In brief
The University of Melbourne released a study in Science Advances showing that 107,356 species – more than twice the previous estimate of 50,000 – are used in global wildlife trade. The research, led by Professor Alice Hughes, emphasizes the scarcity of data on trade volumes and origins, and calls for coordinated, transparent data collection through existing customs and animal‑health inspection systems.
A new study by the University of Melbourne has revealed that 107,356 species, including plants, animals and fungi, are used and traded worldwide, more than twice the 50,000 species previously estimated. The research, published in the journal Science Advances, warns that the true scale of the trade may be even greater due to major gaps in global monitoring data.
The study was led by Professor Alice Hughes of the university’s School of BioSciences. In a statement released on Saturday, she noted that wildlife trade "extends far beyond the illegal trade of elephants, tigers and pangolins, encompassing timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish and fungi, most of which are legal."
The scale of the trade
According to Hughes, the research identified 107,356 distinct species traded, compared with earlier estimates of about 50,000. The majority of those species fall outside the well‑known illegal trade categories, and the figure includes a wide array of legal products that currently lack comprehensive tracking.
For most of these species we have little to no data. There is no data on quantity and origins, let alone the population level data to assess if trade poses a risk to species survival.
Hughes added that the existing biodiversity framework’s trade target covers only about two to three percent of species in trade, leaving the remaining 97 percent unaccounted for. She emphasized that the lack of data makes it difficult to determine which species are being harvested at sustainable levels and which face the threat of overexploitation.
Implications and calls for change
The study’s findings highlight the fragmented nature of current monitoring systems. Hughes called for the establishment of standardized data collection and more comprehensive, transparent, and globally coordinated reporting. She suggested that existing customs and animal‑health inspection processes could be adapted to improve wildlife trade monitoring.
“We need a global system that records not just the species being exchanged, but also the quantity, origin, and destination of each item to better assess its impact on wild populations,” Hughes said. “Without that information, conservation measures are less effective and the trade’s true environmental cost remains hidden.”
The research underscores that a more than twofold increase in the number of traded species represents a significant escalation in the pressures on global biodiversity. While the study does not focus on specific indigenous communities, its emphasis on data gaps and the need for holistic monitoring resonates with broader efforts to protect ecological wealth that underpins native cultures worldwide.
By rallying for improved data transparency and cooperative oversight, the study seeks to fill critical blind spots in the global wildlife trade system, a step that could help safeguard species and the ecosystems that support them for future generations.
