In brief
The new research, released by Xinhua on 31 October 2026, shows that the number of species involved in international trade has more than doubled previous estimates, covering plants, animals and fungi. The findings point to significant gaps in data on quantities and origins and call for standardized, globally coordinated reporting systems. Existing customs and animal‑health inspection processes could be leveraged to raise transparency and better assess sustainability.
On 31 October 2026, Xinhua reported that a University of Melbourne study found more than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide, more than twice the earlier estimate of about 50,000 species.
The research, published in Science Advances, tallied 107,356 species across plants, animals and fungi, revealing that illegal trade involving elephants, tigers and pangolins represents only a small fraction of the broader, largely legal wildlife trade market.
Beyond the headline species, the study identified timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish and fungi as common trade items, illustrating the wide spectrum of legal and illegal trade activities that influence biodiversity loss worldwide.
"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," said lead researcher Professor Alice Hughes of University of Melbourne's School of BioSciences.
"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, adding that the global biodiversity framework’s existing trade target covered only about 2 to 3 percent of species in trade, missing the remaining 97 percent.
Hughes highlighted that the 2–3 percent that are tracked fall under the global biodiversity framework’s trade targets, leaving the vast majority of traded species without any monitoring of their population status or conservation impact.
The authors called for the development of a standardized system for data collection, arguing that more comprehensive, transparent and globally coordinated reporting is essential to assess trading sustainability and its ecological consequences.
They suggested that existing customs and animal‑health inspection processes could be adapted or expanded to capture the missing trade data, enabling authorities to evaluate quantity, country of origin and species status more reliably.
By implementing such measures, the study proposes that policymakers could better gauge the supply and demand dynamics of the wildlife trade, creating stronger evidence for regulatory decisions and conservation interventions.
The findings have significant implications for global conservation strategies, as the lack of data hampers the ability of governments and international bodies to enforce existing agreements and to formulate policies that reconcile trade with species survival.
Future research will need to focus on filling data gaps at the species level, improving traceability, and aligning national reporting mechanisms with international standards to protect biodiversity while maintaining legal trade flows.
