To the relief of many raptor conservationists, a proposal to downlist the Peregrine Falcon from Appendix 1 to Appendix II of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), which would allow the capture and trade of wild Peregrines) has been thwarted at the 20th Conference of the Parties on CITES (CoP20), currently taking place in Uzbekistan.
Peregrines have been listed as an endangered species on CITES Appendix 1 since 1975, prohibiting international trade of this species, following the catastrophic effect of pesticides on Peregrine populations globally.
Since then, many populations have ‘recovered’ after significant conservation effort over many decades, although recent declines of ‘recovered’ populations are reported in a number of countries, and the species’ status is still poorly understood in many other countries.
Canada and the USA proposed downlisting the Peregrine from Appendix to 1 to Appendix II to allow capture of wild Peregrines and international trade to meet demands for falconry. Here’s a copy of the proposal to the CITES Conference of Parties:
However, a large number of raptor biologists and conservationists from around the world, many of them specialising in Peregrine research, opposed the proposal and warned of the high risk to some populations.
This excellent paper published recently in the scientific journal Animal Conservation explains those concerns:
A vote on the downlisting proposal took place at the CITES Conference yesterday (3 Dec 2025) and did not receive sufficient support to pass and the proposal was rejected.
Here is a note of what happened, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in its Earth Negotiations Bulletin as part of its daily CITES Conference reporting:
This is good news for Peregrines globally, but I haven’t seen, nor do I understand, the UK’s rationale for supporting the proposal. If any blog readers have information about that, it’d be interesting to read.
Even if the proposal had been agreed at an international scale, national governments would still retain responsibility for regulating ‘wild take’ in their own countries.
You may remember in March this year, Defra endorsed Natural England’s recommendations for a presumption AGAINST the issuing of licences for taking wild birds of prey for falconry (see here).
The theft of wild Peregrines in the UK for trade continues to be a problem. Recent prosecutions include the conviction of two men found guilty of laundering wild Peregrines stolen from nest sites across south Scotland (see here) and an ongoing prosecution of a man in Worcestershire accused of 21 charges relating to the possession and trade of wild Peregrines (here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
“This is good news for Peregrines globally, but I haven’t seen, nor do I understand, the UK’s rationale for supporting the proposal.”
Me too!
Google tells me this:
“The UK is represented by a delegation from several government and scientific bodies at the 20th Conference of the Parties (CoP20) on CITES, rather than a single individual.
The delegation includes experts from:
Members of Parliament (MPs) from different parties also form part of the broader UK presence, with a specific delegation to CoP30 also noted.
CITES CoP20 is being held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from November 24 to December 5, 2025. “
https://www.facebook.com/JNCCUK/posts/jncc-experts-are-proud-to-support-the-uk-delegation-at-cites-cop20-pictured-are-/1150145257330200/
I see that, according to the proposers, the United Kingdom exported 2031 Peregine Falcons to Saudi Arabia between 2015 and 2024 – the third highest exporter in the world – whilst importing 427 from Poland:-( The UK also has a CITES-registered captive breeding programme.
The RSPB report about 1500 breeding pairs in the wild in UK today. The BTO say the Peregrine has declined by 48% from 1995 to 2023, but their most recent data is 1768 pairs in just 2014.
The proposers even mention HPAI as a threat:
“At a global scale, Peregrine Falcon populations are considered secure” but, are they?
“The latest (i.e., 2020–2023) highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5 virus has recently caused repeated
mass mortality events among wild birds and infection has been detrimental for a variety of bird species,
including the Peregrine Falcon (Couty et al. 2025; EFSA et al. 2023). The number of wintering and breeding
Peregrine Falcons in the Netherlands for example has recently declined (Caliendo et al. 2024). The World
Animal Health Information System has reported 392 Peregrine Falcons infected by avian flu from 2017 to
June 2025. By region, most of these infected falcons were found in Europe with 236 cases and in North
America with 110 cases. Asia declared 37 cases, Central and South America and the Caribbean had 7 cases
and only 2 cases were reported in Africa.”
Yet they wanted to start up capturing wild birds for trade?
There is a local study on the effects of HPAI on Peregrines:
https://www.bto.org/potential-effects-hpai-occupancy-rates-breeding-success-age-and-turnover-breeding-peregrine-falcons
The Telegraph report ‘plummeting’ numbers of UK Peregrine Falcons:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/23/peregrine-falcon-numbers-plummet-rewilding-drive/
The vote, itself, was secret, so we may never find who and why the “UK and others supported the proposal”. On the other hand, all may be revealed when the official reports and documents are published?
https://cites.org/eng/cop/20/amendment-proposals
The UK response to this proposal in 2017 was equivocal:
“D. Effectiveness of legislation and management measures
Key traders provided information concerning effectiveness of legislation in controlling legal trade and illegal
trade, and species management such as population monitoring. This information was used to support
development of sections 7 and 8 of CoP17 Prop. 17.
United Kingdom
Illegal trade in CITES listed raptors is currently a UK enforcement priority and a down-listing to Appendix II would not have an effect on this process in itself (J. E. Malpass, Policy Officer, in litt. to ECCC, Dec. 23, 2015).”
https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/InfDocs/E-CoP17-Inf-5.pdf
I note that it was the USA and Canada that applied for the lifting. I am not too confident that the current USA administration will not except themselves from CITES.