
appearance. The proposed 4(d) rule would also ensure evidence that the 
specimens are Angolan giraffe or South African giraffe prior to 
permitting otherwise prohibited activities with either subspecies of 
giraffe, and would otherwise require applicants to meet the same 
permitting requirements that apply to threatened species of giraffe, 
unless another exception applies.
    While species listed as endangered are limited to the permitting 
options provided in section 10 of the Act, there are additional 
permitting options available for species listed as threatened. We are 
unaware of an additional benefit that would be provided to the 
conservation of the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, or Nubian 
giraffe by limiting permitting for southern giraffes (Angolan giraffe 
and South African giraffe) to the options for endangered species under 
section 10 of the Act. The primary advantage of requiring a permit for 
all otherwise prohibited activities is to ensure the ability to 
identify the giraffe species or subspecies prior to authorizing the 
activity (e.g., import from the range countries). This identification 
helps

[[Page 92565]]

ensure authorized trade in less protected species does not provide 
cover for illegal trade in other species of giraffe or result in 
negative conservation consequences for those species. We deem the 
treatment of Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe as threatened 
species, together with the proposed protections and exceptions of the 
proposed 4(d) rule, advisable to ensure protection for the West African 
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and 
Masai giraffe.
    For the above reasons, we propose to list the Angolan giraffe and 
South African giraffe as threatened due to similarity of appearance to 
the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated 
giraffe, and Masai giraffe pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.

IV. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act for 
Reticulated Giraffe, Masai Giraffe, Angolan Giraffe, and South African 
Giraffe Background

    As discussed above in Available Conservation Measures, section 9 of 
the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered species 
but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened species. 
Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species listed as 
a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective regulations 
that are ``necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
such species'' (these are referred to as ``4(d) rules''). Section 4(d) 
of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the 
Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as 
threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use 
of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. 
Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states 
that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any 
threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the 
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. 
With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad 
authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened 
species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section 
9 prohibitions, for a given species.
    Courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid 
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) of the 
Act that included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea 
Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); 
Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 
2002 WL 511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules 
that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of 
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the 
legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an 
animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite 
number of options available to [her] with regard to the permitted 
activities for those species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, 
but not importation of such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both 
taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species'' 
(H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    Under our section 4(d) authorities, we put in place protections 
intended to both prevent a threatened species from becoming an 
endangered species and promote its recovery. We have two ways to put in 
place these protections for a threatened species: (1) we can issue a 
species-specific 4(d) rule (codified at 50 CFR 17.40-17.47 for wildlife 
and at 50 CFR 17.73 and 17.74 for plants), which would contain all of 
the protective regulations for that species; or (2) we can apply the 
``blanket rule'' at 50 CFR 17.31(a) for wildlife and 50 CFR 17.71(a) 
for plants (for more information, see 89 FR 23919, April 5, 2024), 
which extends to threatened species without a species-specific rule all 
of the prohibitions that apply to endangered species under section 9 
(with certain exceptions applicable to threatened species). Both 
``blanket rules'' and species-specific 4(d) rules explain what is 
prohibited for a threatened species, thus requiring a permit or 
authorization under the Act unless otherwise excepted in the 4(d) rule 
(species-specific 4(d) rules may also include affirmative 
requirements).
    The provisions of these proposed protective regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we would use to 
promote the conservation of the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe. 
The proposed protective regulations would apply only if and when we 
make final the listing of the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe as 
threatened species, as well as the determination to treat the Angolan 
giraffe and South African giraffe as threatened species based on their 
similarity of appearance; or otherwise make final under the authority 
of either section 4(a)(1) or 4(e) of the Act the listing of a giraffe 
species as a threatened species or treatment of a species of giraffe as 
a threatened species based on their similarity of appearance. The 
proposed protective regulations would promote conservation of the 
reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe by ensuring that activities 
undertaken with these species by any person under the jurisdiction of 
the United States are also supportive of the conservation efforts 
undertaken for the species in Africa, as well as under the CITES 
Appendix-II listing, and, as explained above, would also help ensure 
protection for the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe.
    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we propose a species-specific 4(d) rule to apply protections for the 
reticulated giraffe, Masai giraffe, Angolan giraffe, and South African 
giraffe. Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations 
as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among 
those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 
9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We find that, if 
finalized, the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this 
proposed rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the 
Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe.
    Under the proposed 4(d) rule, prohibitions and provisions that 
apply to endangered wildlife under section 9(a)(1) of the Act would 
help minimize threats that could cause further declines in the status 
of reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe. We are also proposing to 
treat both Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe as threatened 
species based on similarity of appearance to the West African giraffe, 
Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai 
giraffe under the authority of section 4(e) of the Act with a 4(d) rule 
for these species to minimize misidentification and enforcement-related 
issues.
    The protective regulations we are proposing for the reticulated 
giraffe, Masai giraffe, Angolan giraffe, and South African giraffe 
incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to 
the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe, as well as threats posed by 
similarity of

