More Than 107,000 Species Are Traded Worldwide — Twice as Many as We Thought

For years, the standard answer to a simple question — how many species does the world actually trade? — was about 50,000. A new study published in Science Advances on 30 October 2026 says that answer was wrong by more than half. The real figure, researchers say, is at least 107,356 species of plants, animals and fungi used and traded around the world, and even that number is probably too low.

That is not a small correction. If we have counted only half the species involved, we have underestimated the pressure on nature — and overestimated how well our safeguards work.

Led by Professor Alice Hughes of the University of Melbourne, the study is the first comprehensive count across all groups of life, pulling together monitoring data from timber and seafood to pets, flowers and fungi. The result is a trade far bigger, broader and less watched than most people realise.

The headline number — and why it matters

The previous estimate of around 50,000 traded species came from patchy, sector-by-sector counts. Nobody had put the pieces together in one place. The new study did, and found 107,356 species in use and traded globally. That is more than double the old figure.

Why does the count matter? You cannot protect what you do not measure. Trade is a well-established driver of biodiversity loss, yet for most traded species we have almost no data — not on quantities, origins, or whether wild populations can sustain the harvest.

"Without better data, we cannot accurately assess risks to biodiversity or identify when trade is pushing species toward decline," Hughes said. That sentence is the heart of the study. The problem is not only that trade is large; it is that for most of it, we are flying blind.

This matters against a grim background: according to the WWF Living Planet Report 2026, which found wildlife populations down 73% since 1970, with freshwater species hit hardest. Trade is not the only cause, but it is one pressure we could manage — if we knew what was being traded, and how much.

It is not just elephants, tigers and pangolins

When most people hear "wildlife trade", they picture the illegal trade in ivory, tiger parts or pangolin scales. Those crimes are real and serious. But the study makes a point that surprises many readers: most wildlife trade is legal, and most of it has nothing to do with those famous animals.

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

Legal trade is worth approximately ten times as much as illegal trade. Wooden furniture, fish on a dinner plate, garden-centre orchids, herbal ingredients, aquarium fish — all of that is wildlife trade in the broad sense. Much of it is sustainable. Some is not, and without data, telling the difference is hard.

This is why the old picture misled. By focusing on a few high-profile animals, debate missed the vast, mostly legal trade in plants, fungi and less famous animals. A timber species logged faster than it regrows, a medicinal plant stripped from a hillside, an ornamental fish taken from a reef — none makes headlines like a seized ivory shipment, but together they add enormous pressure on ecosystems.

The data gap: only one country keeps proper records

Perhaps the most striking finding is not the number itself, but how uneven the evidence behind it is. The United States, the researchers say, is the only country that systematically records and publicly shares trade data across a wide range of species groups. For much of the rest of the world, equivalent data simply does not exist in open, comparable form.

For some groups, about 75% of traded species appear in United States datasets — not because most trade passes through America, but because American records are often the only window we have. For Europe, trade may be comparable or higher, but as Hughes put it, "we really don't know because the data isn't openly available and may not use sufficient standards."

That gap has a direct consequence: the new figure of 107,356 is a floor, not a ceiling. The researchers are clear that the true scale is likely far greater, because major gaps in trade and wildlife-collection data hide species that are traded but never recorded in any dataset the team could use. In other words, doubling the old estimate may itself be an underestimate.

The gap also distorts policy. The global biodiversity framework agreed in 2022 — the Kunming-Montreal framework — does include a target on trade. But according to Hughes, based on the new estimates, that target accounts for only around 2% or 3% of species in trade, missing the other 97%. A rule that covers a tiny fraction of the problem cannot be presented as a solution to the whole problem.

What better monitoring would look like

The study does not just diagnose the problem; it points to a practical fix. Countries already collect large amounts of information at borders, through customs declarations and animal- and plant-health checks. If those existing processes were standardised — the same species names, the same units, the same reporting rules — they could become the backbone of a global wildlife-trade monitoring system.

