Global wildlife trade involves more than double the number of species previously estimated
More than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide, over double previous estimates, according to new research that suggests the true scale could be far greater due to major gaps in trade data
- Researchers from the University of Sheffield and the University of Melbourne have found that more than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide, more than double previous estimates
- Bringing together cross-sector data from national and international wildlife trade monitoring programs, the study found major gaps in information on the quality, origin and population level of species, suggesting the true scale could be far greater
- Overexploitation is one of the greatest threats to species survival, yet our understanding of the extent and sustainability of trade remains incomplete and fragmented, making it difficult to assess the risk to species survival
- Beyond the illegal trade of tigers and elephants, wildlife trade includes seafood, timber, medicinal plants, and pets. Most of which is legal and worth 10 times more than illegal trade
More than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide, over double previous estimates, according to new research that suggests the true scale could be far greater due to major gaps in trade data.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) previously estimated that around 50,000 species were in trade. But a large-scale analysis of wildlife trade monitoring programmes by over 20 researchers, including from the University of Sheffield and the University of Melbourne, found that at least 107,356 species are used and traded globally. This includes 47,685 animal species, comprising 42% of all described vertebrate species.
Bringing together patchy, incomplete data from across sectors, the study found that few programmes systematically record or monitor wildlife trade outside major conventions such as CITES (the main international treaty aiming to protect endangered species from unsustainable trade) and specific sectors such as fisheries. Even fewer collect key data like species origin (wild or captive bred) or make any assessment of the sustainability of use.
Wildlife trade is far broader than the illegal trade in tigers and elephants that many people picture. It encompasses everything from seafood and medicinal plants to timber and pets, and most of it is legal and worth approximately 10 times more than illegal trade
Co-author Dr Oscar Morton, Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow in the University of Sheffield’s School of Biosciences, said: “Overexploitation of wildlife is one of the greatest threats to species survival. Yet, despite this well-established risk, data on extraction and trade are both incomplete and highly fragmented.
“Even for the legal trade in wildlife, beyond a narrow subset of species groups, we have a woefully narrow understanding of what animals are sought after, in what volumes, and where they are coming from.”
Lead researcher Professor Alice Hughes, from the University of Melbourne’s School of BioSciences, said the United States is the only country that systematically records and publicly shares trade data across a wide range of species.
She said: “For much of the rest of the world, equivalent data simply does not exist. 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 are calling for trade data collection to be standardised and more widely adopted, warning that the current lack of systematic recording prevents assessments of sustainability and limits the ability to manage trade’s impacts.
Dr Morton added: “Governments have a real opportunity to take the lead nationally to drastically improve how trade is monitored and measured. Standardising how we collect data would give us the evidence we need to manage trade sustainably. Without collective action, unsustainable exploitation will remain one of the greatest and most neglected threats to species survival.”
The research was shaped by individual expertise, while benefiting from collaboration across teams and partners.
Read the article in full here: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aei3504
