Global wildlife trade twice previous estimates, but major data gaps suggest true scale is even larger  

Published today in Science Advances and led by the University of Melbourne, the study provides the first comprehensive estimate of species used and traded across plants, animals and fungi. 

Previous estimates calculated around 50,000 species were in trade worldwide. However, new analysis which bought together cross-sectorial data on wildlife trade monitoring programs found at least double that, with 107,356 species in use and traded globally.  

Lead researcher, University of Melbourne Professor Alice Hughes from the School of BioSciences said despite wildlife trade being a well-established driver of biodiversity loss, information on the extent and sustainability of trade remains incomplete and highly fragmented. 

“When we think of wildlife trade we tend to think about the illegal trade of elephants, tigers and pangolins. But it's much more than that,” Professor Hughes said. 

“Wildlife trade includes everything from timber, seafood and medicinal plants to pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish and fungi, and most of it is legal. 

“Not only is legal trade worth an approximately 10 times more than illegal trade, our analysis suggests at least twice as many species are in trade as previously recognised. 

"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. 

“Without better data, we cannot accurately assess risks to biodiversity or identify when trade is pushing species towards decline.” 

Professor Hughes said the findings expose major gaps in the global wildlife trade monitoring system and underscore the need for a step change in how trade is recorded and reported. 

“The United States is the only country that systematically records and publicly shares trade data across a wide range of taxa. For much of the rest of the world, equivalent data simply does not exist,” Professor Hughes said. 

“For some groups, 75 per cent of traded species appear in US datasets. Yet for regions like Europe, trade may be comparable or even higher.  

The problem is we really don’t know because the data isn’t openly available and may not use sufficient standards to assess the true dimensions of trade.” 

The researchers say it’s essential the global monitoring system is improved to close persistent knowledge gaps.  

“While the global biodiversity framework does have a target on trade, based on our estimates it only accounts for around two or three per cent of species in trade and misses the other 97 per cent,” Professor Hughes said.  

“To change the current situation, we need to standardise the collation of data on trade. At present, data is largely limited to a small number of data and this lack of systematisation of data collection precludes assessments of sustainability; or our ability to manage the impacts of trade.  

“If countries repurposed existing customs and zoosanitary processes we could develop a robust system to monitor trade, but this will require further engagement to implement at scale. 

“If we are serious about halting biodiversity loss, we need far more comprehensive, transparent and globally coordinated reporting of wildlife trade.”