"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," Hughes said. The word "repurposed" matters: this is not necessarily about building an entirely new bureaucracy, but about making the paperwork that already exists work harder and speak the same language across countries.

Standardisation would let scientists answer basic questions now unanswerable for most species: how many were traded last year, where from, and is that harvest sustainable? Regulators could then spot trouble early — a surge in trade in one species, for example — instead of discovering a collapse after the fact.

There is a health dimension too. A separate Science study from April 2026 found traded wild mammals about one and a half times more likely to share infectious agents with humans than non-traded species, gaining roughly one additional shared pathogen per decade in trade. The less we know about what moves around the world, the harder those risks are to manage.

Why this lands at a decisive moment for nature

The timing of the study is hard to ignore. It arrived in the final days of COP17, the United Nations biodiversity conference held in Yerevan, Armenia, from 19 to 30 October 2026 — the first formal check on the Kunming-Montreal framework and its promise to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, including protecting 30% of land and sea.

The news from that check has been sobering: fewer than half of the national targets assessed are on track. Ocean protection is running 265 years behind schedule on one conference analysis, while a UNEP report launched at COP17 on 29 October found restoration funding must more than quadruple, from $64 billion to $296 billion a year — an investment that could create up to 32 million jobs by 2030.

Against that background, the wildlife-trade study reads like a warning and an opportunity at once. A warning, because a framework cannot deliver on its promises if it only tracks a fraction of a major pressure on nature. An opportunity, because trade data is one of the few conservation problems with a concrete, affordable fix: standardise what countries already record, and publish it.

There are also signs that progress is possible when effort is focused. Amazon deforestation has fallen to a record low, showing that determined policy, enforcement and monitoring can bend a destructive trend. The lesson of that success is not that the job is done, but that measurable targets, backed by real data, make a difference. Wildlife trade needs the same treatment.

What this means for ordinary readers

The problem belongs mainly to governments and scientists, but trade touches everyday life, and a few habits help even if they cannot replace policy reform.

First, buy with questions, not just price tags. For timber products, look for credible certification. For pets and ornamental plants, ask whether a species was captive-bred or nursery-grown rather than wild-caught, and be wary of rare species sold without paperwork. For seafood, choose options covered by a recognised sustainability guide where one exists.

Second, treat rarity as a warning sign, not a selling point. A species marketed as rare or exotic is often rare because trade and habitat loss have already reduced it, and social media has expanded the exotic-pet trade to animals that are difficult to keep well at home.

Third, support transparency. The study does not call for banning all trade — much of it is legal, livelihood-supporting and sustainable — but for open, standardised reporting that separates sustainable trade from harmful trade. Asking where a product came from reinforces exactly that demand.

None of this replaces proper national reporting, but the study's message is not only for negotiators in Yerevan. It is for anyone who buys, sells or cares about the living world.

The bottom line

The old estimate said about 50,000 species were traded. The new study says at least 107,356 — and the true number is probably higher still. Most of that trade is legal. Most of it is barely recorded. And the rules meant to keep it sustainable cover only a small fraction of it.

That is sobering, but also a clearer starting point: a comprehensive count, a named data gap, and a practical proposal — standardise customs and health-check records — for closing it. If governments act, the next count could be not just bigger but better: a number we can trust, tied to quantities, origins and population health.

Nature, as the COP17 talks have shown, is running out of time for vague promises. Counting what we trade, honestly and completely, is one of the simplest promises we can actually keep.

Source note: Alice Hughes et al., "The true scale of global wildlife trade is obscured by data gaps", Science Advances (published 30 October 2026, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aei3504), University of Melbourne-led; reported by Phys.org and Scimex, 30–31 October 2026. Context: UN News on COP17, 17 and 29 October 2026; UNEP ecosystem restoration report launched at COP17, 29 October 2026; Gippet et al., Science, 9 April 2026 (wildlife trade and pathogen sharing).