[[Page 92566]]

appearance of Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe to West African 
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and 
Masai giraffe. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife, unless they are otherwise authorized or permitted: (1) import 
into, or export from, the United States; (2) take within the United 
States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high 
seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any 
means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 
commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial 
activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees 
or agents of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other 
Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. This 
protective regulation would provide for the conservation of the 
reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe by including all of these 
prohibitions because the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe are at 
risk of extinction within the foreseeable future and putting these 
prohibitions in place would help to decrease synergistic, negative 
effects from other ongoing or future threats.
    As discussed above, poaching is a primary threat to giraffes, and 
trafficking of giraffe (e.g., specimens, parts, products) could place 
additional stress on populations that are already small, and in most 
cases declining. Prohibiting the acts prohibited under section 9(a)(1) 
of the Act and regulating import and export into, from, and through the 
United States, take, and interstate and foreign commerce by persons 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would indirectly 
contribute to conservation of the species in their range countries and 
help conserve the species by eliminating the United States as a 
potential market for illegally taken and traded giraffes. It would 
ensure any activities with listed giraffes under U.S. jurisdiction 
contribute to enhancing the conservation of the species, and that any 
domestic demand for listed giraffes or for giraffes treated as listed 
due to similarity of appearance does not contribute to the decline of 
listed giraffe species in the wild.
    Further, as noted above, current protections for giraffes and the 
regulation of giraffe trade under CITES are insufficient to address 
threats relating to similarity of appearance at this time, because 
CITES taxonomy and CITES documents do not distinguish between giraffe 
species or subspecies, and a number of countries have entered 
reservations that may result in undocumented trade in giraffes between 
countries in the ranges of multiple giraffe species without CITES 
documents. Current CITES protections alone are therefore insufficient 
to ensure legal, biologically sustainable, traceable trade in specimens 
of the species.
    Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may 
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more 
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The 
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the 
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise 
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits 
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance 
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological 
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for 
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 
17.32).
    Although the general permit provisions for threatened species are 
found at 50 CFR 17.32, the Service issues permits for otherwise 
prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened species listed 
due to similarity of appearance under the regulatory criteria at 50 CFR 
17.52. Under 50 CFR 17.52, a permit may be issued for any otherwise 
prohibited activity if the applicant adequately identifies the wildlife 
or plant in question so as to distinguish it from any endangered or 
threatened wildlife or plant. In the case of the Angolan giraffe and 
South African giraffe, the Service's criteria to issue such a permit 
would consist of the permit applicant providing adequate information to 
document that the specimen involved in the activity is an Angolan 
giraffe or a South African giraffe. This would ensure that otherwise 
prohibited activities, such as import and export, of the specimens are 
not undertaken with West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, or Nubian 
giraffe without an endangered species permit, and are not undertaken 
with reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe without a threatened species 
permit. Accordingly, this proposed 4(d) rule would promote and enhance 
the conservation of the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian 
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe.
    There are other standard exceptions to the prohibitions included in 
the proposed 4(d) rule for the reticulated giraffe, Masai giraffe, 
Angolan giraffe, and South African giraffe (see Proposed Regulation 
Promulgation, below), and the statute also contains certain exemptions 
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 
If the species-specific 4(d) rule is finalized as proposed, the import 
exemption for threatened wildlife listed in Appendix II of CITES (50 
CFR 17.8; section 9(c)(2) of the Act) would not apply to the species. A 
threatened species import permit under 50 CFR 17.32 would be required 
for the importation of specimens of the species, or a similarity of 
appearance import permit under 50 CFR 17.52 would be required for the 
importation of specimens of Angolan giraffe or South African giraffe, 
regardless of whether the trade is reported as for commercial or 
personal purposes, in order to address the similarity of appearance 
issues explained above. Further, as noted above, we may also authorize 
certain activities associated with conservation breeding under captive-
bred wildlife registrations (see 50 CFR 17.21(g)). We recognize that 
captive breeding of wildlife can support conservation, for example by 
producing animals that could be used for reintroductions. The proposed 
4(d) rule would apply to all live and dead reticulated giraffe, Masai 
giraffe, Angolan giraffe, and South African giraffe, including any 
part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, and support conservation 
management efforts for giraffes in the wild in Africa.
    As noted above, we are requesting information regarding threats to 
one or more species or subspecies of giraffe from hunting, poaching, or 
any other taking or trade involving one or more other species or 
subspecies of giraffe, such as threats to the West African, Kordofan, 
Nubian, reticulated, or Masai giraffe from hunting, poaching, or any 
other taking or trade involving the Angolan giraffe or South African 
giraffe. In most of the range countries of southern giraffe, only 
Angolan giraffes and/or South African giraffes occur in the wild (with 
the exception of Zambia,

