Global wildlife trade involves more than 100,000 species, new study reveals

Researchers have produced the first comprehensive estimate of the global wildlife trade, revealing that more than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide, more than double previous estimates. 

The research, published in Science Advances, highlights major gaps in the data used to monitor wildlife trade and raises concerns that the true scale of the trade may be even larger than current estimates suggest. 

The international study, co-authored by Dr Samuel Pironon from Queen Mary University of London, found that approximately 107,356 species are currently used and traded globally, including up to 47,685 animal species. The findings suggest that around 42% of all described vertebrate species are involved in trade. 

Wildlife trade is widely recognised as one of the leading threats to biodiversity and species survival. However, understanding its full scale has remained challenging due to fragmented and inconsistent data collection across different species groups and regions. 

The new analysis provides the most comprehensive picture to date of wildlife trade across plants, animals and fungi. It also demonstrates that previous global estimates have significantly underestimated the number of species involved. 

The researchers found that data collection remains heavily concentrated in a small number of sectors and regulatory frameworks. While international agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and fisheries monitoring systems provide valuable information, large gaps remain for many traded species. 

More than a quarter of animal species identified in the study were only recorded through datasets specific to trade entering the United States, highlighting the lack of equivalent monitoring systems in many other regions. As a result, the authors suggest that the estimate of 107,356 traded species is likely to be conservative. 

Dr Samuel Pironon, Lecturer in Conservation Biology at Queen Mary University of London and co-author of the study, said: 

"Our findings show that the scale of wildlife trade is far greater than previously recognised. Yet despite its importance for biodiversity conservation, we still lack comprehensive and comparable data for the vast majority of species being traded around the world. 

"Without better information on which species are in trade, in what quantities, and whether they originate from wild populations or captive breeding programmes, it is extremely difficult to assess whether trade is sustainable. 

"Improving the monitoring of wildlife trade must become an international priority if we are serious about meeting global biodiversity targets and protecting species from overexploitation." 

The study also challenges common perceptions of wildlife trade, which often focus on high-profile examples of illegal trafficking involving species such as elephants, tigers and pangolins. The researchers note that legal wildlife trade is estimated to be worth approximately ten times more than illegal trade, yet remains poorly monitored across many taxonomic groups. 

The authors argue that current global biodiversity indicators fail to capture the true extent of wildlife trade. The primary indicator used within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework focuses on sustainably managed fish stocks, which represent only a small fraction of all traded species. 

With governments set to continue discussions on biodiversity monitoring and conservation targets through international biodiversity agreements, the researchers say there is an urgent need for countries to develop more comprehensive and standardised systems for tracking wildlife trade. 

Better data, they argue, will be essential for assessing sustainability, strengthening conservation efforts and reducing one of the most significant pressures facing wildlife populations worldwide. 

 

Publication:

The true scale of global wildlife trade is obscured by data gaps 

Published in Science Advances 

DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aei3504