Proposed Rule2024-26395
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Giraffe
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 21, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 92524-92568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26395]
[[Page 92523]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 225
November 21, 2024
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Giraffe;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 92524]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH64
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Giraffe
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12-month finding on a petition to list the giraffe (including its
subspecies) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA). After a review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the
following listing actions are warranted: We propose to list all three
subspecies of the northern giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)--the West
African giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis peralta), the Kordofan giraffe
(Giraffa camelopardalis antiquorum), and the Nubian giraffe (Giraffa
camelopardalis camelopardalis)--as endangered species under Act. We
also propose to list the reticulated giraffe (Giraffa reticulata) and
the Masai giraffe (Giraffa tippelskirchi), both from east Africa, as
threatened species with protective regulations issued under section
4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). After a thorough review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, we find that, based on the
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, it is not warranted at this time to list
either subspecies of the southern giraffe (Giraffa giraffa)--the
Angolan giraffe (Giraffa giraffa angolensis) and the South African
giraffe (Giraffa giraffa giraffa)--but we are proposing, under the
authority of section 4(e) of the Act, to treat both of these subspecies
as threatened species based on their similarity of appearance to the
West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated
giraffe, and Masai giraffe. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it
would add all giraffes to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, under the authority of either section 4(a)(1) or 4(e) of the
Act, and extend the Act's protections to these taxa.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule: We will accept comments on the
proposals in this document that are received or postmarked on or before
February 19, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 6, 2025.
12-month petition finding: The 12-month petition finding for the
Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe announced in this document
was made on November 21, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2171. Individuals in the United States
who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability
may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications
relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the
relay services offered within their country to make international calls
to the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No.
FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly. We have determined that the three subspecies of
northern giraffe--West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian
giraffe--each meet the Act's definition of an endangered species, and
the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe each meet the Act's
definition of a threatened species; therefore, we are proposing to list
these species as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the West African
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian giraffe as endangered species
under the Act. We also propose to list the reticulated giraffe and
Masai giraffe as threatened species with protective regulations under
section 4(d) of the Act. We find that listing the Angolan giraffe and
South African giraffe as endangered or threatened species under the
factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is not warranted.
However, we propose to list the Angolan giraffe and South African
giraffe as threatened species under the authority of section 4(e) of
the Act, with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act,
based on their similarity of appearance to the West African giraffe,
Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai
giraffe.
The basis for our action. Under the Act's section 4(a)(1), we may
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because
of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
[[Page 92525]]
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian
giraffe are endangered due to the following ongoing and imminent
threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation because of the
conversion of natural habitats and vegetation to croplands and
urbanization (Factors A and E), and poaching for consumption, personal
use, and trade (Factor B), which are all exacerbated by rapid human
population growth and the effects from climate change (including the
inter-related effects such as civil unrest and human food insecurity)
(Factor E). We have further determined that the reticulated giraffe and
Masai giraffe are threatened due to the following threats: habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation because of the conversion of
natural habitats and vegetation to croplands and urbanization (Factors
A and E), and poaching for consumption, personal use, and trade (Factor
B), which are exacerbated by rapid human population growth and the
effects from climate change (including the inter-related effects such
as civil unrest and human food insecurity) (Factor E).
We have determined that both Angolan giraffe and South African
giraffe are not warranted as endangered or threatened species due to
the following threats: habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation
because of the conversion of natural habitats and vegetation to
croplands and urbanization (Factors A and E), and poaching for
consumption, personal use, and trade (Factor B), which are exacerbated
by rapid human population growth and the effects from climate change
(including the inter-related effects such as civil unrest and human
food insecurity) (Factor E). Under the Act's section 4(e), we may treat
any species as an endangered or threatened species based on its
similarity of appearance to a species listed as an endangered or
threatened species. This ``similarity of appearance'' listing is
intended to protect listed species by facilitating the enforcement and
furthering the policy of the Act. Our proposal to list the Angolan
giraffe and South African giraffe as threatened species under the
authority of section 4(e) of the Act is based on their similarity of
appearance to the West African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian
giraffe, reticulated giraffe, and Masai giraffe.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies (including
foreign governments within the range of any giraffe species), Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' or subspecies' biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species or
subspecies, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and
sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of these species or
subspecies;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species or
subspecies, their habitats, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting these species or
subspecies, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of these
species or subspecies, which may include habitat destruction,
modification, or curtailment; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease; predation;
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or
manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species or subspecies; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to these species or subspecies.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of these species or subspecies.
(4) Information to assist with applying or issuing protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of any threatened species of
giraffe. In particular, we seek information concerning:
(a) The extent to which we should include any of the section 9
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule; or
(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different
prohibitions or exceptions from the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d)
rule, such as:
(i) A prohibition on importing threatened species of giraffes
without a permit issued under title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at section 17.32 (50 CFR 17.32) for a threatened
species.
(ii) A requirement for an enhancement of propagation or survival
finding or other criteria to import or export any specimen of a
threatened species of giraffe.
(iii) A requirement for a similarity of appearance permit to import
or export any specimen of a giraffe species or subspecies treated as
endangered or threatened based on similarity of appearance.
(iv) An exception associated with our captive-bred wildlife program
(see 50 CFR 17.21(g)) to conduct otherwise prohibited activities under
certain circumstances to enhance the propagation or survival of giraffe
species.
(v) An exception for interstate commerce from a public institution
to another public institution, specifically commerce between museums,
zoological parks, and scientific or educational institutions that meet
the definition of ``public'' at 50 CFR 10.12.
(vi) Any specific provisions for intercrosses between threatened
species or subspecies of giraffe (hybrid giraffes), which would
otherwise be considered ``offspring'' under the definition of ``fish or
wildlife'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(8)) and protected accordingly.
(5) Information regarding legal killing (hunting) or illegal
killing (poaching) or any other taking of the West African, Kordofan,
Nubian, reticulated, Masai, Angolan, or South African giraffe.
(6) Information regarding domestic and international trade of the
West African, Kordofan, Nubian, reticulated, Masai, Angolan, or South
African giraffe.
(7) Information regarding threats to one or more species or
subspecies of giraffe from hunting, poaching, or any other taking or
trade involving one or more other species or subspecies of giraffe,
such as threats to the West African, Kordofan, Nubian, reticulated, or
Masai giraffe from hunting, poaching, or any other taking or trade
involving the Angolan giraffe or South African giraffe.
(8) Information regarding the ability and any methodology to
differentiate, without substantial difficulty, among different giraffe
species or subspecies of giraffe and their parts and products,
including at ports of import and export,
[[Page 92526]]
and what documentation should be provided to the Service to assist in
making species or subspecies determinations for issuance of permits.
(9) Information regarding the role of private lands, particularly
game farms, reserves, and conservancies, in conserving any of the
giraffe species or subspecies in the wild.
(10) For the Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe, we ask the
public to submit to us at any time new information relevant to the
subspecies' status or its habitat including threats or conservation
measures.
(11) Information on whether listing giraffes at the species or
subspecies level is most appropriate for giraffes.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, incorporated,
as
[[Page 92527]]
appropriate, into the SSA reports, and included in the decision file
for the final rule.
Taxonomy
Until recently, giraffe was classified as a single species (Giraffa
camelopardalis) with nine subspecies based on its geographic
distribution, morphology, and skin pattern (Dagg 1971, entire; Fennessy
et al. 2016, p. 2543; Muller et al. 2018, p. 1; Brown et al. 2021, p.
3). Dagg (1971) was the authority most relied upon for giraffe
taxonomy. In 2016, new analysis of data from all nine recognized
subspecies concluded that giraffe should be split into four separate
and distinct species (Fennessy et al. 2016, entire). One result of this
analysis was that Thornicroft's giraffe (G. c. thornicrofti) was found
to be indistinguishable from Masai giraffe (G. c. tippelskirchi), and
Rothschild's giraffe (G. c. rothschildi) was found to be
indistinguishable from Nubian giraffe (G. c. camelopardalis). Thus,
these subspecies were subsumed accordingly (Fennessy et al. 2016,
entire; Bock et al. 2014, p. 2). The best available information,
therefore, indicates giraffes are classified as four separate and
distinct species, as follows: (1) the northern giraffe (Giraffa
camelopardalis) is a species that consists of three subspecies--the
Nubian giraffe (G. c. camelopardalis), Kordofan giraffe (G. c.
antiquorum), and West African giraffe (G. c. peralta); (2) the
reticulated giraffe (Giraffa reticulata) is its own species; (3) the
Masai giraffe (Giraffa tippelskirchi) is its own species; and (4) the
southern giraffe (Giraffa giraffa) is a species that consists of two
subspecies--the South African giraffe (G. g. giraffa), and Angolan
giraffe (G. g. angolensis) (Fennessy et al. 2016, entire; Winter et al.
2018a, entire; Coimbra et al. 2021, entire; ITIS 2024, unpaginated).
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) also recognizes four
separate and distinct species of giraffe with the same subspecies as
the valid taxonomic classification of giraffe (ITIS 2024, unpaginated).
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species
Survival Commission (SSC) Giraffe and Okapi Specialist Group (GOSG)
recognizes giraffe as one species with nine subspecies, based on the
classification in Dagg (1971) (Muller et al. 2018, p. 1). The GOSG is
composed of a group of technical experts from around the world; it was
established in March 2013, in recognition of widespread threats to
giraffe and okapi and to address their conservation needs (GOSG 2023,
unpaginated). The GOSG has not, however, undertaken a formal assessment
of the taxonomic status of giraffe since information indicating a
revised taxonomy has become available (Dunn et al. 2021, p. 2). The
IUCN Red List assessment also classifies giraffe as a single species
with nine subspecies based on Dagg (1971) (Muller et al. 2018, p. 1).
CITES lists all giraffes as one species (Giraffa camelopardalis) (CITES
2019a, p. 2; CITES 2019b, p. 3; CITES 2024, unpaginated). Even though
the GOSG and IUCN Red List recognize the giraffe as one species with
nine subspecies, the best available information indicates that there
are four separate and distinct species of giraffe, and we use the best
available information to inform this proposed rule.
I. Finding for the Angolan Giraffe and South African Giraffe
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a
finding on whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month finding''). We must make
a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2)
warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, and issuing or applying protective
regulations for threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://
[[Page 92528]]
www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Angolan giraffe or
South African giraffe currently meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly
evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding
threats, regulatory mechanisms, conservation measures, current
condition, and future condition. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information. This evaluation includes information from recognized
experts; foreign Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic
institutions; private entities; and other members of the public. After
comprehensive assessment of the best scientific and commercial data
available, we determine that the Angolan giraffe and South African
giraffe each do not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species
or a threatened species.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings on a petition to list the
Angolan giraffe and South African giraffe. We have also elected to
include brief summaries of the analyses on which these findings are
based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons and data on
which the findings are based, in the decision file for each of the not-
warranted findings included in this document. The following is a
description of the documents containing these analyses:
The species assessment form for the southern giraffe contains more
detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing
factors, conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms, a
list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that
the southern giraffe's subspecies (the Angolan giraffe and South
African giraffe) do not meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species.'' To inform our status reviews, we
completed a species status assessment (SSA) report for the southern
giraffe. The SSA report for the southern giraffe contains a thorough
review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Angolan
giraffe and South African giraffe; a thorough description of the
factors influencing the viability of these subspecies; and the current
and future conditions of these subspecies (Service 2024d, entire). This
supporting information can be found on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number FWS-HQ-ES-2024-0157. The
following is a summary of our determination for the Angolan giraffe and
South African giraffe.
Summary of Findings for Angolan Giraffe and South African Giraffe
The southern giraffe consists of two subspecies: Angolan giraffe
and South African giraffe (Fennessy et al. 2016, p. 2545; Winter et al.
2018b, p. 10159). Angolan giraffes mainly occur in three geographic
areas (Angolan giraffe units): Namibia, central Botswana, and southern
Zimbabwe (Brown et al. 2021, p. 12). By the late 1990s, giraffes were
assumed to be extirpated in Angola (East 1999, p. 98); recent
reintroductions have reestablished very small populations of the
Angolan giraffe in southern Angola. The exact range of the Angolan
giraffe is uncertain because numerous translocations of Angolan
giraffes from Namibia have occurred throughout southern Africa, and
Angolan giraffes now occur even in areas with no record of
translocations. Additionally, extralimital populations of Angolan
giraffes were introduced to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),
South Africa, Nigeria, and Zambia (Brown et al. 2021, p. 12).
The South African giraffe occurs in Angola, Botswana, Eswatini,
Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Most
South African giraffes occur in northern Botswana around the Okavango
Delta and North West, Chobe, and Central Districts, and in northern
South Africa in the Limpopo Province and Kruger National Park. Both
these regions are part of Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs). The
Kavango Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA supports approximately 25 percent of the
total population of southern giraffe including populations or partial
populations in Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The
Great Limpopo TFCA includes the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which
links national parks in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique, as well
as a wildlife corridor on communal land; and Banhine and Zinave
National Parks in Mozambique and bordering private- and state-owned
conservation areas (Peace Parks Foundation 2024, unpaginated). South
African giraffes have been translocated within their native range and
introduced into several countries outside of their native range.
Giraffes were reintroduced to Limpopo National Park and Zinave National
Park in Mozambique after having been previously extirpated. In Malawi
and Eswatini, the historical occurrence of South African giraffes is
uncertain, and no references are made of them historically occurring in
these countries (East 1999, p. 95; Dagg 1962, pp. 500-503; Sidney 1965,
p. 155). However, giraffes have been translocated to Malawi and
Eswatini, where small populations currently exist (Marais et al. 2020a,
p. 3; Hoffman et al. 2022, p. 3). Small, extralimital populations of
South African giraffes also occur in Angola, the DRC, and Senegal
(Brown et al. 2021, p. 13).
Several populations of giraffes in northern Botswana, northwest
Zimbabwe, northeastern Namibia, southwestern Zambia, and central South
Africa are Angolan or South African giraffes, and there is potentially
hybridization between the two subspecies in this area (Muller et al.
2018, p. 1; Bock et al. 2014, p. 7; Deacon and Parker et al. 2016, p.
3). Additionally, both Angolan giraffes and South African giraffes are
held on private lands (e.g., game farms, conservancies, and reserves)
(Deacon and Parker 2016, pp. 5-7; Giraffe Conservation Foundation (GCF)
2016, unpaginated; du Raan 2016, p. 3). When referring to private lands
that are game farms, reserves, and conservancies, we consider the
giraffes in these private lands to be wild giraffes because they are
not in enclosures, are not supplemented with food, are not captive
bred, and are mostly kept on adequately sized properties; however, some
of these areas are as small as 0.2 square kilometers (Deacon and Parker
2016, p. 4). While private lands are often fenced, giraffes on private
lands are otherwise generally free-roaming. We do not
[[Page 92529]]
consider giraffe on these private lands to be in an environment that is
intensively manipulated, thus distinguishing them from the definition
of ``captivity'' in 50 CFR 17.3. Additionally, southern giraffe on
these private lands are managed as wild under the laws and management
practices in the range countries of Angolan giraffe and South African
giraffe, which rely on private game farms, reserves, and conservancies
to conserve wild giraffes in suitable habitat for giraffe.
Giraffes live in a complex society characterized by loose subgroup
composition, a pattern of sexual segregation, and longer-term
relationships that are typical in fission-fusion societies (Bercovitch
et al. 2006, p. 314; Carter et al. 2013, p. 390; Dagg 2019, p. 39).
This type of structured society involves the formation and dissolution
of subgroups within a larger social network based upon preferential
associations within a larger community that rarely coalesces into a
single unit (Dagg 2019, p. 43; Bercovitch and Berry 2012, p. 2). Herds
tend to be small and average 3 to 5 animals with female-female
associations more common than male-male or male-female associations
(Dagg 2019, p. 45; Bercovitch and Berry 2012, p. 6). Male giraffes are
nonterritorial and mostly solitary individuals that adopt a roaming
reproductive strategy and become increasingly more solitary as they age
(Bercovitch and Berry 2014, p. 172; Leuthold 1979, p. 29). Females are
seldom alone and are often in groups with other females and any young
born to those females (nursing groups).
