In brief
A recent publication in *Science Advances* reveals that over 107,000 species are used and traded globally, double the earlier estimate of around 50,000. The study, led by Professor Alice Hughes, emphasizes large gaps in data on the quantity, provenance and population impact of traded species. Researchers call for unified data standards and more transparent, globally coordinated reporting to evaluate the sustainability of wildlife trade.
In a landmark paper published in *Science Advances* on October 31, researchers from the University of Melbourne announced that more than 107,000 distinct species are used and traded worldwide, a figure that more than doubles prior estimates. The study, led by Professor Alice Hughes of the School of BioSciences, compiled data from plants, animals and fungi to reach the conclusion that 107,356 species appear in trade records. This revelation underscores the vast scale of wildlife trade and highlights significant gaps in data that impede accurate assessment of its impacts.
Methodology and Data Sources
Professor Hughes explains that a “species” is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and that “wildlife trade” refers to the buying and selling of plants, animals, or fungi across legal and illegal channels. To quantify trade, the team accessed customs import‑export databases, international trade catalogs, and grey literature to identify traded taxa. They then cross‑referenced these records against conservation status databases to evaluate potential risks.
According to Hughes, “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.” She added that the current global biodiversity framework’s trade target covers only about 2 to 3 percent of species in trade, leaving a vast 97 percent unaccounted for.
Scope of the Trade Network
Beyond the widely publicised illegal trafficking of elephants, tigers and pangolins, the study found that trade extends to timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish, and fungi. The authors note that the majority of these transactions are legal and that the legal framework for their monitoring is uneven across countries. The research evidence shows that even legal trade can have significant ecological consequences when data on scale and source are absent.
Hughes remarked, “Wildlife trade extended 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 were legal.” Her analysis suggests that there is no single set of regulatory mechanisms that effectively capture trade volumes or environmental impacts for the large majority of species.
Implications for Conservation and Policy
The expanded inventory underscores the urgency for standardized data collection and more comprehensive, transparent global reporting. Hughes argued that existing customs and animal health inspection processes could be adapted to improve wildlife trade monitoring, allowing for better assessment of trade’s sustainability.
She highlighted that the lack of data hampers the capacity of conservation bodies to evaluate extinction risk. “Without reliable information on quantity, origins and population-level impacts, it is impossible to determine whether trade poses a threat to a species’ survival,” she said.
Conservation organizations, such as WWF, have expressed concern that the scale of trade may intensify the decline in wild populations. Dermot O’Gorman, CEO of World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, stated that “nature is under immense pressure. But there are also powerful reminders that the natural world can bounce back.” He cited the recovery of populations such as bluefin tuna, tigers, and southern African elephants as evidence that identified threats can be mitigated through targeted interventions.
The study’s findings call for a coordinated, science‑driven approach to wildlife trade management, combining rigorous data collection, cross‑border regulatory alignment, and proactive conservation actions. The authors assert that a unified framework would allow nations to align with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals regarding biodiversity maintenance and responsible consumption.
In sum, the University of Melbourne’s research provides a more complete picture of the breadth of global wildlife trade, revealing hidden layers of economic activity that have long evaded comprehensive scrutiny. By spotlighting critical data deficiencies, it sets the stage for future policy reforms aimed at safeguarding biodiversity at an unprecedented scale.