Consider the world’s whales. Only 25 years ago, most whale species were in crisis. Now, 70 of the 75 species of marine cetacean (whales, dolphins, porpoise) are no longer endangered. The whale has been saved. Only a very few, such as the blue and humpback, now require continued total protection from hunting.

Now, as we adapt to these achievements, we may need to look again at the institutions that regulate the environment on our behalf and how they are run. By insisting on maintaining total protection for a few saved and abundant species, governments and environmental organizations actually do conservation a disservice. Such an approach puts at risk the international cooperation necessary to establish appropriate levels of protection for all species. The next environmental challenge could be that of protecting the international environmental institutions themselves.

To save species from extinction we must be honest about what species are genuinely at risk and really need total protection. If species are no longer endangered, we can chalk it up in the win column, remove the endangered label and ensure any subsequent human dealings with it are carried out in a carefully managed and sustainable way.

Such honesty presents a new challenge because many people have a favorite species. The whale might be one. Preventing hunting of a few thousand of the world’s million or so minke whales, however, is not at all important for global species conservation. Total protection of minke whales is not merited by their real abundance.

Many other animal species are genuinely at risk. A system of protection that seems increasingly corrupted by arbitrary and unscientific preferences, however, only endangers them more.

Conservation requires honesty because it relies on cooperation and goodwill. Honesty, therefore, provides the best protection for the future of all species.