The giraffe's primary activity is feeding, and they consume a
variety of leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits (Dagg 2019, p. 24; Muller
et al. 2016, p. 6). Because giraffes have high metabolic and
reproductive requirements, they need to consume large quantities of
food throughout the year (Parker and Bernard 2005, p. 207). Giraffes
have been noted to forage on at least 100 different plant species,
although Acacia, Commiphora, and Terminalia species are major staples
(Kingdon 1997, p. 494; Muller et al. 2016, p. 6). Acacia trees or
bushes are a preferred resource and are fed on in high proportions
wherever giraffes occur (Dagg 2019, p. 25).
Giraffes need high-quality forage year-round to maintain their
high-energy budget, particularly females that are pregnant for most of
their adult lives. Each population has a diverse diet, and food that
giraffes select throughout the year largely depends on the seasonal
changes in the phenology of plant species (Pellew 1984, p. 74) or, for
females, whether they are nursing (Caister et al. 2003, p. 209; Saito
and Idani 2018, p. 15). Anthropogenic influences strongly affect
giraffe's use of space (Brown et al. 2023, p. 8) as do physical and
geographic barriers such as rivers, fencing, and urbanization (Fennessy
et al. 2009, p. 324; Le Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 350; Perry 1978, p.
80). Generally, giraffes do not show large-scale seasonal migrations,
but within individual home ranges, small-scale seasonal movements occur
primarily based on food resources (Pellew 1984, p. 65; Brown et al.
2023, p. 7; Fennessy 2009, p. 324). Because giraffes engage in small-
scale seasonal movements based on changes in the distribution of food
resources, they need adequate space within which to move and find high-
quality food that meets their metabolic needs. Within their home
ranges, giraffes also need access to mates.
Giraffes, in some regions of sub-Saharan Africa, are affected by
civil unrest and political instability. Most wars in sub-Saharan Africa
have been civil conflicts fought within the boundaries of a single
sovereign country (State Failure 2001, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007,
p. 141). However, internal conflicts may overspill defined boundaries,
affecting both a country and its neighbors for substantial lengths of
time (Commission for Africa, 2005, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, p.
141). Civil unrest does not usually directly target ecological
resources in pursuit of a military outcome, but impacts to wildlife
occur because of resource exploitation during periods of lawlessness
(Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 7, citing many authors; Dudley et al. 2002,
p. 326). However, large mammals (when available) are often a vital food
source for isolated military or paramilitary groups operating within
war zones and disputed territories (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 271;
Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). Additionally, wildlife products are often
sold or bartered for food, arms, ammunition, or other goods and
services (Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). Civil unrest also causes
significant displacement of people (Badiora 2017, p. 316; Davis 2019,
p. 180; Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 141). Refugee encampments are often
associated with severe environmental degradation from the use of slash-
and-burn agriculture and the overharvesting of vegetation for fuel,
food, and construction materials. This, in turn, results in widespread
deforestation and erosion, and takes a heavy toll on wildlife and
habitats in affected areas (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 326; Pech 1995, in
Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). Relative political stability within the
range of the Angolan and South African giraffe reduces the likelihood
that these subspecies of giraffe are affected by poaching and other
effects of civil unrest, and increases the ability of range country
governments to enact and enforce regulatory protections.
At the subspecies level, Angolan and South African giraffes require
multiple populations with high population abundances, large effective
population sizes, and sufficient, high-quality (nutritious and
unfragmented) habitat distributed across heterogeneous environments.
Determination of Status: Background
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424 set forth the procedures for determining whether a species
meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of
any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We consider these five factors and
the species' responses to these factors when making these
determinations.
Section 3 of the Act defines ``endangered species'' and
``threatened species.'' An endangered species is a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a threatened species is a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Both definitions include not only the
phrase ``throughout all,'' but also the phrase ``or a significant
portion of its range.'' Thus, there are ultimately four bases for
listing a species under the Act (in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range, in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion
of its range, likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, or likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a
significant portion of its range). These four bases are made up of two
classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) and two components
(i.e.,
[[Page 92530]]
throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its
range).
Beginning in 2001, a number of judicial opinions addressed our
interpretation of the phrase ``or a significant portion of its range''
(the SPR phrase) in these statutory definitions. The seminal case was
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001)
regarding the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii). The court
in that case held that the SPR phrase in the Act was ``inherently
ambiguous,'' finding that it was something of an oxymoron to speak of a
species being at risk of extinction in only a portion of its range (id.
at 1141); because the Act does not define a ``significant portion, the
Secretary has wide discretion to delineate it (id. at 1145). However,
the court found that, even with wide discretion, the interpretation we
had applied in analyzing the status of the flat-tailed horned lizard
was unacceptable because it would allow for a species to warrant
listing throughout a significant portion of a species' range only when
the species ``is in danger of extinction everywhere'' (id. at 1141).
The court held that the SPR phrase must be given independent meaning
from the ``throughout all'' phrase to avoid making the SPR phrase in
the statute superfluous.
In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into
question our approach to evaluating whether a species is endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Services
jointly published the ``Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
`Significant Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of `Endangered Species' and `Threatened Species' '' (2014
SPR Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The December 9, 2011, notice
announcing the draft policy and requesting public comments on it
provides more detail about litigation before 2014 regarding the SPR
phrase (76 FR 76987). The 2014 SPR Policy includes four elements:
(1) Consequence--that the consequence of determining that a species
warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its
range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
(2) Significance--a definition of the term ``significant'';
(3) Range--that the species' ``range'' is the current range of the
species; and
(4) Distinct population segment (DPS)--that, if a species is
endangered or threatened in an SPR, and the population in that SPR is a
distinct population segment (DPS), the Service will list just the DPS.
Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of
``significant'' contained in the 2014 SPR Policy (Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (``CBD v.
Jewell''), and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (``Desert Survivors''). The
courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR Policy set too high a
threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous,
failing to give it independent meaning from the ``throughout all''
phrase.
In 2020, another court (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (``Everson'')) also vacated the
specific aspect of the 2014 SPR Policy under which, ``if the Services
determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the
Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range'' (id. at 98). This was an extension
of the definition of ``significant,'' which required that for a portion
of the range of a species to be significant, the species must not be
currently endangered or threatened throughout its range. In an
extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and Desert
Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of the
2014 SPR Policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because it
``rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range' basis
for listing superfluous,'' but also ``inconsistent with ESA
principles'' and ``not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.''
Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range,
even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future (i.e., it
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species) throughout all of
its range. The remaining three elements of the 2014 SPR Policy remain
intact and have not been invalidated or questioned by the courts.
In short, courts have directed that the definition of
``significant'' must afford the phrase ``or a significant portion of
its range'' an independent meaning from the ``throughout all of its
range'' phrase. Therefore, to determine whether any species warrants
listing, we determine for each classification (endangered and
threatened) the appropriate component to evaluate (throughout all of
its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).
We make this determination based on whether the best scientific and
commercial data indicate that the species has a similar extinction risk
in all areas across its range (at a scale that is biologically
appropriate for that species). When a species has a similar extinction
risk in all areas across its range, we analyze its regulatory status
using the component ``throughout all of its range.'' For example, in
some cases, there is no way to divide a species' range in a way that is
biologically appropriate. This could be because the range is so small
that there is only one population or because the species functions as a
metapopulation such that effects to one population directly result in
effects to another population. On the other hand, when the species'
extinction risk varies across its range, we analyze its regulatory
status using the component ``throughout a significant portion of its
range.''
For either classification (endangered or threatened), we consider
the five factors and the species' responses to those factors regardless
of which component (throughout all of its range or throughout a
significant portion of its range) we have determined is appropriate for
that classification. When assessing whether a species is endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address
two questions because we must determine whether there is any portion of
the species' range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant''
(the significance question) and (2) the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout that portion (the status question). We
may address the significance question or the status question first.
Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative
answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not
need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species'
range.
Determination of Status: Angolan Giraffe
The Angolan giraffe does not meet the Act's definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. As stated above, we
determine a species' classification based upon its regulatory status
throughout all of its range when the species has similar extinction
risk in all areas across its range at a scale that is biologically
appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the extinction risk varies
across its range, we determine a species' classification based upon its
regulatory status throughout a significant portion of its range. Either
way, we begin by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate
for that species. For many species, we can
[[Page 92531]]
divide the range in an infinite number of ways. As discussed above,
Angolan giraffe populations primarily occur in three Angolan giraffe
units (Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe) and while Angolan giraffe may
periodically interact within these units, we do not expect interactions
among giraffes among these units given their geographic separation.
Although information on the smaller, introduced populations of Angolan
giraffe is limited, the best available information indicates that
threats and the subspecies' responses to those threats are similar in
any introduced small populations for which we lack information. In
summary, the ``Angolan giraffe unit'' is the unit that provides the
most appropriate scale at which to assess extinction risk for the
Angolan giraffe.
Endangered Species Classification
We evaluated whether the Angolan giraffe has a similar risk of
extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction
risk in each Angolan giraffe unit. Our review indicated that the
Angolan giraffe's extinction risk is similar in all areas across its
range. Therefore, we evaluated whether it may be endangered based upon
the ``throughout all of its range'' component. In undertaking this
analysis of whether the Angolan giraffe is endangered throughout all of
its range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding threats to the subspecies, the subspecies'
responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures;
we then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We
examined the following threats: habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation (Factor A), predation and disease (Factor C), and hunting
and poaching (Factor B), all of which may be exacerbated by increasing
human populations, effects from climate change (including the inter-
related effects such as civil unrest and human food insecurity) and low
genetic diversity (Factor E), as well as cumulative effects.
Additionally, the maintenance of private lands for activities such as
personal use, tourism, and hunting (Factor E) impacts the subspecies
because private lands in southern Africa comprise large proportions of
the respective populations.
Angolan giraffes need multiple healthy, resilient populations that
are distributed across the subspecies' range to reduce the risk of
extinction. After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing
the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation,
and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by ongoing and near-term
effects of human population growth, climate change, as the threats with
the greatest potential to affect the subspecies' near-term viability.
We also considered potential threats such as predation and disease, and
while individuals are affected by these threats, there is no
information to suggest population-level or subspecies-level effects.
The best estimate of current population size for the Angolan
giraffe is approximately 18,626 individuals (20,192 including
extralimital populations) (Brown et al. 2021, p. 11). The current
estimated population size is approximately 124 percent of the estimated
historical population size (15,000 individuals), and the population has
increased from about 5,000 individuals in the 1970s to about 10,000
individuals in 2004 to 18,626 individuals in 2020, or by approximately
0.7-2.7 percent per year. Because there is uncertainty in the range of
Angolan giraffe, there are discrepancies in the historical data. For
the purposes of the historical population estimate, we added both
historical estimates for Angolan giraffe from Muller et al. 2018
(supplement, p. 2) that equate to 15,000 individuals.
Large populations occur in all three Angolan giraffe units: Namibia
(e.g., Etosha National Park), Botswana (Central Kalahari Game Reserve
and adjacent Khutse Game Reserve), and Zimbabwe (Bubye Valley
Conservancy). Namibia holds approximately 78 percent of the population
(14,500 individuals), with approximately half of these occurring on
private lands (du Raan et al. 2016, pp. 10-11). Populations in central
Botswana and Zimbabwe are smaller and comparable to each other
(approximately 2,000 in Botswana and 2,000-4,000 individuals in
Zimbabwe) (Brown et al. 2021, pp. 11-12).
While best available information indicates the subspecies is
increasing overall, the population trends vary among the three units
(Brown et al. 2021, p. 12). Angolan giraffes are increasing in Namibia.
In Botswana, the population is stable based on data since 1989
indicating that populations of giraffes in protected areas are stable
or have increased in recent years (KAZA Secretariate 2022, p. 7; Chase
2015, p. 75; Chase et al. 2018, p. 86; Ferguson et al. 2021, p. 7). In
Zimbabwe, while populations continue to decline in certain populations
(Bubye Valley Conservancy), they are increasing in other populations,
such as the Save Valley and Nuanetsi Conservancies, that have adequate
resources for management and enforcement (KAZA Secretariat 2022, p. 11;
GCF 2022a, unpaginated).
Large, connected populations remain within each of the three
analysis units (AUs) where Angolan giraffes can meet their needs. The
best available information indicates that any combined effects of
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation and of poaching are not
causing declines in resiliency or redundancy of wild populations in the
near term in any of the three AUs. While some Zimbabwe populations have
experienced recent declines, these populations continue to be large in
abundance, and GCF has partnered with ZimParks and landowners in the
country to conserve giraffe populations. Angolan giraffes are also
managed by range countries where hunting is legal to sustain ecotourism
and trophy-hunting activities, which in turn are managed to produce
revenues that may be used by range countries and local communities for
giraffe conservation activities such as anti-poaching, reintroduction,
and habitat preservation and restoration to benefit giraffes in the
country. The private sector has contributed significantly to the
increase in the subspecies' population through management and by
helping restore the subspecies to many parts of its former range (du
Raan 2016, p. 3; GCF 2016, unpaginated; Marais et al. 2020b, entire).
Although the Angolan giraffe has experienced some declines in
habitat and area of occupancy outside of the three Angolan giraffe
units (e.g., within Angola), resiliency and redundancy are increasing
since the 1970s with increasing abundance in several populations. The
subspecies occurs throughout much of its historical range and maintains
ecological representation, including large, connected populations in
each of the Angolan giraffe units (Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe).
With the recent and near-term projected increasing population trend,
expansion of range in Namibia and stable ranges in Botswana and
Zimbabwe, and existence of multiple healthy, resilient populations (at
least one in each Angolan giraffe unit), the Angolan giraffe exhibits
representation, redundancy, and resiliency such that the subspecies is
not in danger of extinction. Overall, while threats are ongoing, given
the large population sizes for the three Angolan giraffe units in the
near term, these threats are not of
[[Page 92532]]
such a magnitude that the subspecies is in danger of extinction in any
of the Angolan giraffe units.
In summary, we find that the Angolan giraffe is not in danger of
extinction in any of the Angolan giraffe units. Thus, there is no
portion of the range where the Angolan giraffe may be endangered. After
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
conclude that because there is no portion of the range in which the
Angolan giraffe is endangered, it is necessarily not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Because we have determined that
there is no portion of the range where the subspecies may be endangered
(i.e., the subspecies is also not in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range), we proceed with determining whether
Angolan giraffe is threatened (i.e., is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
Threatened Species Classification
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction. An endangered species is in danger of extinction,
and a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely
to become so within the foreseeable future. We evaluated whether the
Angolan giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable
future in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk
within each Angolan giraffe unit. Because our review indicated that the
Angolan giraffe's extinction risk is similar in all areas across its
range, we then evaluated whether it may be threatened based upon the
``throughout all of its range'' component. In undertaking this analysis
of whether the Angolan giraffe is threatened throughout all of its
range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding threats to the subspecies, the subspecies' responses to those
threats, and any associated conservation measures; we then assessed the
cumulative effects of those threats and conservation measures under the
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. For the threatened species
determination, we examined the same threats that we evaluated for the
endangered species determination.
As mentioned above, Angolan giraffes need multiple healthy,
resilient populations that are distributed across the subspecies' range
to reduce the risk of extinction. After evaluating threats to the
subspecies and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation,
and fragmentation, and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by
human population growth and climate change, and low genetic diversity
are the threats with the greatest potential to affect the subspecies'
viability within the foreseeable future.
Habitat loss, fragmentation, or alteration is unlikely on protected
lands (government or private) and is otherwise expected to continue in
parts of each Angolan giraffe unit. Drought duration, frequency, and
intensity are projected to increase within the range of the Angolan
giraffe similarly in each Angolan giraffe unit. By 2100, across the
subspecies' range, human population size is projected to just more than
double under the lower scenario, and to increase almost ninefold under
the upper scenario. In turn, Angolan giraffes may face reductions in
food quality and availability, and restriction of their movement
patterns and ability to access necessary resources. Additionally,
although we were unable to quantify potential future increases in
poaching, we anticipate that poaching will likely continue in each
Angolan giraffe unit with increased food insecurity associated with
rapid human population growth and climate change. While plausible
future conditions indicate that habitat conditions will decline, human
populations will increase, and climate change will increase the
duration, frequency, and intensity of drought, there is no evidence
suggesting that the subspecies' response to any of these threats will
differ in the future.
The overall Angolan giraffe population has increased to 18,626
individuals (20,192 including extralimital populations), which
represents an increase of approximately 0.7-2.7 percent per year since
the 1970s. The population increase includes populations in formally
protected areas such as Etosha National Park and private lands. The
population is unlikely to continue growing into the future at the
recent rate, given the low starting abundances. Additionally,
population trends in the future are dependent upon the continued
protections afforded the subspecies by private lands such as those used
for ecotourism and sport-hunting. Population trends may be stable or
increasing if private landowners continue to conserve Angolan giraffe
at their current extent or increase. We find it most likely based on
the best available data and past and present trends that private
landowners will continue to conserve giraffe at rates comparable to the
present. However, protections from these sources are not guaranteed,
and giraffe abundance may decline if those do not continue and/or
climate change impacts are not sufficiently mitigated.
Even should populations decline, the Angolan giraffe occurs in
three units with populations that are large, connected, and with
adequate resiliency to sustain some reductions. Poaching, which is a
driving factor in the decline of other giraffe species across the
African continent, may be tempered by the relative political stability
in the range of the Angolan giraffe. Habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation are not likely to cause population-level declines to the
point that the subspecies is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future due to the Angolan giraffe's versatility
and diverse diets, as well as to the future decisions of how southern
African countries in how giraffes are managed. Angolan giraffes are
also managed by range countries where hunting is legal to sustain
ecotourism and trophy-hunting activities, which in turn may be managed
to produce revenues that are used by range countries and local
communities for giraffe conservation activities such as anti-poaching,
reintroduction, and habitat preservation and restoration to benefit and
address threats to giraffes in the country. The private sector has
contributed significantly to the increase in the subspecies' population
through management, including by helping restore the subspecies to many
parts of its former range (du Raan 2016, pp. 3-11; GCF 2016,
unpaginated; Marais et al. 2020b, entire). The subspecies is expected
to continue to occur throughout much of its historical range and
maintain ecological representation in each of the Angolan giraffe units
(Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe). Overall, while threats are projected
to increase in magnitude over time, given the large, connected
populations in each Angolan giraffe unit, the threats are not of such a
magnitude that the subspecies is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future in any of the Angolan giraffe
units.
In summary, we find that the Angolan giraffe is not likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future in any
areas (i.e., in any of the Angolan giraffe units). Thus, there is no
portion of the range where the Angolan giraffe may be threatened. Based
on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that
the Angolan giraffe is not likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
[[Page 92533]]
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the Angolan giraffe does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Angolan
giraffe under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors is not warranted at
this time.
Determination of Status: South African Giraffe
The South African giraffe does not meet the Act's definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. As stated above, we
determine a species' classification based upon its regulatory status
throughout all of its range when the species has similar extinction
risk in all areas across its range at a scale that is biologically
appropriate for that species. Conversely, if the extinction risk varies
across its range, we determine a species' classification based upon its
regulatory status throughout a significant portion of its range. Either
way, we begin by determining the scale that is biologically appropriate
for a classification determination for that species. For many species,
we can divide the range in an infinite number of ways. As discussed
above, South African giraffe populations primarily occur in six South
African giraffe units (KAZA TFCA, South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique,
Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve),
and while South African giraffes may periodically interact within these
countries, we do not expect interactions among these units because
there is no connectivity between the units. While information about any
South African giraffe populations other than these six South African
giraffe units is limited, the best available data indicate that threats
and the subspecies' response to those threats are similar in any other
populations for which we lack information. In summary, the South
African giraffe unit is the unit that provides the appropriate scale to
assess extinction risk for the South African giraffe.
Endangered Species Classification
We evaluated whether the South African giraffe has a similar risk
of extinction in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction
risk in each South African giraffe unit. Our review indicated that the
South African giraffe's extinction risk is similar in all areas across
its range. Therefore, we evaluated whether it may be endangered based
upon the ``throughout all of its range'' component. In undertaking this
analysis of whether the South African giraffe is endangered throughout
all of its range, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding threats to the subspecies, the subspecies'
responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures;
we then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. For the
endangered species determination, we examined the following threats:
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation (Factor A), predation and
disease (Factor C), and poaching and hunting (Factor B), all of which
may be exacerbated by increasing human populations, effects from
climate change (including the inter-related effects of civil unrest and
human food insecurity), and low genetic diversity (Factor E), as well
as cumulative effects. Additionally, the maintenance of private lands
for activities such as personal use, tourism, and hunting (Factor E)
impacts the subspecies because private lands with wild giraffes in
southern Africa comprise large proportions of the respective
populations.
South African giraffes need multiple healthy, resilient populations
that are distributed across the subspecies' range to reduce the risk of
extinction. After evaluating threats to the subspecies and assessing
the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation,
and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by ongoing and near-term
effects of human population growth and climate change, are the threats
with the greatest potential to affect the subspecies' near-term
viability. We also considered potential threats such as predation and
disease, and while individuals are affected by these threats, there is
no information to suggest population-level or subspecies-level effects.
The current total population size is approximately 29,390
individuals, which is 367 percent of the population size of 8,000 in
1979 (Muller et al. 2018, supplement, p. 2). This represents an
increase of approximately 2.7-3.2 percent per year since 1979. The
private sector has been largely responsible for restoring giraffes to
many parts of their former natural range in South Africa (Deacon and
Parker 2016, p. 5), in which thousands of private farms account for
about 50 percent of the total South African giraffe population (Deacon
and Tutchings 2018, p. 46; Deacon and Parker 2016, pp. 3-5). However,
population increases have also occurred on formally protected areas as
well over the last few decades (Deacon and Parker 2016, p. 1).
Large, connected populations remain within the KAZA TFCA and South
Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique units, and smaller populations occur on
protected lands in the Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and
Maputo Special Reserve units, where the South African giraffe can meet
its needs. The best available information indicates that any combined
effects from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and from
poaching, are not causing population-level declines in the near term.
South African giraffes are also managed by range countries where
hunting is legal to sustain ecotourism and trophy-hunting activities,
which in turn may be managed to produce revenues that are used by range
countries and local communities for giraffe conservation activities
such as anti-poaching, reintroduction, and habitat preservation and
restoration to benefit and address the threats to giraffes in the
country.
Although the South African giraffe has experienced some declines in
habitat and area of occupancy, the resiliency and redundancy of the
subspecies has increased from historical levels with introduced
populations and increasing abundance in all South African giraffe
units. The subspecies occurs throughout much of its historical range
and maintains ecological representation, including large, connected
populations in the KAZA TFCA and South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique
units. With the recent and near-term projected increasing population
trend, expansion of range in the South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique unit
and Eswatini and Malawi units, reintroduction of giraffes into the
Zinave and Maputo units, the stable range in KAZA TFCA, and the
existence of multiple healthy, resilient populations (at least one in
each South African giraffe unit), the South African giraffe exhibits
representation, redundancy, and resiliency such that the subspecies is
not in danger of extinction. Overall, while threats are ongoing, given
the large population sizes for two South African giraffe units and
protected nature of the remaining four units, in the near term, these
threats are not of such a magnitude that the subspecies is in danger of
extinction in any of the South African giraffe units.
In summary, we find that the South African giraffe is not in danger
of extinction in any of the South African giraffe units. Thus, there is
no portion of the range where the South African giraffe may be
endangered. After
[[Page 92534]]
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we
conclude that because there is no portion of the range in which the
South African giraffe is endangered, it is necessarily not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Because we have determined that
there is no portion of the range where the subspecies may be endangered
(i.e., the species is also not in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range), we proceed with determining whether
South African giraffe is threatened (i.e., is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Threatened Species Classification
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the timeframe in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction. An endangered species is in danger of extinction,
and a threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely
to become so within the foreseeable future. We evaluated whether the
South African giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the
foreseeable future in all areas across its range by assessing its
extinction risk within each South African giraffe unit.
For the threatened classification, we evaluated whether the South
African giraffe has a similar risk of extinction within the foreseeable
future in all areas across its range by assessing its extinction risk
within each South African giraffe unit. Because our review indicated
that the South African giraffe's extinction risk varies across its
range, we then evaluated whether it may be threatened based upon the
``throughout a significant portion of its range'' component. We
evaluated the portion of the range that includes the South African
giraffe units where the South African giraffe may be threatened--the
Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve
units. In the remaining South African giraffe units of KAZA TFCA and
South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique, the South African giraffe is not
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future,
because the populations are large, interconnected, and have increasing
population trends, so we are not including those units in the portion
that we are evaluating for the threatened classification.
As mentioned above, South African giraffes need multiple healthy,
resilient populations that are distributed across the subspecies' range
to reduce the risk of extinction. After evaluating threats to the
subspecies and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the
Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that habitat loss, degradation,
and fragmentation, and poaching, all of which may be exacerbated by
human population growth, climate change, and low genetic diversity, are
the threats with the greatest potential to affect the subspecies'
viability within the foreseeable future.
Habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation is unlikely on
protected lands (government or private) and is otherwise expected to
continue in parts of each South African giraffe unit. Drought duration,
frequency, and intensity are projected to increase within the range of
the South African giraffe similarly in each South African giraffe unit.
Human population size is projected to increase by approximately 27
percent under the lower scenario and to increase almost sixfold under
the upper scenario across the subspecies' range by 2100. In turn, South
African giraffes may face reductions in food quality and availability,
and restriction of their movement patterns and ability to access
necessary resources. Additionally, although we were unable to quantify
potential future increases in poaching, we anticipate that poaching
will likely continue in each South African giraffe unit with increased
food insecurity associated with rapid human population growth and
climate change. While plausible future conditions indicate that habitat
conditions will decline, human populations will increase, and climate
change will increase the duration, frequency, and intensity of drought,
there is no evidence suggesting a change in the subspecies' past
response to any of these threats in the future.
The overall South African giraffe population has increased to
29,390 individuals, 367 percent of the population size of 8,000 in
1979, which represents an increase of approximately 2.7-3.2 percent per
year over this time The population is unlikely to continue growing into
the future at the recent rate given the low starting abundances.
Additionally, population trends in the future are dependent upon the
continued protections afforded the subspecies by private lands such as
those used for tourism and private game farms. The population outside
of private lands has increased since the 1970s, and population trends
may be stable or increasing if private landowners continue to conserve
South African giraffe at their current extent or increase. We find it
most likely based on the best available data and past and present
trends that private landowners will continue to conserve giraffe at
rates comparable to the present. However, protections from these
sources are not guaranteed, and giraffe abundance may decline if those
do not continue and/or climate change impacts are not sufficiently
mitigated.
Even should populations decline, both the KAZA TFCA and South
Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique units have populations that are large,
connected, and that have adequate resiliency to sustain some
reductions. Poaching, which is a driving factor in the decline of other
giraffe species across the African continent, may be tempered by the
relative political stability in the range of the South African giraffe.
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are not likely to cause
population-level declines to the point that the subspecies is likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future due to the
South African giraffe's versatility and diverse diets, as well as to
the future decisions of southern African countries in how giraffes are
managed. South African giraffes are also managed by range countries
where hunting is legal to sustain ecotourism and trophy[hyphen]hunting
activities, which in turn may be managed to produce revenues that are
used by range countries and local communities for giraffe conservation
activities such as anti-poaching, reintroduction, and habitat
preservation and restoration to benefit and address the threats to
giraffes in the country. The private sector has contributed
significantly to the increase in the subspecies' population through
management, including by helping restore the subspecies to many parts
of its former range. Overall, while continued threats are projected,
given the large population sizes for the KAZA TFCA and South Africa/
Zimbabwe/Mozambique units, the threats are not of such a magnitude that
the subspecies is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future. However, the rest of the range contains much
smaller populations that are more vulnerable to these threats into the
future. In summary, we find that the South African giraffe is not
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
in either the KAZA TFCA or the South Africa/Zimbabwe/Mozambique units,
but it may be threatened in a portion of the range--the Malawi,
Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve units.
When assessing whether a species is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range, we address two questions
because we must determine whether there is any portion
[[Page 92535]]
of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant''
(the significance question) and (2) the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout that portion (the status question). We
first addressed the significance question. In undertaking this analysis
of whether any portion of the range is significant based on its
conservation value for the subspecies, we considered whether (1) the
portion is a sufficiently large proportion of the current range such
that it necessarily provides an important conservation value for the
subspecies or (2) the portion otherwise contributes an important
conservation value for the subspecies. The combined geographical size
of the Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave National Park, and Maputo Special
Reserve units is a very small proportion (approximately 2 percent) of
the current range of the South African giraffe. This portion of the
range also does not otherwise contribute an important conservation
value for the subspecies. The portion does not currently or recently
contain high abundance or density of individuals or populations of the
subspecies relative to its geographic size. Additionally, the
populations in Malawi and Eswatini are likely extralimital populations
introduced outside of the historical range. The reintroduced
populations at Zinave National Park and Maputo Special Reserve are
still quite small (fewer than 50 giraffes at each location). The
portion of the range does not contain important habitat features for
the subspecies' conservation that are not found elsewhere within the
range. The portion of the range does not connect other more significant
populations and does not increase genetic diversity because these
populations were reintroduced from other populations of southern
giraffe. Among the similar habitat features, across the range, the
portion does not contain geographical areas of any specific higher or
unique value. We therefore find that the Malawi, Eswatini, Zinave
National Park, and Maputo Special Reserve units portion is not
significant. As a result of our finding that this portion of the range
is not ``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the South
African giraffe is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range.
Because no portion of the subspecies' range is significant, there
is no basis to determine that the subspecies is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a
significant portion of its range. In reaching this conclusion, we did
not apply the aspects of the 2014 SPR Policy, including the definition
of ``significant,'' that courts have held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the South African giraffe does not meet the definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the
South African giraffe under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors is not
warranted at this time.
II. Proposed Listing Determinations for the West African Giraffe,
Kordofan Giraffe, Nubian Giraffe, Reticulated Giraffe, and Masai
Giraffe
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
northern giraffe (which consists of three subspecies: West African
giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, and Nubian giraffe), reticulated giraffe,
and Masai giraffe is presented in each species' respective SSA report
(Service 2024a, entire; Service 2024b, entire; Service 2024c, entire).
Giraffes are the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest
ruminant on Earth. Life-history traits of multiple giraffe species have
been reported from several locations across their ranges and
demonstrate both a strong degree of consistency of traits across
regions as well as a large amount of individual variation (Bercovitch
and Berry 2009, p. 535). No difference in behavior or development among
species has been reported (San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance (SDZWA)
2023, unpaginated). Therefore, we consider all giraffes to have similar
needs and life-history traits.
The giraffe's primary activity is feeding, and they consume a
variety of leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits (Dagg 2019, p. 24; Muller
et al. 2016, p. 6). Because giraffes have high metabolic and
reproductive requirements, they need to consume large quantities of
food throughout the year (Parker and Bernard 2005, p. 207). Giraffes
have been noted to forage on at least 100 different plant species,
although Acacia, Commiphora, and Terminalia species are major staples
(Kingdon 1997, p. 494; Muller et al. 2016, p. 6). Acacia trees or
bushes are a preferred resource and are fed on in high proportions
wherever giraffes occur (Dagg 2019, p. 25).
Giraffes need high-quality forage year-round to maintain their
high-energy budget; this is particularly true for females, which have
long gestation periods and are pregnant for most of their adult lives.
Each population has a diverse diet, and the food that the giraffes
select throughout the year largely depends on the seasonal changes in
the phenology of plant species (Pellew 1984, p. 74) or, for females,
whether they are nursing (Caister et al. 2003, p. 209; Saito and Idani
2018, p. 15). Generally, giraffes do not show large-scale seasonal
migrations, but within individual home ranges, small-scale seasonal
movements occur primarily based on food resources (Pellew 1984, p. 65;
Brown et al. 2023, p. 7; Fennessy 2009, p. 324). Additionally, because
giraffes engage in small-scale seasonal movements based on changes in
the distribution of food resources, they need adequate space within
which to move and find high-quality food that meets their metabolic
needs. Within their home ranges, giraffes also need access to mates.
Giraffes live in a complex society characterized by loose subgroup
composition, a pattern of sexual segregation, and longer-term
relationships that are typical in fission-fusion societies (Bercovitch
et al. 2006, p. 314; Carter et al. 2013, p. 390; Dagg 2019, p. 39).
