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

Overexploitation of wildlife is one of the greatest global drivers of biodiversity loss. Yet, despite this well-established risk, data on extraction and trade are both incomplete and highly fragmented. The IPBES Global analysis estimated 50,000 species to be in trade, yet our review of wildlife trade monitoring programs found at least double that, at 107,356 species in use and trade globally. This included up to 47,685 animal species, covering 42% of all described vertebrate species. Most countries lack any systematic data on trade for species not listed in Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with the exception of the US-specific dataset Law Enforcement Management Information System, which frequently had higher diversity of species in trade than global databases. This highlights the importance of national monitoring efforts and the need for standardized collation of wildlife trade data beyond CITES-listed species. Without these changes, global indicators on trade meant to guide sustainability and conservation will continue to focus on less than 2% of traded species.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science Advances
Published
2026-10-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aei3504
Primary Topic
Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Julie L. Lockwood, Michael F. Tlusty, Vincent Nijman, Kim Jerome Friedman et al.
2 links
Science Advances
Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
article

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

Julie L. Lockwood, Michael F. Tlusty, Vincent Nijman, Kim Jerome Friedman, Kelly Malsch, Caroline Sayuri Fukushima, Nazlı Demirel, Oliver Tallowin, Daniel W. S. Challender, Rodrigo Oyanedel, David P. Edwards, Shai Meiri, Rishi Sharma, Molly R. C. Brown, Oscar Morton, Sharon Baruch‐Mordo, Amy Hinsley, Samuel Pironon, Evan A. Eskew, Benjamin Michael Marshall, Alice Catherine Hughes, Alyson T. Pavitt, Neil D. Burgess, Jacqueline Jürgens
article en

Abstract

Overexploitation of wildlife is one of the greatest global drivers of biodiversity loss. Yet, despite this well-established risk, data on extraction and trade are both incomplete and highly fragmented. The IPBES Global analysis estimated 50,000 species to be in trade, yet our review of wildlife trade monitoring programs found at least double that, at 107,356 species in use and trade globally. This included up to 47,685 animal species, covering 42% of all described vertebrate species. Most countries lack any systematic data on trade for species not listed in Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with the exception of the US-specific dataset Law Enforcement Management Information System, which frequently had higher diversity of species in trade than global databases. This highlights the importance of national monitoring efforts and the need for standardized collation of wildlife trade data beyond CITES-listed species. Without these changes, global indicators on trade meant to guide sustainability and conservation will continue to focus on less than 2% of traded species.

Science AdvancesVol. 12(44)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), University of Copenhagen (DK), Oxford Brookes University (GB), The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (IT), University of Lisbon (PT), University of Idaho (US), University of Turku (FI), UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (GB), The University of Melbourne (AU), Queen Mary University of London (GB), The University of Western Australia (AU), University of Cambridge (GB), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (GB), Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (DE), University of Massachusetts Boston (US), University of Oxford (GB), International Union for Conservation of Nature (United Kingdom) (GB), Wildlife Conservation Society United Kingdom (GB), Oceans Institute (AU), Istanbul University (TR), University of Glasgow (GB), Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GB), University of Sheffield (GB)
HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Life on land
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon