92524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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-ofcontact 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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/peerreview-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https:// 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibm

cloud.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 notwarranted 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 fissionfusion 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 femalefemale 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 yearround 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, smallscale 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 subSaharan 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., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 antipoaching, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 yearround 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, smallscale 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 highquality 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 fissionfusion 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibm

cloud.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’ lifehistory 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 yearround 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 highquality 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 populationlevel 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92538 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 subSaharan 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 humangiraffe 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 (VicenteSerrano 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 humanwildlife 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. Humanwildlife 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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; 

Bouche ́ 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 

(Bouche ́ et al. 2009, p. 995; Elkan et al. 

2015, p. 4; Bouche ́ 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 interrelated 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 

(Gasˇparova ́ 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 

(Gasˇparova ́ et al. 2024, p. 5). The 

Government of Niger made concerted 

efforts to enforce legislation preventing 

the illegal killing of giraffes in the mid1990s, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92540 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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-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 highquality 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 reestablishment 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 Koure ́, (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° 

82–002 du 28 Mai 1982 portant 

re ́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 Gasˇparova ́ et al. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 (Gasˇparova ́ 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 

(Gasˇparova ́ 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 

(km2) 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-km2

park managed by the Uganda Wildlife 

Authority. The park (3,840 km2), 

Karuma Wildlife Reserve (678 km2), and 

Bugungu Wildlife Reserve (474 km2) 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 fieldbased 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92542 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 HumanWildlife 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; 

Gasˇparova ́ 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 Gasˇparova ́ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 centralwest 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92544 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 antipoaching 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 humanwildlife 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. Humanwildlife 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 AcaciaCommiphora 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 humanwildlife 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 poachingrelated 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92546 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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-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 highquality 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 fieldbased 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 92547 

reticulated giraffe focus on enforcing 

anti-poaching laws, minimizing humanwildlife 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 humanwildlife 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 (°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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92548 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 midcentury (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 interannual 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 midcentury and 29–108 months at latecentury 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92550 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 km2 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 RuahaRungwa 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 subSaharan 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 (VicenteSerrano et al. 2022, p. 9, Engelbrecht et 

al. 2024, p. 178), as well as increased 

competition with other browsing 

species (Birkett and Stevens-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 highquality 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92552 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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). Wellmanaged 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 antipoaching laws, minimizing humanwildlife 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 

°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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92554 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 interannual 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; Gasˇparova ́ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 KenyaTanzania 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 specieslevel effects. 

Overall, the resiliency, redundancy, 

and adaptive capacity of the West 

African giraffe have declined due to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 nearterm 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

imminent threats, results in the nearterm 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 centralwest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 nearterm 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 °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°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 midcentury. Thus, even if the reticulated 

giraffe were able to shift or expand its 

range to in response to local land useinduced habitat changes, it appears 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 °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 °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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 midcentury. 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 (managementauthority@

fws.gov; 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 preAct 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 ‘‘preAct’’ wildlife under the text of section 

9(b)(1) of the Act. If a person engages in 

any commercial activity with a ‘‘preAct’’ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 lawenforcement 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 speciesspecific 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 enforcementrelated 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 captivebred 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 92567 

where Masai giraffes also occur). 

Accordingly, in range countries where 

sport-hunting of southern giraffe is wellmanaged 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 speciesspecific 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

Mammals 

*******

Giraffe, Angolan .............. Giraffa giraffa angolensis Wherever found .............. T(S/A) [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.40(w).4d

Giraffe, Kordofan ............. Giraffa camelopardalis 

antiquorum.

Wherever found .............. E [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]. 

Giraffe, Masai .................. Giraffa tippelskirchi ......... Wherever found .............. T [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.40(w).4d

Giraffe, Nubian ................ Giraffa camelopardalis 

camelopardalis.

Wherever found .............. E [Federal Register citation when 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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
92568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

Giraffe, South African ...... Giraffa giraffa giraffa ...... Wherever found .............. T(S/A) [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.40(w).4d

Giraffe, West African ....... Giraffa camelopardalis 

peralta.

Wherever found .............. E [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Further amend § 17.40, as proposed 

to be amended at 89 FR 20928 (March 

26, 2024), by adding paragraph (w) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 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 § 17.32. 

(ii) Conduct activities with Angolan 

giraffe and South African giraffe as 

authorized by a permit under § 17.52. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 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 § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(vi) Conduct activities as authorized 

by a captive-bred wildlife registration 

under § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2