Females are sexually mature at around 4-5 years old, and the average
gestation period is about 15 months; thus, females produce their first
offspring at around 5 to 6 years old (Pratt and Anderson 1982, p. 481;
Berry and Bercovitch 2012, p. 159; Dagg 2019, p. 140). The calving
interval can be highly variable, with a mean of 20 months, and is
influenced by survival of the first calf and food quality (Pellew 1983,
pp. 280-281; Lee and Strauss 2016, p. 5, citing many authors).
Giraffes are versatile and have adapted to a variety of habitats,
ranging from desert landscapes to woodland and savanna ecosystems,
forming a wide arc across sub-Saharan Africa covering west, central,
east, and southern Africa (Muller et al. 2016, p. 2; O'Connor et al.
2019, p. 286). Giraffes are most often found in savanna and woodland
habitats and always near trees or bushes (Dagg 1971, p. 4). Northern,
reticulated, Masai, and southern giraffes occur in multiple countries
in sub-Saharan Africa (see table 1).
[[Page 92536]]
Table 1--Four Species of Giraffes and the Countries in Which They Occur in Africa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern giraffe Reticulated giraffe Masai giraffe Southern giraffe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameroon............................. Ethiopia............... Kenya.................. Angola.
Central African Republic............. Kenya.................. Rwanda................. Botswana.
Chad................................. ....................... Tanzania............... Eswatini.
Democratic Republic of the Congo..... ....................... Zambia................. Malawi.
Ethiopia............................. ....................... ....................... Mozambique.
Kenya................................ ....................... ....................... Namibia.
Niger................................ ....................... ....................... South Africa.
South Sudan.......................... ....................... ....................... Zambia.
Uganda............................... ....................... ....................... Zimbabwe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, and issuing protective regulations for
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Services
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the
species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not
identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time.
We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using
the best available data and taking into account considerations such as
the species' life-history characteristics, threat projection
timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make
reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA reports do not represent our decision
on whether these species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, they do
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the viability of northern giraffe, reticulated giraffe,
Masai giraffe, and southern giraffe, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy
is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for
example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the
ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes
in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate
conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase
with increases in (and decrease with
[[Page 92537]]
decreases in) resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al.
2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified these species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing these species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated these individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of these species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how these species arrived
at their current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about these species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA reports; the full SSA reports can be found at Docket FWS-HQ-ES-
2024-0157 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the West
African giraffe, Kordofan giraffe, Nubian giraffe, reticulated giraffe,
Masai giraffe, and their resources, and the threats that influence
these species' current and future condition, to assess their overall
viability and the risks to that viability. We analyze these factors
both individually and cumulatively to determine the current condition
of these species and project their future condition under plausible
future scenarios.
Species Needs
We consider all giraffe species to have similar needs because no
difference in behavior or development among species has been reported
(SDZWA 2023, unpaginated). Therefore, West African, Kordofan, and
Nubian, reticulated, and Masai giraffes have the same requirements to
have high viability; they need to maintain representation (adaptive
capacity) by having multiple, robust populations broadly distributed
across diverse environments with spatial heterogeneity.
Giraffes need high-quality forage year-round to maintain their
high-energy budget, this is particularly true for females, which have
long gestation periods and are pregnant for most of their adult lives.
Each population has a diverse diet, and the food that giraffes select
throughout the year largely depends on the seasonal changes in the
phenology of plant species (Pellew 1984, p. 74) or, for females,
whether they are nursing (Caister et al. 2003, p. 209; Saito and Idani
2018, p. 15). Anthropogenic influences strong affect the giraffe's use
of space (Brown et al. 2023, p. 8), physical and geographic barriers
such as rivers, fencing, and urbanization (Fennessy et al. 2009, p.
324; Le Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 350; Perry 1978, p. 80). Because
giraffes engage in small-scale seasonal movements based on changes in
the distribution of food resources, they need adequate space to move
and find high-quality food that meets their metabolic needs. Within
their home ranges, giraffes also need access to mates.
Giraffe populations with robust abundances, population growth
rates, and quality habitat are more resilient than populations that are
less genetically or demographically healthy. Populations of giraffes
that are distributed broadly across varying ecological conditions are
more resilient to regional-scale environmental stochasticity; a broad
distribution also reduces the chance that all populations (individuals)
will experience catastrophic events concurrently. Giraffe evolutionary
potential is maximized in large, connected populations (Coimbra et al.
2021, p. 2935), and a broad distribution of giraffe populations
facilitates the development of unique ecological adaptations in
different populations. Maintaining connectivity between populations
fosters population-level genetic diversity (heterozygosity) via gene
flow and increased evolutionary potential of these species.
The combination of life-history traits of giraffes that enhance
their adaptive capacity also limits their reproductive output and
creates a complex dynamic. Giraffes can utilize diverse food resources
and cover large areas as resource availability becomes more variable
(Dagg 2019, pp. 26-27; Muller et al. 2016, p. 6; Pellew 1984, p. 78;
McQualter et al. 2015, p. 3), but their slow reproductive rates (Pratt
and Anderson 1982, p. 481; Berry and Bercovitch 2012, p. 159; Dagg
2019, p. 140; Pellew 1983, pp. 280-281; Lee and Strauss 2016, p. 5,
citing many authors) may prevent them from effectively responding to
rapid environmental changes. Thus, giraffe viability requires high
population abundances, large effective population sizes, and
sufficient, high-quality (nutritious and unfragmented) habitat
distributed across heterogeneous environments.
Factors Influencing Giraffe Viability
In this discussion, we first review the factors that influence the
condition of all giraffe species, which are changing habitat conditions
(causing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation) and poaching;
these factors are exacerbated by rapid human population growth and
climate change. We then review any additional details regarding these
threats and any additional factors (e.g., disease) that influence each
species' or subspecies' current and future condition, to assess overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Changing Habitat Conditions
Changing habitat conditions affect giraffes directly or indirectly
through reduced food availability and reduced or obstructed movements
to find necessary resources, which negatively affect giraffe's survival
and recruitment. The sources of habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation are conversion of natural habitats and natural vegetation
to croplands and rangelands, urbanization, deforestation, production of
fuelwood, and climate change. Changing habitat conditions also result
in increased risk of human conflict (e.g., war) and human-wildlife
conflict (e.g., retaliation and poaching).
Africa is the fastest growing region in the world (Sakho-Jimbira
and Hathie 2020, p. 3). In sub-Saharan Africa, the human population is
approximately 1.2 billion people (WorldBank 2023, unpaginated). Annual
population growth has ranged from 2.5 to 2.9 percent over the last 35
years, and the sub-Saharan African population is projected to double by
2050 and triple by 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 2022, p. 1294). The exponential growth of the human population
and the demand for land and resources are causing giraffes to explore
new areas in search of food (Suraud et al. 2012, p. 581; Ferguson et
al. 2020, p. 5). Conversion of natural habitats into farmlands and
urban development not only affects giraffes through loss of food, but
also contributes to the fragmentation of their habitats, making it more
difficult for giraffes to find suitable feeding, drinking, breeding,
and sheltering areas (Ali et al. 2023, p. 178). Because of habitat
fragmentation, giraffes need to find alternative routes, often
traversing through farmlands, feeding on crops, and increasing the risk
of human-wildlife conflict (Ali et al. 2023, entire).
[[Page 92538]]
Giraffes always occur near trees and/or bushes and rely on them for
food. Therefore, forest loss, while not a direct measure of impacts to
giraffe habitat, can be considered a reasonable surrogate for changing
habitat conditions for giraffes. The rate of net forest loss has
increased in Africa in each of the three decades since 1990, and Africa
had the highest global annual rate of forest loss from 2010 to 2020 at
3.9 million hectares (ha) (Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) 2020, p. 15). Large declines in ``other wooded
land'' (canopy cover of 5 to 10 percent) were also recorded from 1990-
2020 in all African subregions (FAO 2020, p. 24).
One source of habitat loss is charcoal production. One billion
people--roughly four of every five--in sub-Saharan Africa rely on
cooking fuels used in open fires or basic stoves (IEA 2023, p. 14).
Wood removal associated with fuelwood increased in all regions of
Africa between 1990 and 2018 (FAO 2020, pp. 112-113). Woody vegetation,
particularly Acacia trees, is the main source of charcoal production in
the giraffe's range (Kiruki et al. 2017, p. 476; Abera et al. 2022, p.
10; Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). Acacia trees also are a preferred food
source of giraffes; therefore, a reduction of Acacia trees due to the
demand for fuelwood reduces the availability of high-quality food
resources for giraffes. Charcoal production also results in overall
woodland degradation because it exacerbates vegetation loss, soil
erosion, and creation of associated access roads (Kiruki et al. 2017,
pp. 476, 478).
Related effects from increased human population growth and land use
changes--With a rapidly increasing human population, pastoralists
(livestock farmers) across Africa are experiencing large-scale loss of
rangeland access because of agriculture expansion, private ranches,
wildlife reserves, and urbanization (Holechek et al. 2017, p. 275;
Brottem 2021, p. 2). The threat to the livelihood of pastoralists
intensifies human conflicts, and this breakdown of traditional pastoral
and subsistence agricultural systems is a principal factor of civil
unrest in Africa (Holechek et al. 2017, p. 275, citing many authors).
Most wars in sub-Saharan Africa have been civil conflicts fought
within the boundaries of a single sovereign country (State Failure
2001, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 141). However, internal
conflicts may overspill defined boundaries, affecting both a country
and its neighbors for substantial lengths of time (Commission for
Africa, 2005, cited in Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 141). Civil unrest does
not usually directly target ecological resources in pursuit of a
military outcome, but impacts to wildlife occur because of resource
exploitation during periods of lawlessness (Glew and Hudson 2007, p. 7,
citing many authors; Dudley et al. 2002, p. 326). However, large
mammals (when available) are often a vital food source for isolated
military or paramilitary groups operating within war zones and disputed
territories (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 271; Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322).
Additionally, wildlife products are often sold or bartered for food,
arms, ammunition, or other goods and services (Dudley et al. 2002, p.
322). Civil unrest also causes significant displacement of people
(Badiora 2017, p. 316; Davis 2019, p. 180; Glew and Hudson 2007, p.
141). Refugee encampments are often associated with severe
environmental degradation from the use of slash-and-burn agriculture
and the overharvesting of vegetation for fuel, food, and construction
materials. This, in turn, results in widespread deforestation and
erosion, and takes a heavy toll on wildlife and habitats in affected
areas (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 326; Pech 1995, in Dudley et al. 2002,
p. 322).
Poaching
Poaching is a primary threat to the giraffe's overall survival
throughout Africa (Giraffe Conservation Foundation 2022, p. 22; Lee et
al. 2023, p. 346; Muller et al. 2018, p. 7). The reasons for illegally
killing giraffes vary greatly across Africa, with local context playing
a significant role in shaping human-giraffe interactions (Ruppert 2020,
chapter 2). Poverty, tradition, and lack of economic opportunity drives
wildlife poaching (Knapp 2012, p. 443; Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 33).
Poaching also tends to spike when food-shortages are severe, and when
the demand for agricultural labor is low (Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 5), a
common impact of drought (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9,
Engelbrecht et al. 2024, p. 178). Additionally, highly organized
poachers, individuals linked to international criminal networks, and
military personnel are involved in the killing or theft of wildlife
resources, including giraffes (Douglas and Alie 2014, p. 273, citing
many authors; Humphreys and Smith 2011, pp. 131-137; Wildlife Justice
Commission 2023, p. 7; Interpol 2024, unpaginated). The COVID-19
pandemic caused a large reduction in tourism worldwide and resulted in
economic hardship for many people throughout Africa. The loss of income
in an already poverty-stricken area resulted in increased poaching of
giraffe for bushmeat to feed families (Krein 2021, p. 75).
Bushmeat is preferred in rural areas because it is normally cheaper
than domesticated meat alternatives, whereas in urban areas bushmeat is
considered a luxury (Lindsey et al. 2012, p. 6; Bowen-Jones et al.
2002, p. 11; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, p. 940; Petrozzi et al. 2016,
p. 546). Bushmeat consumption is consistently more prevalent closer to
human settlements, although increasing national and international
demand is driving commercialization of bushmeat (Lindsey et al. 2012,
p. 6). Killing for bushmeat is more severe in poorer countries, in
those countries with high human population densities, and during
periods of political instability (Lindsey et al. 2011, p. 97).
In summary, the primary threats of changing habitat conditions and
poaching are directly influenced by rapid human population growth and
climate change, which also influence these threats through increased
human-wildlife conflicts. The combination of these threats works
synergistically to affect all giraffe species.
Factors Influencing Northern Giraffe
Factors that influence West African, Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes
(the three subspecies of northern giraffe), are generally similar
within and among populations, with differences in magnitude. Those
factors include a combination of human actions that threaten the
northern giraffe's viability as well as conservation efforts and
regulatory measures that aim to benefit and protect northern giraffes.
Because northern giraffes overlap with humans and domesticated
livestock, they rely on the same natural resources. Human-wildlife
conflicts occur when wildlife and humans compete for the same resources
(Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) 2018, p. 49).
The primary threats to the northern giraffe include changing
habitat conditions caused by habitat loss, fragmentation, and
degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid human
population growth as well as climate change through drought and extreme
rainfall (Huho and Mugalavai 2010, entire; Lam et al. 2023, entire;
Scholte et al. 2018, p. 2). However, other threats affect northern
giraffes directly or compound these primary threats, such as low
genetic diversity. We also considered potential threats such as
predation and disease, and while individuals may be affected by these
two threats, the best available information does not indicate
population-level or species-level effects.
[[Page 92539]]
Multiple studies show concurrent deforestation or loss of woody
cover (giraffe foraging habitat and cover) with increases in cropland
and settlements directly within the range of the northern giraffe. The
degree of forest loss from 2001-2023 was variable across the subspecies
of the northern giraffe. West African giraffe lost minimal (less than 1
ha) forest area from 2001-2023, but already had low forest cover by
2000. However, in non-forested areas the subspecies experienced a high
degree of cropland development within and between its two populations
from 2003 to 2019 (Potapov et al. 2021, p. 19). Most of the forest loss
within the range of the northern giraffe occurred in the range of the
Nubian giraffe subspecies (29.3 kha of tree cover, equivalent to a 2.5
percent decrease). Across the full range of the Nubian giraffe, the
primary driver of forest loss was shifting agriculture, defined as
small- to medium-scale forest and shrubland conversion for agriculture
(Curtis et al. 2018, p. 1108). Similarly, the primary driver of forest
loss for Kordofan giraffe was shifting agriculture (Curtis et al. 2018,
p. 1108), equating to a loss of tree cover across its range from 2001-
2023, or a 0.55 percent decrease (GFW 2024, unpaginated). Substantial
crop development has also occurred between populations for all three
subspecies from 2003-2019, which can limit dispersal and gene flow
between populations, and can restrict access to water resources
(Potapov et al. 2021, p. 19).
Civil unrest is a longstanding and significant ongoing concern
throughout the range of the northern giraffe. Armed conflicts have been
ongoing for years in Niger. There was a coup in July 2023, and military
authorities continue to run the government (British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) 2024, entire). Insecurity is also caused from
neighboring countries; in the border area between Burkina Faso, Mali,
and Niger, attacks by non-state armed groups affiliated with either al-
Qaeda or the Islamic State continue to force thousands of people to
flee (United Nations Security Council 2023, p. 1; United Nations
Refugee Agency (UNHCR) 2021, entire).
In the range of the Kordofan giraffe, ethnic conflicts have
increased insecurity in the region and wildlife populations suffered
heavy losses due to the widespread proliferation of guns in this region
(Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2017, unpaginated; Bouch[eacute]
et al. 2011, p. 7008; Ruggiero 1984, p. 12). Waza National Park in
Cameroon, Garamba National Park in the DRC, and the Northern Central
African Republic (CAR) are situated in areas with hostilities, with
armed poachers and various rebel groups (Bouch[eacute] et al. 2009, p.
995; Elkan et al. 2015, p. 4; Bouch[eacute] et al. 2011, p. 7008;
Ruggiero 1984, p. 12). Waza National Park in Cameroon, which contains
the second largest population of Kordofan giraffes, has suffered from
the rise of the Boko Haram insurgence that has caused a major security
threat to the northern regions of the country and has effectively
halted any wildlife conservation or surveillance in the park since 2015
(Roland 2018, cited in Marias et al. 2019, p. 3; Elkan et al. 2015, p.