[[Page 92567]]

where Masai giraffes also occur). Accordingly, in range countries where 
sport-hunting of southern giraffe is well-managed and used as an 
effective conservation management tool, it may be possible to determine 
that import of personal Angolan giraffe and/or South African giraffe 
sport-hunted trophies that are documented as legally taken in and 
exported from a southern giraffe range country, poses little risk of 
confusion with West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, 
reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe based on similarity of 
appearance. While the risks noted above with respect to incomplete 
CITES documentation would need to be fully considered, such an 
exception may be possible because, at the time of importation of a 
personal sport-hunted trophy, hunters are required to provide wildlife 
inspectors for the Service's Office of Law Enforcement with substantial 
documentation on where and when the specimen was taken, including all 
permits or other documents required by the laws or regulations of any 
foreign country, as part of the inspection and clearance process for 
the import. We specifically request comment on whether to adopt an 
additional exception in the proposed 4(d) rule to allow a hunter to 
import a personal Angolan giraffe sport-hunted trophy or personal South 
African giraffe sport-hunted trophy without a threatened species permit 
or similarity of appearance permit, provided that (A) the Angolan 
giraffe or South African giraffe was legally taken by the hunter in 
Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South Africa, or 
Eswatini; (B) the import is only for the noncommercial use of the 
hunter; and (C) the applicable provisions of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 
23 have been met.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations 
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a 
species as threatened. Courts have upheld this position (e.g., Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical habitat); 
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005 
WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Branch 
of Delisting and Foreign Species.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding entries for ``Giraffe, Angolan'', 
``Giraffe, Kordofan'', ``Giraffe, Masai'', ``Giraffe, Nubian'', 
``Giraffe, reticulated'', ``Giraffe, South African'', and ``Giraffe, 
West African'' in alphabetical order under MAMMALS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Giraffe, Angolan................  Giraffa giraffa     Wherever found....  T(S/A)         [Federal Register
                                   angolensis.                                            citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.40(w).\4d\
Giraffe, Kordofan...............  Giraffa             Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                   camelopardalis                                         citation when
                                   antiquorum.                                            published as a final
                                                                                          rule].
Giraffe, Masai..................  Giraffa             Wherever found....  T              [Federal Register
                                   tippelskirchi.                                         citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.40(w).\4d\
Giraffe, Nubian.................  Giraffa             Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                   camelopardalis                                         citation when
                                   camelopardalis.                                        published as a final
                                                                                          rule].
Giraffe, reticulated............  Giraffa reticulata  Wherever found....  T              [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.40(w).\4d\

[[Page 92568]]

 
Giraffe, South African..........  Giraffa giraffa     Wherever found....  T(S/A)         [Federal Register
                                   giraffa.                                               citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.40(w).\4d\
Giraffe, West African...........  Giraffa             Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                   camelopardalis                                         citation when
                                   peralta.                                               published as a final
                                                                                          rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Further amend Sec.  17.40, as proposed to be amended at 89 FR 20928 
(March 26, 2024), by adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.40  Special rules--mammals.

* * * * *
    (w) Reticulated giraffe (Giraffa reticulata), Masai giraffe 
(Giraffa tippelskirchi), Angolan giraffe (Giraffa giraffa angolensis), 
and South African giraffe (Giraffa giraffa giraffa).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the reticulated giraffe, Masai 
giraffe, Angolan giraffe, and South African giraffe. Except as provided 
under paragraph (w)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec.  17.4 and 17.5, it 
is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, 
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to these 
species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to these species, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Conduct activities with Angolan giraffe and South African 
giraffe as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.52.
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (vi) Conduct activities as authorized by a captive-bred wildlife 
registration under Sec.  17.21(g) for endangered wildlife.

Gary Frazer,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-26395 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P`