In brief
The University of Melbourne’s research documents 107,356 species—plants, animals, and fungi—in the global wildlife trade, surpassing earlier estimates of about 50,000. The study stresses that most trades are legal, but data on quantity and origins are missing, and it urges standardized, transparent data collection. It outlines how the current global biodiversity framework covers only a small fraction of species in trade.
On 31 October 2026, Xinhua reported that a new study by the University of Melbourne revealed more than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide—over twice the size of prior estimates—which it cited as a warning that the true scale could be even larger due to gaps in global monitoring data.
The research, published in the journal Science Advances, identified 107,356 species in trade across plants, animals and fungi. The findings contrast sharply with earlier estimates that placed the number of traded species at roughly 50,000.
The study noted that wildlife trade encompasses far more than the high‑profile illegal trade of elephants, tigers and pangolins. In fact, the traded species include timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish and fungi—all largely legal trade, according to the researchers.
Lead researcher Professor Alice Hughes of the University of Melbourne’s School of BioSciences emphasized the data deficiencies:
"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 said.
Professor Hughes also highlighted 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. She argued that customs and animal‑health inspection processes could be adapted for better wildlife trade monitoring and called for standardized data collection and a more comprehensive, transparent reporting system.
While the study underscores that a large portion of trade is legal, it points out that the lack of data on volumes, origins and population impacts makes it difficult to gauge whether trade is sustainable. The research suggests that comprehensive and globally coordinated reporting would help evaluate the true environmental footprint of wildlife trade.
In related environmental reporting, a separate news hub article highlighted a 73 percent decline in global wildlife populations over 52 years, citing the Living Planet Report 2026. The report noted that habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change and other systemic factors are contributing to species decline, though it also mentioned recoveries in species such as bluefin tuna and southern African elephants. While distinct from the trade‑study, the population data adds urgency to the call for improved monitoring of wildlife use and trade.