4). While terrorist activities currently remain relatively far from
Zakouma National Park, where 50 percent of the Kordofan giraffe
population exists, they do pose threats to other regions that may have
remnant giraffe populations (Marais et al. 2020c, p. 3).
This pattern of destabilization across regions, combined with
refugee migration, is characteristic of armed conflicts in west,
central, and east Africa (Dudley et al. 2002, p. 322). As stated above,
refugee encampments are often associated with severe environmental
degradation from the use of slash-and-burn agriculture and the
overharvesting of vegetation for fuel, food, and construction
materials. This, in turn, results in widespread deforestation and
erosion, and takes a heavy toll on wildlife and habitats in affected
areas (Plumptre et al. 1997, p. 326; Pech 1995, in Dudley et al. 2002,
p. 322).
In summary, changing habitat conditions because of habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation, primarily due to agriculture expansion,
urbanization, and fuelwood production, are considered historical,
ongoing, and imminent threats to the West African, Kordofan, and Nubian
giraffes. Changing habitat conditions reduce the availability of high-
quality food and reduce foraging habitat, protective cover, and
connectivity for giraffes, and these threats are anticipated to
continue in the future, exacerbated by the increased pressure placed on
land use and natural resources from a rapidly increasing human
population and climate change (including the inter-related effects such
as civil unrest and human food insecurity).
Poaching
The reasons for illegally killing giraffes vary greatly across
Africa, with local context playing a significant role in shaping human-
giraffe interactions (Ruppert 2020, chapter 2). Poaching has reduced
the numbers of West African, Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes. Many
populations have been extirpated or have been severely reduced by
poaching. Currently, there has been limited effectiveness in reducing
poaching with a few successes, like the West African population in
Niger and Zakouma National Park in Chad.
Illegal killing drove local extirpations of the West African
giraffe in the 1970s and 1980s, which culminated with only an estimated
49 individuals remaining by 1996 in a single area in Niger
(Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 2). This population has
increased, partially because of the launch of several community
projects that effectively reduced poaching of giraffe by locals
(Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 5). The Government of Niger
made concerted efforts to enforce legislation preventing the illegal
killing of giraffes in the mid-1990s, further supported by a community
education and awareness campaign (Suraud et al. 2012, p. 577; Ferguson
et al. 2020, pp. 2-4).
For the Kordofan giraffe, poaching has resulted in severe
reductions in giraffe populations (D'haen et al. 2019, p. 11403; Bouche
et al. 2011, pp. 6-11). In countries where there is significant
political and social instability, such as in CAR and the DRC, funding
and management of protected areas is insufficient to eliminate
poaching. One of the few exceptions is Zakouma National Park in Chad,
which is the only park in central Africa with increasing numbers of
megaherbivores (including giraffes) because of a high number of
rangers, long-term European Union funding, and political support
(Scholte 2021, pp. 4-6). The population of Kordofan giraffe is 2,297
individuals (Brown et al. 2021, p. 6). Zakouma National Park holds
approximately 50 percent of the population of Kordofan giraffes (Brown
et al. 2021, p. 6; Marais et al. 2020c, p. 4).
Populations of Nubian giraffe in Uganda have declined as much as 90
percent from the 1960s due to increased poaching because of political
and social instability across their historical range (UWA 2018, p. 43).
Overall, only a few small and isolated populations of Nubian giraffe
remain in Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, and Ethiopia (Wube et al. 2018,
p. 1; Fennessy et al. 2018, pp. 1-2; Muneza et al. 2024, p. 1275). The
Nubian giraffe's total population is 3,022 giraffes (Brown et al. 2021,
pp. 4, 7). Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda holds approximately
60 percent (2,250 individuals) of the total population of Nubian
giraffes. While populations have rebounded in areas where there is
better security and management (i.e., in the
[[Page 92540]]
protected areas in Uganda and Kenya where most of the giraffes occur),
poaching remains a threat where populations are smallest, such as in
South Sudan. In Kenya, Nubian giraffes have rebounded from near
extirpation in the 1970s to roughly 1,000 individuals distributed among
13 populations. This rebound is attributed to better security and
management in protected areas that has reduced poaching (Muneza et al.
2024, p. 1279). Poaching remains a threat in South Sudan, where Nubian
giraffe populations are smallest and less protected; however, poaching
has been reduced in the areas with the most Nubian giraffes in Uganda
and Kenya.
Climate Change
The mechanisms by which climate change can affect the giraffe's
fitness are complex, multifaceted, and contingent on a range of
interacting factors. The primary influence of climate change on the
viability of the West African, Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes is changes
in precipitation patterns, notably drought and extreme precipitation
pattern. Drought reduces water availability and food quality for
giraffes. Giraffes are generally less able to access high-quality
browse during times of drought due to an increase in tree mortality and
a decline in browse abundance (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9,
Engelbrecht et al. 2024, p. 178), as well as increased competition with
other browsing species (Birkett and Stevens[hyphen]Wood 2005, entire).
Less access to high-quality food leads to giraffes needing to expand
their home range, which in turn increases the relative proportion of
time searching for food and can lead to human-wildlife conflicts and
the increased risk of poaching. Giraffes can also be affected by
extreme precipitation. High precipitation events were correlated with
reduced survival in both adult and subadult giraffes, as higher
rainfall can increase cover for predators, increase parasite and
disease prevalence, and reduce food quality (Bond et al. 2023, pp.
3185-3193).
Indirectly, human food insecurity, brought on by both drought and
heavy precipitation events, affects the giraffe's viability. Drought
impacts pasture quality, livestock survival and production, crop
yields, and malnutrition rates (Lam et al. 2023, p. entire). Heavy
precipitation and flooding events in Kenya resulted in crop damages and
impacts to 5 million people (1997); losses of life, property, and crops
leading to human displacement (2002); and impacts to 112,000 people and
crops (2013) (Kogo et al. 2021, p. 36). Impacts to current crops or
livestock leads to changes in farming practices (Huho and Mugalavai
2010, pp. 66-70). Many of these changes may result in the loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of giraffe habitat.
In summary, climate change directly affects giraffes through
reduced forage and competition with other browsing species. Decreased
availability of high-quality forage may cause giraffes to expand their
home range in search of high-quality forage, which increases the risks
of poaching and human-wildlife conflict because of changing habitat
conditions. Indirectly, drought affects giraffes because human food
insecurity leads to changing land-use practices that in turn affect
habitat conditions. Extreme precipitation events influence predation,
disease, and food quality, the consequences of which can lead to direct
mortality of, and reduced recruitment for, giraffes.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Our evaluation of the status of the species takes into account the
extent to which threats are reduced or removed as a result of
conservation efforts or existing regulatory mechanisms. Across Africa
and throughout the ranges of the West African, Kordofan, and Nubian
giraffe, many conservation organizations are dedicated to the
conservation of giraffes in the wild. National wildlife departments,
nongovernmental organizations, and international organizations aid with
conservation efforts for giraffes that include a multitude of actions
such as translocations, anti-poaching efforts, capacity building and
education, and technical and financial assistance. The conservation
efforts that are ongoing within the range of the West African,
Kordofan, and Nubian giraffes focus on enforcement of anti-poaching
laws, minimizing human-wildlife conflicts and commercial trade, and
working with communities where these subspecies occur. However, these
efforts are not likely to counter the ongoing and anticipated changes
in land use and associated effects to the West African, Kordofan, and
Nubian giraffe from human population growth and climate change because
of the magnitude of the impacts in these areas, the small population
sizes for these subspecies, and/or the currently downward trajectory of
giraffes' abundance.
West African Giraffe
There are two primary conservation efforts for the West African
giraffe in Niger: the Giraffe Zone and the re-establishment of a
population in the Gadabedji Biosphere Reserve. The Giraffe Zone occurs
in the arid Sahelian scrubland east of the capital Niamey and is part
of the transition zone of Niger's W National Park Biosphere Reserve,
which includes: (1) the central zone of Kour[eacute], (2) the Dallol
Bosso, and (3) the Fakara Plateau (Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 5; Ciofolo
1995, p. 579; Le Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 342). The Giraffe Zone is
an unprotected and unfenced area where giraffes move freely between the
three areas and migrate based on seasonal availability of forage,
giraffe carrying capacity in the core area, and increasing pressure
from a growing human population (Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 5). Giraffes
share their living space with local villagers and livestock, and their
movements are synchronized with human activities based on habitat and
forage availability (Pendu and Ciofolo 1999, p. 351).
The Giraffe Zone does not provide any formal protections for West
African giraffes, but poaching currently appears to be rare. The West
African giraffe is fully protected under Niger's ``Loi N[deg] 82-002 du
28 Mai 1982 portant r[eacute]glementation de la chasse'' (as amended by
Law 98-07 of April 29, 1998, regulating hunting and wildlife
protection) and may not be hunted (Food and Agriculture Organization
database of national legislation (FAOLEX) 2024, unpaginated; Republic
of Niger 1998). The Government of Niger made concerted efforts to
enforce legislation preventing the illegal killing of giraffes in the
mid-1990s, further supported by a community education and awareness
campaign (Suraud et al. 2012, p. 577; Ferguson et al. 2020, pp. 2-4).
Since 2000, incidents of poaching have been rare (Suraud et al. 2012,
p. 577; GCF 2019, entire; Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 5). However, within
the Giraffe Zone, habitat loss (including land degradation and habitat
fragmentation) is well documented and continues to occur (Morou 2011,
in Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al.
[[Page 92541]]
2020, p. 4; Abdou 2005, in Suraud et al. 2012, p. 581).
Starting in 2018, 12 West African giraffes were translocated to
reestablish the Gadabedji Biosphere Reserve population. The population
has expanded, with five calves born, showing early signs of success in
the first 5 years after the initial translocation
(Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 8). This is a protected area,
but the current population size is very small and long-term post-
translocation monitoring is crucial to evaluate the translocation
success and advise on future translocations to the Reserve and other
sites in the country or regionally (Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al.
2024, p. 8).
Kordofan Giraffe
Most individuals (approximately 80 percent) of the Kordofan giraffe
currently occur in Zakouma National Park in southern Chad
(approximately 1,200 giraffes) and Waza National Park in northern
Cameroon (approximately 500 giraffes). In the near term, only the
population in Zakouma National Park appears protected from habitat loss
and poaching within a larger, intact, protected area. Zakouma National
Park is part of the 28,162-square-kilometer (km\2\) Greater Zakouma
Ecosystem, managed by African Parks in partnership with the Government
of Chad. In 2022, the Government of Chad signed a revised agreement
with African Parks, which extends until 2027. Zakouma National Park is
the only park in Central Africa with increasing numbers of large
herbivores because of its unique long-term European Union funding, many
rangers, and political support (Scholte et al. 2021, pp. 4-6). The
current management agreement for Zakouma only extends until 2027. The
situation is quite different in Waza National Park in Cameroon. In Waza
National Park and other protected areas in Cameroon, threats to the
Kordofan giraffe remain and have been documented in multiple instances,
such as lack of enforcement, tree removal, livestock grazing, and
events of civil unrest (Kelly 2014, pp. 737-738; Scholte et al. 2021,
entire; Garcia et al. 2022, p. 62). Political support for Waza National
Park ended in the mid-1980s; thus, funding for the park was drastically
reduced (Kelly 2014, p. 737). All the other national parks where
Kordofan giraffes occur have very few giraffes remaining, largely due
to poaching and a lack of management.
Nubian Giraffe
Rangewide, 60 percent of Nubian giraffes occur at Murchison Falls
National Park in Uganda, a 3,840-km\2\ park managed by the Uganda
Wildlife Authority. The park (3,840 km\2\), Karuma Wildlife Reserve
(678 km\2\), and Bugungu Wildlife Reserve (474 km\2\) are part of the
Murchison Falls Protected Area, the largest landscape of protected
areas in Uganda (Plumptre et al. 2015, p. 4). The protected area (and
its wildlife) has been described as likely the hardest hit of any of
Uganda's protected areas during the civil unrest of the 1970s and 1980s
(UWA 2018, pp. 5, 43). It was only following the political
stabilization associated with establishment of the current government
in Uganda that protection measures have increased large mammal
populations, including giraffes (Plumptre et al. 2015, p. 4; UWA 2018,
p. 53).
Since the 1990s, the Murchison Falls population has gradually
increased to approximately 2,250 individuals. However, the park is
becoming increasingly isolated. Settlement around the park has reduced
potential wildlife corridors to other parks or available habitat (Fuda
2015, p. 26). In addition, oil and gas development is ongoing within
Murchison Falls (Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) 2024,
entire; Akisiimire et al. 2022, pp. 21-23).
There are four other small populations (fewer than 100 individuals
each) in eastern and southern Uganda, and the rest of Nubian giraffes
occur in small populations in Kenya, South Sudan, and Ethiopia.
The Boma-Jonglei ecosystem of South Sudan is a largely intact
savanna and woodland habitat that includes Boma and Badingilo National
Parks linked by wildlife movement corridors and key transboundary
biodiversity areas (WCS 2019, unpaginated; Morjan et al. 2017, p. 367).
Both Boma and Badingilo National Parks are proposed United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World
Heritage Sites (African Parks 2024, unpaginated). Nubian giraffes only
exist in small populations around these two national parks in South
Sudan. The ecosystem has a direct transboundary linkage with Gambella
National Park in Ethiopia (WCS 2019, unpaginated). The small population
of Nubian giraffes in Ethiopia currently reside in and around Gambella
National Park, and there may be a small population existing in the Omo-
Tama regions (Marais et al. 2020d, p. 3; Brown et al. 2021, p. 7).
Several of Ethiopia's parks are designated protected areas but lack
enforcement and management to achieve their stated conservation
purposes (Jacobs and Schloeder 2001, p. 10).
The Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA), established
in 2008, is the country's primary wildlife protection agency that
oversees the protection, administration, and sustainable use of
Ethiopia's fauna. Their principal goals are the conservation of
endangered species, the repair and extension of protected areas, and
the development of wildlife-based tourism that does not deplete natural
resources (EWCA 2024, pp. 1-3). Giraffes are protected species in
Ethiopia (Council of Ministers Regulations No. 163/2008, p. 35).
However, the few trained staff and field-based wildlife rangers that
the EWCA currently has are not enough to combat illegal wildlife trade
and poaching even within the protected areas (Tessema 2017, p. 36). To
help build enforcement capacity, the EWCA is supported by international
organizations. For example, community members around the Gambella
National Park were selected and trained on wildlife crime
interventions, wildlife crime information collection techniques, and
conservation awareness skills (Tessema 2017, p. 38).
The last remaining endemic population of Nubian giraffes in Kenya
at Soi Ranch supplied giraffes for countrywide translocations in the
1960s and 1970s (Brenneman 2009, p. 712; Muruana et al. 2021, p. 8).
Nubian giraffes have been translocated to national parks, private
reserves, and other protected areas in western Kenya (Fennessy et al.
2018, p. 2; Muruana et al. 2021, p. 7), and now they occur in 13
locations (Muneza et al. 2024, table 1; Muruana et al. 2021, pp. 13-15,
citing many authors). Most of the introductions were into private
fenced wildlife areas (Brenneman et al. 2009, p. 712; Muruana et al.
2021, p. 4).
Kenya has developed a National Recovery and Action Plan for Giraffe
in Kenya (2018-2022) (Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) 2018, entire) and a
national Wildlife Strategy 2030 (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife 2018,
entire). The National Recovery and Action Plan for Giraffe in Kenya is
aimed at having viable, free-ranging populations of three giraffe
species in Kenya (Masai, reticulated, and northern giraffe (including
Nubian giraffe)) and addressing challenges for sustainable conservation
and management of these species (KWS 2018, entire). One of the
strategic objectives of the National Recovery and Action Plan for
Giraffe in Kenya is to reduce the proportion of giraffe illegally
killed by 50 percent within 5 years of 2018 (KWS 2018, p. 31).
[[Page 92542]]
As discussed above, in Kenya, the Nubian giraffe has rebounded from
near extirpation in the 1970s to roughly 1,000 individuals distributed
among 13 populations. This rebound is attributed to better security and
management in protected areas that has reduced poaching (Muneza et al.
