In brief
The University of Melbourne's latest research indicates that 107,356 species—more than double previous estimates—are traded worldwide, encompassing timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, flowers, ornamental fish and fungi. With little information on quantities, origins or population status, the study calls for standardized global data collection to enable proper assessment of sustainability and impacts. The findings cast new light on the extent of wildlife trade and the institutional gaps that allow it to continue largely unregulated.
On October 31, a new research paper from the University of Melbourne revealed that more than 107,000 species are being traded worldwide, a figure that more than doubles earlier estimates of roughly 50,000.
The study, published in Science Advances and led by Professor Alice Hughes of the university’s School of BioSciences, catalogued 107,356 species across plants, animals and fungi that appear in the global trade network. It 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.
Data Gaps Reveal a Blind Spot in Global Trade Monitoring
Professor Hughes highlighted that for most of these traded species the scientific community has "little to no data," and 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 said.
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 existing global biodiversity framework’s trade target covers only about 2 to 3 percent of species in trade, missing the remaining 97 percent. This discrepancy underscores a major gap in the international community’s ability to track and regulate wildlife trade.
The researchers therefore called for standardized data collection and a more comprehensive, transparent, and globally coordinated reporting system. They suggested that existing customs and animal health inspection processes could be adapted to improve wildlife trade monitoring, thereby allowing for better assessment of sustainability and trade impacts.
From a civic perspective, the study implies that institutions responsible for trade regulation—such as national customs agencies, animal health inspectors, and international conservation bodies—must reassess their data collection protocols. The lack of quantifiable information hampers their capacity to enforce trade rules, protect endangered species, and ensure that legal trade does not compromise ecological balance.
Local economies, especially those in countries that export timber, seafood, and medicinal plants, stand to be affected as well. Without reliable data on trade routes, volumes, and source populations, policy makers cannot determine whether such exports are sustainable or if they contribute to the decline of local biodiversity.
At the policy level, the study challenges the adequacy of current international agreements such as CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Both frameworks rely on accurate data to set limits and monitor compliance. The new findings suggest that these frameworks need to incorporate more robust data collection mechanisms to close the 97 percent of species that remain untracked.
Public accountability also comes into focus. The study stresses that transparency in wildlife trade data is essential for civil society groups, journalists, and citizen scientists who want to hold governments and corporations responsible. The call for standardized data is not just an academic exercise; it is a civic demand for greater openness in trade practices that impact ecosystems, economies, and communities worldwide.
By highlighting the vast scale of legal trade and the significant information voids, the research signals that the true impact of wildlife trade might be far greater than currently understood. The resulting call to action for better data collection and monitoring sets a new agenda for governments, international bodies, and the global community to rethink how wildlife trade is regulated and assessed.