2024, p. 1279). Population estimates by KWS have increased with these
efforts to increase penalties on crimes related to threatened species
such as giraffes, although this increase is also attributed to the
inclusion of more updated data in the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021,
p. 110). The National Wildlife Strategy 2030 outlines a vision for
wildlife conservation and describes Kenya's needs for wildlife
conservation strategies because human population pressure, habitat
loss, rapid development in key wildlife areas, poaching, insecurity,
and overexploitation have accelerated the decline of wildlife
populations and habitat degradation (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife
2018, p. 7).
Additionally, the National Human-Wildlife Coexistence Strategy and
Action Plan 2024-2033 is aimed at fostering sustainable wildlife
conservation while effectively mitigating human-wildlife conflicts (KWS
2024, unpaginated). The KWS has a security division with an overall
goal and primary mandate to strengthen law enforcement, protect
wildlife and their habitats, enhance tourist security in protected
areas, and safeguard KWS assets. Population estimates by KWS have
increased with these efforts to increase penalties on crimes related to
threatened species, although this increase is attributed to the
inclusion of more updated data in the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021,
p. 110).
Giraffes are also protected by international mechanisms that
include protections, regulation of international trade, and awareness
of giraffe conservation efforts in Africa. These mechanisms include the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES), Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (Convention), and the African Union, all of which are
international agreements where member countries agree to implement
measures to minimize illicit trade of wildlife including giraffes.
Trade is not the primary cause of the decline of wild giraffe
populations; however, trade has an additive effect when combined with
the main causes of decline (habitat loss and poaching). Giraffes have
historically been sought for their hair and tails, and their parts have
been used for medicinal purposes, but, more recently, giraffes have
been increasingly hunted and poached for bushmeat. Giraffe parts are
frequently in international commercial trade, but their country of
origin, the subspecies (or species), and whether the specimens in trade
were legally acquired can be uncertain (CITES 2019a, pp. 5-6).
Current Condition of Northern Giraffe
We describe the current condition of the northern giraffe and its
three subspecies in terms of the primary influences affecting
population abundance and trends, as well as the range contraction of
the subspecies. The three subspecies are genetically distinct and
separated by geographical or physical barriers and thus demographically
distinct. The northern giraffe only remains in a small fraction of its
historical range with small, isolated populations scattered across
west, central, and east Africa with no connectivity between
populations.
The population of the northern giraffe was estimated at 5,919 in
2020 (at least 600 West African, 2,297 Kordofan, and 3,022 Nubian)
(Brown et al. 2021, p. 5). A historical estimate for the northern
giraffe is not readily available; however, the combined estimate of the
historical (i.e., 1985) populations of the subspecies that comprise the
northern giraffe places the historical population at 25,653 individuals
(Muller et al. 2018, p. 6). Thus, the current population represents a
77 percent decline from the historical population.
The reason for the decline of the northern giraffe is primarily
related to changing habitat conditions and poaching. Converting natural
habitats has resulted in habitat loss and degradation of natural
vegetation; fragmentation of the giraffe's range, which has
historically been a more connected landscape of suitable habitat for
northern giraffes; and increased risk of human-wildlife conflict,
including poaching. Changing habitat conditions affect giraffes
directly or indirectly through reduced food availability and reduced or
obstructed movements to find necessary resources, which negatively
affect survival and recruitment. Land use pressures within the range of
the northern giraffe to meet the demands of the human population for
their livelihoods, including agriculture, pastoralism, and other uses,
come at the detriment of the giraffe's requirements for food and space.
Poaching directly reduces the giraffe's condition through mortality,
mainly reducing adult survival. In addition, the three northern
subspecies have the second highest levels of genetic diversity among
giraffe species and subspecies (the reticulated giraffe has the highest
levels). However, compared to other mammal species, their levels of
heterozygosity are low, and levels of inbreeding are moderately high,
especially for the West African and Nubian subspecies.
The influences on the three subspecies of the northern giraffe
(West African, Kordofan, and Nubian) are generally similar within and
among their populations, with differences in magnitude. All three
subspecies are impacted by changing habitat conditions. The West
African giraffe is less impacted by poaching pressure than the Kordofan
and Nubian giraffes, although the Nubian giraffe is less impacted by
poaching in its range in Kenya and Uganda than in the remainder of its
range in Ethiopia and South Sudan. Except for the Giraffe Zone in
Niger, all populations are in protected areas; however, enforcement is
higher in Kenya and Uganda.
West African Giraffe
Historically, the West African giraffe was distributed widely from
Senegal to Nigeria but has been extirpated across most of its range
because of changing habitat conditions, drought, and poaching (Fennessy
et al. 2018, p. 2; Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2024, p. 2). The
drastic decline in abundance and redundancy of the West African giraffe
has limited the subspecies to two remaining populations in Niger.
Giraffes in Niger are not currently experiencing population declines
(since near extirpation by the mid-1990s). The population has steadily
increased since 1996, which is attributed to reduced poaching pressure
on the population. Most giraffes occur in the Giraffe Zone (Brown et
al. 2021, p. 8; Ferguson et al. 2020, p. 6). The current population
size of 690 is an increase of 1,308 percent from the 1995 population
size of 49. The populations in Niger are currently not subject to
poaching; however, they are currently affected by habitat loss, land
degradation, and habitat fragmentation (Morou 2011, in
Ga[scaron]parov[aacute] et al. 2020, p. 4; Abdou 2005, in Suraud et al.
2012, p. 581). The primary factors influencing the viability of the
West African giraffe are the continuation of conservation initiatives,
as well as threats from ongoing and imminent habitat loss and
fragmentation, civil unrest, human food insecurity, poaching, and
exacerbation of these threats with increasing human populations and
climate change. Overall, the resiliency and redundancy of the West
African giraffe are reduced due to declines in abundance and the
subspecies being limited to two small areas in Niger. The two remaining
[[Page 92543]]
populations are small and isolated, and this lack of redundant healthy
populations increases the risk of effects of catastrophic drought.
While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly
constrain the giraffe's ability to respond to the rapidly changing
conditions associated with human population growth and climate change.
Similarly, the West African giraffe's ability to shift its range in
response to changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely
because populations are mostly confined to protected areas isolated
from other populations. Therefore, West African giraffes have limited
options to avoid the risks associated with habitat loss and poaching,
and threats associated with rapidly increasing human populations and
climate change.
Kordofan Giraffe
The Kordofan giraffe was formerly widespread across central African
countries in the northern savanna woodlands and Sahel zone (Fennessy et
al. 2018, p. 2; East 1999, pp. 95-97). The Sahel is a band of territory
in Africa that stretches from the Atlantic coast of Senegal and
Mauritania to the four countries bordering Lake Chad (United Nations
Development Programme 2024, unpagainted). The Sahel acts like a buffer
or transition zone between the Sahara Desert to the north and the
fertile savannahs to the south. While the Kordofan giraffe currently
occurs in its historical range countries of Cameroon, CAR, Chad, DRC,
and South Sudan, population abundance has been declining over the last
40 to 60 years, the area of occupancy is greatly reduced, and the
subspecies is restricted to small, disjunct populations.
In the 1950s, there were an estimated 6,360 to 7,360 individuals of
the Kordofan giraffe across the DRC, Cameroon, Chad, and CAR; please
note that South Sudan is not included in this estimate. Currently, the
best estimate of current population size for the Kordofan giraffe is
2,297 individuals (Brown et al. 2021, p. 6) spread across five
countries in central Africa. Thus, Kordofan giraffe is only 31-36
percent of the population size in the 1950s, a decline of approximately
1.5 to 7.0 percent per year. Approximately 80 percent of the remaining
individuals now occur within just two populations (approximately 1,200
in Zakouma National Park in Chad, and approximately 500 in Waza
National Park in Cameroon) (Brown et al. 2021, p. 6). The remaining
populations are small with little interaction between groups (Brown et
al. 2021, p. 6; Marais et al. 2019, p. 4).
The primary causes of this historical and ongoing decline include
poaching, giraffe-human conflict (via civil unrest), and habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation, all of which are strongly driven by the
rapidly increasing human population and climate change. While the
Kordofan giraffe exhibits traits that provide adaptive ability, its
long lifespan, low reproductive output, high energetic demands, dietary
needs, and limited gene flow strongly constrain its ability to
evolutionarily respond to rapidly changing conditions associated with
human population growth and climate change. Similarly, the ability of
Kordofan giraffes to shift their range in response to deteriorating
habitat and climate conditions is highly unlikely. There are limited
options for giraffes to avoid the risks associated with habitat loss,
poaching, and threats associated with rapidly increasing human
populations and climate change threats.
The continued reductions in the availability and quality of food
resources, coupled with increased mortality due to intensifying human
conflicts, place additional pressure on already stressed giraffe
populations. To date, conservation efforts have been insufficient to
address ongoing threats, and the best available information indicates
that such efforts will not halt the declining trends. Given the degree
of isolation among populations, the likelihood of demographic rescue
following such events appears minimal. Reductions in the health,
number, and distribution of populations, in turn, diminish the
subspecies' capacity to withstand normal environmental stochasticity
and recover from disturbances and catastrophic events.
Nubian Giraffe
The historical distribution of Nubian giraffe was north of the Nile
River and ranged from the Rift Valley of central-west Kenya across
Uganda, and northward into South Sudan and Ethiopia (Marais et al.
2017, p. 3, citing many authors; Brown et al. 2021, p. 7). Nubian
giraffes were historically more widely distributed than they are
currently (Sidney 1965, pp. 149, 151; Dagg 1962, p. 502). Murchison
Falls National Park in Uganda holds approximately 2,250 individuals, or
60 percent of the total population of Nubian giraffes (GCF 2023, p. 1).
Overall, only a few small and isolated populations of the Nubian
giraffe remain in Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, and Ethiopia (Wube et al.
2018, p. 1; Fennessy et al. 2018, pp. 1-2). There is little or no
potential for dispersal between sites and limited capacity for
expansion (Fennessy et al. 2018, p. 1).
The current population size (3,022) of the Nubian giraffe is 14
percent of the population size of approximately 22,000 individuals in
the 1960s-1980s (Brown et al. 2021, p. 7; Muller et al. 2018,
supplement, p. 2). The population has declined from about the 1960s to
2020 at approximately 4.0-4.9 percent per year. The primary causes of
decline are poaching and civil unrest. These threats are compounded by
rapid human population growth and climate change. Poaching led to near
extirpation of Nubian giraffes in Uganda, Kenya, and South Sudan in the
1970s and 1980s, as poaching increased due to widespread political and
social instability. Poaching rates have been reduced in Uganda and
Kenya, although poaching pressure remains as human food sources are
currently less secure due to ongoing human population growth and
climate change and inter-related effects of civil unrest. Other threats
include extensive land use changes, disease, and low genetic diversity.
While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly
constrain the Nubian giraffe's ability to respond to rapidly changing
conditions associated with human population growth and climate change.
Similarly, the subspecies' ability to shift its range in response to
changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely because
populations are confined to protected areas isolated from other
populations. Therefore, Nubian giraffes have limited options to avoid
the risks associated with habitat loss, poaching, and threats
associated with rapidly increasing human populations and climate
change.
Overall, the resiliency and redundancy of the Nubian giraffe are
reduced due to declines in abundance and area of occupancy. Only one
population of the Nubian giraffe (Murchison Falls National Park)
appears resilient; this resiliency stems from protective measures
(conservation initiatives to reduce poaching and habitat conversion)
that allowed this population to gradually increase since the 1990s.
However, this population is still vulnerable to habitat loss,
degradation, and alteration from ongoing oil and gas development;
climate change impacts; and increased isolation as habitat conversion
continues around and within the park. Poaching also continues to be
documented within the park.
[[Page 92544]]
The remaining populations of the Nubian giraffe throughout the
subspecies' range are small and isolated, and vulnerable to normal
environmental stochasticity, disturbances, and catastrophic drought
events. Given the degree of isolation among populations, the likelihood
of demographic rescue following such events appears minimal. Reductions
in the health, number, and distribution of populations, in turn,
diminish the subspecies' capacity to withstand normal environmental
stochasticity and recover from disturbances and catastrophic events. To
date, the population in Murchison Falls National Park has gradually
increased as did the population in Kenya, but, for the most part,
conservation efforts across the range of the Nubian giraffe have been
insufficient to address ongoing threats. The limited capacity of the
Nubian giraffe to cope with and adapt to rapidly changing environmental
conditions exacerbates the risks posed by its declining resiliency and
redundancy.
Summary of the Northern Giraffe's Current Condition
Resiliency and redundancy for the three subspecies of the northern
giraffe is reduced from historical conditions. The overall population
has declined approximately 77 percent since 1985, from 25,653
individuals to 5,919 individuals, and the species has been extirpated
from numerous countries in west Africa. The reason for the historical,
ongoing, and imminent decline of the northern giraffe is primarily
related to changing habitat conditions and poaching, exacerbated by
rapid human population growth and climate change. The sources of
changing habitat conditions that are causing habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation are ongoing. Because of rapid human
population growth and climate change-induced droughts and extreme
rainfall events, the pressure on available land and natural resources
in west, central, and east Africa has produced and is expected to
continue to produce changes to the northern giraffe's natural habitat.
The influences for the three subspecies of northern giraffe are
generally similar within and among their populations with some
differences in magnitude. All three subspecies are impacted by changing
habitat conditions, although poaching pressure is lower for the West
African giraffe than for the Kordofan and Nubian giraffes. Most
populations are in protected areas or afforded anti-poaching measures;
however, enforcement is higher in Niger, Kenya, and Uganda, and limited
to Zakouma National Park in Chad. There are limited options for
northern giraffes to avoid the risks associated with habitat loss,
poaching, and threats associated with rapidly increasing human
populations and the effects of climate change, particularly as
populations are small and isolated.
Future Condition of Northern Giraffe
We developed two future condition scenarios for the northern
giraffe to capture the plausible range of uncertainties regarding the
primary threats and projected responses by the three subspecies of
northern giraffe. These scenarios were the same for the three
subspecies of the northern giraffe. We projected a lower and upper
scenario with habitat condition based on historical rates of forest
loss, projected moderate and higher human population increases, and
climate change scenarios as described below. In one scenario, we assume
that poaching will remain similar to current conditions and anti-
poaching efforts continue, while in the other, we assume an increase in
poaching. We also assume civil unrest will continue under both
scenarios.
A climate scenario describes possible future climate conditions
associated with a specific set of assumptions about societal actions
and how the climate system will respond. For our climate scenarios, we
used both the current generation of IPCC climate scenarios (shared
socio-economic pathways or SSPs) and the previous generation of IPCC
climate scenarios (representative concentration pathways or RCPs),
depending on availability for each type of projected data (e.g.,
temperature projections vs. drought projections). RCPs reflect
different levels of emissions and climate change, and SSPs reflect
different socio-economic development pathways. We used SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5
and SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5 scenarios out to 2100. More information on these
pathways is available at <a href="https://apps.ipcc.ch/glossary/">https://apps.ipcc.ch/glossary/</a>. Because we
determined that the current condition of the West African, Nubian, and
Kordofan giraffes is consistent with the Act's definition of an
endangered species (see the determination of status for each of the
three subspecies of northern giraffe, below), we are not presenting the
results of future scenarios for these subspecies in this proposed rule.
Factors Influencing Reticulated Giraffe
Factors that affect the reticulated giraffe in Kenya and Ethiopia
are the same in each country and include a combination of human actions
that threaten the giraffe's viability as well as conservation efforts
and regulatory measures that aim to benefit and protect giraffes. The
primary threats to the reticulated giraffe include changes to the
species' habitat condition resulting from habitat loss, fragmentation,
and degradation, and poaching, all of which are exacerbated by rapid
human population growth and effects from climate change (including the
interrelated effects such as civil unrest and human food insecurity).
Changing Habitat Conditions
The sources of the changing habitat conditions in east Africa,
including Ethiopia and Kenya where reticulated giraffes occur, are
conversion of natural habitats and natural vegetation to croplands and
rangelands, urbanization, deforestation, and production of fuelwood.
Converting natural habitats and vegetation results in the loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of suitable habitat, and increased
human-wildlife conflict, including poaching. Changing conditions affect
giraffes directly or indirectly through reduced food availability and
reduced or obstructed movements to find necessary resources, which
negatively affect survival and recruitment. Because reticulated
giraffes overlap with humans and domesticated livestock, they rely on
the same natural resources. Human-wildlife conflicts occur when
wildlife and humans compete for the same resources (UWA, p. 49).
Additionally, reticulated giraffes have been known to feed on cash
crops (such as mangoes), causing economic losses for farmers and
exacerbating conflict between humans and wildlife in Kenya (Ali et al.
2023, p. 175). Changing habitat conditions increase the risk of human
conflicts and human-wildlife conflicts.
In Kenya, the agricultural sector employs more than 40 percent of
the total population and more than 70 percent of Kenya's rural
population (FAO 2024a, unpaginated). The rural population accounts for
71.5 percent of Kenya's population, increasing from 19.5 to 39.2
million people, or by approximately 100 percent, between 1990 and 2020
(FAOSTAT 2024a, unpaginated). In Ethiopia, the rural population is 77
percent of the total population in 2023, increasing from 41.8 million
people in 1990 to 97.2 million people in 2023 (FAOSTAT 2024c,
unpaginated). Because of human population growth, towns are
overpopulated, causing people to relocate to rural areas (Ali et al.
2023, p. 178). Conversion of natural habitats into farmlands and urban
development not only affects giraffes through loss of
[[Page 92545]]
food, but also contributes to the fragmentation of their habitats,
making it more difficult for giraffes to find suitable feeding,
drinking, breeding, sheltering areas (Ali et al. 2023, p. 178).
In northeastern Kenya, expansion of agricultural activities has led
to the clearing of bushy woodlands, a vital ecosystem for giraffes and
other wildlife (Ali et al. 2023, p. 178). Between 2001 and 2019, the 57
percent loss of Acacia-Commiphora trees within the reticulated
giraffe's range in Kenya and Ethiopia was primarily because of cropland
expansion (Abera et al. 2022, p. 10). Woody vegetation, particularly
Acacia trees, are also the main source of charcoal production in Kenya
and Ethiopia (Kiruki et al. 2017, p. 476; Abera et al. 2022, p. 10;
Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). Acacia trees are a preferred food source
of giraffes; therefore, reduction of Acacia trees for fuelwood reduces
the availability of high-quality food resources for giraffes. Charcoal
production also results in overall woodland degradation because it
exacerbates vegetation loss, soil erosion, and the creation of
associated access roads (Kiruki et al. 2017, pp. 476, 478).
In east Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania,
and Zambia), remote sensing over 20 years (1988 to 2017) showed
increases of cropland and settlement of 35 percent and 43 percent,
respectively, while all other land-use classes decreased, including a
decline of 18.9 million (+/-1.6 million) ha in naturally vegetated land
uses (grasslands, forests, and vegetated wetland) (Bullock et al. 2021,
pp. 5-6). This trend is emblematic of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, in
which the growing demand for food is forcing agricultural expansion
into historically less developed savannas and woodlands (Bullock et al.
2021, p. 12).
Livestock grazing is another important agricultural land use in
Kenya. Because reticulated giraffes overlap with humans and
domesticated livestock, they rely on the same natural resources. Kenya-
wide surveys over a 40-year period (1977 to 2016) show that the
increase in human population and domesticated livestock abundance
correlates with a substantial decline of the reticulated giraffe in
Kenya. Reticulated giraffe abundance declined by 65 percent over that
40-year period (Ogutu et al. 2016, supporting figures). Laikipia County
in central Kenya represents an example of private lands where wildlife,
people, and livestock co-occur. The human population has increased 137
percent over a 30-year period (1989-2019), and historically larger
ranches are being subdivided and sometimes fenced. This subdivision of
land has led to human-wildlife conflicts as migratory corridors have
been blocked (Litoroh et al. 2010, p. 9). The reticulated giraffe
population in Laikipia County decreased by 27 percent over the last 40
years.
In the Borana region, including Borana National Park where
reticulated giraffes occur in Ethiopia, there has been an increase in
human-wildlife conflict because of competition for limited resources as
the human population in the area rapidly grows. Borana National Park is
bordered on all sides by agrarian and pastoralist communities that
largely exploit it in search of arable land, pastureland, and fuelwood
(Bussa 2023, p. 544, citing many authors; Wassie 2020, p. 19). Many
national parks and protected areas in Ethiopia are under similar
pressure (Wassie 2020, p. 19).
In summary, changing habitat conditions from habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation because of agriculture expansion,
urbanization, and fuelwood production are considered an historical and
ongoing threat to the reticulated giraffe. These threats are
anticipated to continue in the future and to be exacerbated by effects
from increasing human population growth and climate change.
Poaching
The reasons for killing giraffes vary greatly across Africa, with
local context playing a significant role in shaping human-giraffe
interactions (Ruppert 2020, chapter 2). Poaching of the reticulated
giraffe varies across the species' range in both reason for killing and
the magnitude/level of killing over time. While bushmeat is likely the
primary reason for killing giraffes, the demand for giraffe parts,
including their skin, bones, and tails, fuels illegal activities (Ali
et al. 2023, p. 175; Muller 2008, pp. 1-4; Khalil et al. 2016, pp. 1-5;
Dunn et al. 2021, pp. 9-10). Giraffes are also hunted and killed in
retaliation for crop damage that leads to economic hardship for farmers
(Ali et al. 2023, p. 175). Poaching affects adult giraffes more than
subadults or calves (Lee et al. 2016, p. 1021). Additionally,
population structure may shift so that there are fewer adults relative
to immatures, fewer adult males relative to adult females and more
calves per adult female (Lee et al. 2023, p. 349).
Local opinions of giraffes and law enforcement are important to
conservation efforts and dictate actions when there is a human-wildlife
conflict. Local conservation programs in Kenya have increased the
conservation of giraffes (Ruppert 2020, pp. 29, 84). However, the best
available information suggests that rangewide poaching has not been
eliminated or even reduced in the range of the reticulated giraffe over
time.
Historically, poaching caused a marked decrease in Ethiopia's
giraffe populations (East 1999, p. 97; Yalden et al. 1984, p. 81).
Giraffes are primarily hunted in Ethiopia for their tail, which is used
in highly prized traditional necklaces, and for their meat (Wube 2013,
p. 3; Abate and Abate 2017, p. 9). In Kenya, the hunting or killing of
any species of giraffe is illegal (Republic of Kenya 2013, pp. 1304-
1305). Giraffe meat, hides, and tail hair are valued commodities in
Kenya (East 1999, pp. 97-98; Ali et al. 2023, p. 175). Reticulated
giraffes were severely poached by the tribesmen of the Northern
Province, who use giraffe hide and hair from giraffes' tails (J.
Doherty pers. obs., cited in Muneza et al. 2018, p. 5). Poaching can be
widespread during the dry season, and there were several reports of
giraffes being found injured or dead because of poaching-related
injuries (Muller 2008, p. 7).
Armed conflicts have plagued northern Kenya for decades because of
civil unrest and terrorist activities originating from the neighboring
countries of Ethiopia and Somalia (Muruana et al. 2021, p. 4). Civil
unrest does not usually directly target ecological resources in pursuit
of a military outcome, but impacts to wildlife occur because of
resource exploitation during periods of lawlessness (Glew and Hudson
2007, p. 7, citing many authors; Dudley et al. 2002, p. 326). While
human conflict can directly result in the killing of wildlife, it can
also result in indirect negative impacts on wildlife, such as weakened
protections or enforcement of protections and the proliferation of
guns, which can increase poaching (Beyers et al. 2011, p. 6; Dudley et
al. 2002, p. 322). Wildlife products are also often sold or bartered
for food, arms, ammunition, or other goods and services (Dudley et al.
2002, p. 322). Civil unrest remains a significant concern in Kenya,
Ethiopia, and Somalia; these countries have current U.S. State
Department travel advisories in each country due to crime, terrorism,
kidnapping, and civil unrest (U.S. Department of State, 2024,
unpaginated).
Climate Change
The mechanisms by which climate change can affect the giraffe's
fitness are complex, multifaceted, and contingent on a range of
interacting factors. The primary influence of climate change on the
reticulated giraffe's viability is changes in precipitation patterns,
[[Page 92546]]
notably drought and extreme precipitation patterns. Drought reduces
water availability and food quality for giraffes. Giraffes are
generally less able to access high-quality browse during times of
drought due to an increase in tree mortality and a decline in browse
abundance (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2022, p. 9, Engelbrecht et al. 2024,
p. 178), as well as increased competition with other browsing species
(Birkett and Stevens[hyphen]Wood 2005, entire). Less access to high-
quality food leads to giraffes needing to expand their home range,
which in turn increases the relative proportion of time searching for
food and can lead to human-wildlife conflicts and increase the risk of
poaching.
Indirectly, drought affects the giraffe's viability via human food
insecurity. Drought impacts pasture quality, livestock survival and
production, crop yields, and malnutrition rates (Lam et al. 2023, p.
entire). Impacts to current crops or livestock leads to changes in
farming practices (Huho and Mugalavai 2010, pp. 66-70), many of which
result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of giraffe habitat. While
only about 20 percent of Kenyan land is suitable for farming (United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) 2022, unpaginated),
agriculture supports up to 75 percent of the Kenyan population and
generates almost all the country's food requirements. In arid and semi-
arid areas of Kenya, livestock accounts for 90 percent of employment
and 95 percent of family incomes (Huho and Mugalavai, 2010, pp. 63,
68). An increasing number of households are losing the capacity to
participate economically and to grow their own food through the
practice of rain-fed agriculture (Huho and Mugalavai, 2010, p. 62).
Effects of increased population growth, climate change, food security,
and human conflict are interrelated. These influences link to the
habitat, human-wildlife conflict, and poaching.
Giraffes can also be affected by extreme precipitation. High
precipitation events were correlated with reduced survival in both
adult and subadult giraffes, as higher rainfall can increase cover for
predators, increase parasite and disease prevalence, and reduce food
quality (Bond et al. 2023, pp. 3185-3193). Heavy precipitation events
can also contribute to food insecurity. Heavy precipitation and
flooding events resulted in crop damages and impacts to 5 million
people (1997); losses of life, property, and crops, leading to human
displacement (2002); and impacts to 112,000 people and crops (2013)
(Kogo et al. 2021, p. 36).
In summary, climate change directly affects giraffes through
reduced forage and competition with other browsing species. Decreased
availability of high-quality forage may cause giraffes to expand their
home range in search of high-quality forage, which increases the risk
to poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Indirectly, drought affects
giraffes because human food insecurity leads to changing land use
practices that in turn affect habitat conditions and food insecurity.
Extreme precipitation events influence predation, disease, and food
quality, the consequences of which can lead to direct mortality and
competition for resources.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Conservation measures for the reticulated giraffe include anti-
poaching efforts and population monitoring, and many organizations
provide human, financial, and/or logistical resources to support these
efforts. As mentioned above, Kenya has developed a National Recovery
and Action Plan for Giraffe in Kenya (2018-2022) (KWS 2018, entire) and
a national Wildlife Strategy 2030 (Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife
2018, entire). Objectives of the National Recovery and Action Plan for
Giraffe in Kenya are to have viable, free-ranging populations of all
three giraffe species in Kenya (including reticulated giraffe) and
reduce the proportion of giraffes illegally killed by 50 percent within
5 years (of 2018) (KWS 2018, p. 31). The National Wildlife Strategy
2030 outlines a vision for wildlife conservation because human
population pressure, habitat loss, rapid development in key wildlife
areas, poaching, insecurity, and overexploitation have accelerated the
decline of wildlife populations and habitat degradation (Ministry of
Tourism and Wildlife 2018, p. 7). The National Human-Wildlife
Coexistence Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2033 is aimed at fostering
sustainable wildlife conservation while effectively mitigating human-
wildlife conflicts (KWS 2024, unpaginated). The KWS has a security
division with an overall goal and primary mandate to strengthen law
enforcement, protect wildlife and their habitats, enhance tourist
security in protected areas, and safeguard KWS assets. Wildlife
population estimates by KWS have increased with these efforts, although
this increase is attributed to the inclusion of more updated data in
the 2021 report (Waweru et al. 2021, p. 110).
Other community-owned and privately owned reserves and
conservancies have been successful in preserving giraffe habitats and
connectivity in the region, by increasing security and anti-poaching
efforts, protecting habitat, and raising awareness among local
communities (O'Connor et al. 2019, pp. 294-295). The Hirola
Conservation Programme monitors population trends and mortalities of
giraffes in eastern Kenya. San Diego Zoo Global, in collaboration with
KWS, Northern Rangelands Trust, Loisaba Conservancy, Lewa Conservancy,
The Nature Conservancy, and the Giraffe Conservation Foundation,
established the Twiga Walinzi team (giraffe guards), composed of locals
who monitor giraffe populations, and engage in work involving human
dimensions, and community engagement and education in Loisaba and
Namunyak Wildlife conservancies (Muneza et al. 2018, p. 5).
Additionally, even though giraffes no longer occur in Somalia, the
Somali Giraffe Project contributes to the conservation of reticulated
giraffes in eastern Kenya through anti-poaching efforts, and community
engagement (Somali Giraffe Project 2024, unpaginated).
As mentioned earlier, the EWCA is Ethiopia's primary wildlife
protection agency that oversees the protection, administration, and
sustainable use of Ethiopia's fauna. The EWCA's principal goals are the
conservation of endangered species, the repair and extension of
protected areas, and the development of wildlife-based tourism that
does not deplete natural resources (EWCA 2024, pp. 1-3). Giraffes are
protected species in Ethiopia (Council of Ministers Regulations No.
163/2008, p. 35). However, the few trained staff and field-based
wildlife rangers that the EWCA currently has are not enough to combat
illegal wildlife trade and poaching even within the protected areas
(Tessema 2017, p. 36).
In summary, the conservation efforts that are ongoing within the
range of the
[[Page 92547]]
reticulated giraffe focus on enforcing anti-poaching laws, minimizing
human-wildlife conflicts and commercial trade, and working with
communities where reticulated giraffes occur. However, these efforts
are not likely to counter the ongoing and anticipated future changes in
land use and associated effects to the reticulated giraffe from human
population growth and climate change because of the anticipated
magnitude of the impacts within the species range and the projected
downward trajectory of giraffes' abundance.
Current Condition of Reticulated Giraffe
We describe the current condition of the reticulated giraffe based
on population abundance and trends, historical range contraction,
habitat quality, influences affecting these metrics, and life-history
traits of the species that determine its ability to rapidly recover
from disturbances and population losses.
Until the early 2000s, the rangewide population was above 30,000
giraffes, but since then the population has been declining. The most
recent population estimate is 15,985 individuals, with 99 percent of
the population in Kenya (Brown et al. 2021, p. 10). Based on these
population estimates, the current population of the reticulated giraffe
has declined 3.2-4.4 percent annually and is 33-44 percent of the
historical population size, meaning the population has declined 56-67
percent.
Reticulated giraffes have always had a relatively limited range,
occupying portions of three countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, and southern
Somalia. Currently, most individuals occur in northern Kenya, with a
small population persisting in Borana National Park in southern
Ethiopia on the border with northern Kenya. Giraffes still occur within
their historical range in Kenya, and in southern Ethiopia; however,
giraffes no longer occur in Somalia (Gedow et al. 2017, p. 23).
The decline in abundance and redundancy of reticulated giraffe
populations is primarily related to changing habitat conditions and
poaching. Because of rapid human population growth and the pressure on
available land and natural resources, east Africa (including Ethiopia
and Kenya) has undergone changes to its natural habitat. Since 1985,
human populations in Kenya and Ethiopia have increased by 183 percent
and 214 percent, respectively. Most of the human population in these
countries live in rural areas (71.5 percent in Kenya; 77 percent in
Ethiopia) and is agricultural and reliant on natural resources. Thus,
the conversion of natural vegetation to croplands, rangelands,
urbanization, and fuelwood results in the loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of habitats across the historical range of the
reticulated giraffe. The increase in anthropogenic habitats also
increased the risk of human-wildlife conflict, including poaching.
Therefore, changing habitat conditions that affect resource
availability negatively affect the reticulated giraffe's survival and
recruitment.
Poaching is another main threat to reticulated giraffes. Giraffes
are killed for bushmeat, hides, tails, and hair. Killing of giraffes is
illegal in Kenya, yet it continues in the northern rangelands because
this region has minimal enforcement. Poaching more commonly targets
adults than juveniles or calves. Giraffe population growth is most
sensitive to adult survival; thus, poaching strongly affects the rate
of population growth.
Changes in precipitation patterns, notably drought and extreme
precipitation patterns, are the primary mechanism through which climate
change affects giraffes. Drought reduces food availability for
giraffes, particularly juveniles that compete with other herbivores for
resources. Drought also affects human food security, which in turn
increases the risk of poaching and increases the risk of civil unrest.
Civil unrest has been and remains a concern in Kenya, Ethiopia, and
Somalia, and has increased poaching and overexploitation of natural
resources.
In summary, multiple threats are interacting to affect the
reticulated giraffe. Threats associated with habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation are ongoing and projected to continue to
escalate because of rapid human population growth. Land use within the
range of the reticulated giraffe will need to meet the demands of the
human population to the detriment of the giraffe's requirements for
food and space. The threat of poaching will continue, but KWS is
anticipated to continue its efforts to reduce poaching of reticulated
giraffes.
Conservation measures for the reticulated giraffe include anti-
poaching efforts, population monitoring, and the efforts of numerous
organizations that provide human, financial, and/or logistical
resources to support these efforts. However, conservation measures for
giraffes may not adequately address climate change or the rapid human
population growth that exacerbates the primary threats of changing
habitat condition and poaching.
While some giraffe traits (e.g., mobility, flexible diet) provide
adaptive ability, other traits (e.g., long lifespan, low reproductive
output, high energetic demands, and limited gene flow) strongly
constrain the giraffe's ability to evolutionarily respond to the
rapidly changing conditions associated with human population growth and
climate change. Similarly, the species' ability to shift its range in
response to changing environmental conditions is highly unlikely. There
are limited options for reticulated giraffes to avoid the risks
associated with habitat loss, poaching, and threats associated with
rapidly increasing human populations and climate change.
Future Condition of Reticulated Giraffe
We now describe our analysis of the future conditions of the
reticulated giraffe, considering how the past and current influences,
and any additional influences, will act on the species into the future.
We developed two future condition scenarios for the reticulated
giraffe to capture the plausible range of uncertainties regarding
threats, and we projected responses by the reticulated giraffe to those
threats. We projected a lower scenario and upper scenario with habitat
conditions based on historical rates of forest loss, projected human
population increases in east Africa, and lower bound (SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5)
and upper bound (SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5) climate change scenarios as described
below. In one scenario, we assume that poaching will remain similar to
current conditions and anti-poaching efforts continue, while in the
other, we assume an increase in poaching. We also assume civil unrest
will continue under both scenarios (Service 2024b, p. 47). When
possible, we report the magnitude of change under a lower bound climate
change scenario (SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5) and an upper bound climate change
scenario (SSP5-8.5/RCP8.5) at different time steps in the future. In
cases where studies report only a single time step (end of century), a
single scenario, or a specific temperature increase (e.g., 1.5 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C)), we provide a qualitative description of expected
change into the future.
The ongoing threats associated with habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation are ongoing and projected to escalate because of
projected human population growth and the effects of climate change.
Changes to the reticulated giraffe's habitat condition were projected
as forest loss within the range of the species based on the historical
lowest and highest rates observed between 2000 and 2023. Forest loss,
while not a direct measure of impacts to giraffe habitat, can be
considered a reasonable surrogate for
[[Page 92548]]
changing habitat conditions for giraffes because giraffes always occur
near trees and/or bushes and rely on them for food.
Human population size in Kenya is projected to increase from 56
million in 2024 to 104 million people in 2100 (United Nations,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2024).
In Ethiopia, the population is projected to increase from 132 million
in 2024 to 367 million people in 2100 (United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2024).
Africa continues to be a hot spot for climate change (Nooni et al.
2021, p. 2). Temperature increases are expected to occur faster in
Africa than the global average, and many African countries are expected
to experience a large increase in the frequency of daily temperature
extremes sooner than other nations (Trisos et al. 2022, pp. 1320-1321).
There is high confidence that mean and maximum annual temperatures will
increase across the entire continent in the future (Trisos et al. 2022,
p. 1322). Surface temperatures are projected to continue to increase
across the range of the reticulated giraffe, with divergence among
future climate scenarios becoming discernible around mid-century
(WorldBank 2024, unpaginated). As temperature continues to rise,
drought extent, frequency, duration, and intensity increase as well.
For example, the current increasing trend in percent of area affected
by drought (extent) continues under both RCP4.5 and 8.5, and despite
high inter-annual variability, the signal of an increasing trend over
time is clear (Haile et al. 2020, p. 6). Additionally, drought duration
and intensity are projected to increase. Drought frequency is projected
to continually increase to the end of the century under RCP4.5 and 8.5,
with higher drought frequency under RCP8.5 (Haile et al. 2020, p. 14).
Drought duration is projected to increase from an average of 8 months
during the historical baseline (1981-2010), with a slight decrease to
4-7 months during the 2020 decade, to 10-32 months at mid-century and
29-108 months at late-century under RCP4.5 and 8.5, respectively
(Hailie et al. 2020, pp. 10, 12-13). The projected frequency, duration,
and intensity of drought events is variable across east Africa, with
drought trends within southeastern Ethiopia and Kenya projected lower
than elsewhere (Haile et al. 2020, p. 14). However, increasing drought
trends are still apparent in areas occupied by reticulated giraffes.
While droughts are projected to be more frequent, an increase in
extreme rainfall events is also expected to occur across most of the
continent (Trisos et al. 2022, p. 1320; Seneviratne et al. 2021, p.
1565).
Multiple agencies and conservation organizations are working to
reduce the threat to reticulated giraffes of poaching; however,
poaching will likely continue. With human population size and drought
projections, the human population will likely live under chronic and
increasing food insecurity. Therefore, we expect that under the lower
plausible scenario it is likely that current and ongoing conservation
efforts can maintain or somewhat reduce poaching levels, while the
upper scenario expectation is an increase in poaching rates due to the
expected human population and drought increases.
We do not attempt to project the prevalence or severity of future
occurrences of civil unrest; however, it is expected that civil unrest
will likely occur in the future. Climate-induced displacement is
widespread in Africa because poor conditions for agricultural and
pastoral livelihoods cause people to relocate in search of better
opportunities (Trisos et al. 2022, pp. 1350, 1360). Relatedly, the risk
of violent conflict increases because of reduced economic opportunities
caused by increased temperature and extreme weather events (Trisos et
al. 2022, p. 1394; Elias and Abdi 2010, pp. 4-20; Pica-Ciamarra et al.
2007, pp. 10-11).
We describe the future condition of the reticulated giraffe given
the plausible projections of threats described above. We summarize the
influences driving future conditions and the expected trends in
population abundance and range. The primary factors influencing the
viability of the reticulated giraffe (habitat changes and poaching) are
expected to continue with increasing magnitude.
Human population growth is projected to increase through 2060 under
the lower bound scenario, and through 2100 or later in the upper bound
scenario in Kenya, but the increase will be steady through 2100 under
both scenarios in Ethiopia. The projected changes in drought extent,
frequency, intensity, and duration, coupled with human population
growth, are likely to increasingly limit the sustainability of the
drought-coping strategies in Kenya's arid landscapes. Therefore, most
of the Kenyan populace is expected to live under chronic food shortages
(Huho and Mugalavai 2010, p. 70). Risks associated with food insecurity
lead to changing habitat conditions and human-wildlife conflicts,
including poaching and civil unrest; these risks are likely to increase
given continued human population growth and worsening climate
conditions and their impacts on livelihoods in the range of the
reticulated giraffe.
Human population growth and climate change will lead to further
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation through the loss of forest
and woody cover. Projecting this rate of loss into the future, there is
expected to be an additional 8 to 38 kha (1.9 to 8.9 percent) loss of
forest cover across the lower and upper bound scenarios. The continued
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation will result in further
reduced food quality and availability for reticulated giraffes, and
further restrict their movement patterns and ability to access
necessary resources. These reductions in food quality and need for
greater movement or larger home ranges reduce reproduction and survival
rates, especially in times of drought, which will increase in the
future.
Apart from Kenya, only a small population of reticulated giraffes
persists on the border of Kenya and Ethiopia in Borana National Park.
With increasing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, this
population is at increasing risk of extirpation in the future.
Therefore, it is likely the reticulated giraffe population will be
restricted to Kenya in the future. In Kenya, increasing habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation in the foreseeable future will likely
lead to a continued decrease in density of reticulated giraffe
populations and greater distances between them (Directorate of Resource
Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), cited in KWS 2018, p. 44; Service
2024b, p. 11).
We simulated future population trajectories based on the current
population size and upper and lower growth rate estimates for the
reticulated giraffe. We assessed the potential change in future
population size if historical trends and conditions continue unchanged.
On average, the population is projected to decline to less than 5
percent (across the two growth rate scenarios, mean = 1.3-4.1 percent,
95 percent confidence interval (CI) = 0.7-6.8 percent) of the
historical size by 2100 (Service 2024b, p. 49), or an estimated mean
population size of 624-1,459 (95 percent CI = 333-2,451) individuals.
The projections of giraffe populations are based on historical rates of
decline and do not incorporate the full range of biological complexity,
uncertainty, or anticipated increases in the magnitude of threats
facing reticulated giraffes in the future. Nevertheless, we anticipate
that the rate of decline in reticulated giraffe
[[Page 92549]]
populations will increase over time because the ongoing threats are
increasing in magnitude, with increasing human population growth and
climate change increasing the effects.
In summary, resiliency and redundancy for the reticulated giraffe
will be further reduced from historical conditions. The overall
population is projected to decline to less than 5 percent of its
historical size by the end of the century. The reason for the decline
of the reticulated giraffe population is primarily related to changing
habitat conditions and poaching; however, other threats affect giraffes
directly or compound the primary threats, which are expected to
increase in the future because of human population growth and the
effects of climate change, which will intensify. The magnitude of
influences is the same across the range of the reticulated giraffe, and
the species will have limited options to avoid the risks associated
with habitat loss, poaching, and threats associated with rapidly
increasing human populations and the effects of climate change.
Factors Influencing Masai Giraffe
Factors that affect the Masai giraffe across Kenya, Tanzania,
Zambia, and Rwanda are generally similar in each country with
differences in magnitude. The Masai giraffe faces minimal threats from
poaching in Rwanda given its habitat is fenced and protected there;
however, threats from climate change remain. In Kenya, Tanzania, and
Zambia, Masai giraffes face similar threats and benefit from
conservation efforts and regulatory measures to protect giraffes.
However, populations in Zambia and Rwanda experience fewer impacts from
changing habitat conditions and poaching. The threats to the Masai
giraffe affect the species' habitat condition. resulting in habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and affect the magnitude of
poaching, but other threats, such as negative genetic effects from
population bottleneck events, affect giraffes directly or compound the
primary threats to Masai giraffes. The primary threats to the Masai
giraffe are exacerbated by rapid human population growth and effects
from climate change. We also considered the potential threats of
predation, hunting, and disease, and while individuals may be affected
by these threats, the best available information does not indicate
population-level or species-level effects.
Changing Habitat Conditions
The sources of the changing habitat conditions (habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation) in east Africa, including Kenya,
Tanzania, and Zambia, are conversion of natural habitats and natural
vegetation to croplands and rangelands, urbanization, deforestation,
production of fuelwood, and climate change. Converting natural habitats
results in habitat loss and degradation of natural vegetation;
fragmentation of the giraffe's range, which has historically been a
more open landscape of suitable habitat for Masai giraffes; and
increased risk of human-wildlife conflict, including poaching. Changing
habitat conditions affect giraffes directly or indirectly through
reduced food availability and reduced or obstructed movements to find
necessary resources, which negatively affect survival and recruitment.
These changes also result in increased risk of effects from human
conflict (e.g., war) and human-wildlife conflict (e.g., retaliation and
poaching). Because Masai giraffes overlap with humans and domesticated
livestock, they rely on the same natural resources. Human-wildlife
conflicts occur when wildlife and humans compete for the same resources
(UWA 2018, p. 49). Additionally, giraffes have been known to feed on
cash crops (such as mangoes), causing economic losses for farmers and
exacerbating conflict between humans and wildlife in Kenya (Ali et al.
2023, p. 175).
The agricultural sector employs more than 40 percent of the total
population and more than 70 percent of Kenya's rural population (FAO
2024a, unpaginated). The rural population accounts for 71.5 percent of
Kenya's population, increasing from 19.5 to 39.2 million people, or by
approximately 100 percent, between 1990 and 2020 (FAOSTAT 2024a,
unpaginated). More than 80 percent of the population in Tanzania is
employed in agriculture, and 64 percent of the population is rural,
which has increased from 20.6 to 41.4 million people between 1990 and
2020 (FAOSTAT 2024b, unpaginated). Almost 72 percent of the Zambian
population is engaged in agricultural activities (FAO 2024b,
unpaginated). Rwanda's economy remains predominantly dependent on
agriculture, with 69 percent of rural households involved in small-
scale farming on limited land.
Deforestation and loss of woody cover with increases in cropland
and settlements is ongoing within the range of the Masai giraffe
(Bullock et al. 2021, pp. 6-8). As mentioned above, this trend is
emblematic of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole: growing demand for food is
forcing agricultural expansion in historically less developed savannas
and woodlands (Bullock et al. 2021, p. 12).
In western Kenya (just west of the Masai giraffe's range),
landcover changes within the Migori River watershed over the past 40
years (1980 to 2020) occurred with decreases in shrub land (40.6
percent), grassland (84.9 percent), forests (52.9 percent), water (82
percent), and wetland (38.4 percent) at the same time as increases
occurred in cultivated land (34.3 percent), bare land (132.3 percent),
and built-up area (461.2 percent) (Opiyo et al. 2022, pp. 223-224,
229). In southeastern Kenya, between 1985 and 2020 in the Tsavo
landscape, Acacia woodland decreased by an average of 44 percent, with
increases of settlement areas (55.6 percent), bare land (43.2 percent),
and agricultural lands (35 percent) (Kabue 2021, p. 31). These land-use
cover changes correspond to declining Masai giraffe populations in the
same region (Kabue 2021, p. 41). One region with extensive woody cover
loss in Kenya during this time (2002-2012) was near Tsavo East National
Park and was mainly due to agricultural expansion (Abera et al. 2022,
p. 8). In addition, between 1977 and 2016, Masai giraffes in southern
Kenya decreased by 64 percent concurrent with an increase in numbers of
domesticated livestock (sheep, goats, and camels) (Ogutu et al. 2016,
pp. 10-14).
The landcover changes and uses in Tanzania are similar to those in
Kenya. Agriculture is the backbone of the Tanzanian economy, and
national campaigns have often involved promoting rural agricultural
activities to improve incomes and standards of living (Noe 2003, p.
18). Additionally, Masai pastoralists traditionally have depended on
livestock production, a type of agricultural practice that coexisted
with wildlife. However, these pastoral areas are gradually shifting
away from exclusive pastoralism towards both subsistence and commercial
agriculture (Kiffner et al. 2015, p. 2; Noe 2003, p. 15). The growth in
the agricultural sector from 2008 to 2014 was a result of increasing
the land area under cultivation, from 8.3 million ha in 2008 to 13
million ha in 2014, representing a 9 percent annual growth rate
(Wineman et al. 2020, p. 697).
Pastoralists and farmers in Tanzania have a long history of
conflict over land and resources (Benjaminsen et al. 2009, pp. 436-438;
Gwaleba and Silayo 2019, p. 2). Conflicts between farmers and
pastoralists are most noticeable during drought seasons when resources
are
[[Page 92550]]
limited (Mwalimu and Matimbwa 2019, p. 27). Because agriculture is the
driver of the Tanzanian economy, the exclusion of pastoralists from
their traditional grazing lands to expand agricultural lands has
spurred conflicts with farming communities (Mwamfupe 2015, p. 1;
Benjaminsen et al. 2009, p. 436). Traditionally, land use conflicts
were on the margins between pastoral land and national parks. In recent
decades, conflicts have increased in magnitude and spread southward and
eastward (Mwamfupe 2015, p. 2). Civil unrest is a significant concern
in Kenya and Tanzania, with current U.S. State Department travel
advisories due to
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 21, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.