The recently-published European Strategy for the Conservation of Invertebrates (Haslett 2007) brings together much information on the conservation needs and status of the world’s most thoroughly documented insect fauna under the general goal of halting their decline, and underpinned by a list of seven main objectives to enhance their conservation (Appendix 1). The values of such endeavour, if it can be translated constructively into concerted practice, may be considerable. Haslett included lists of ‘key actions’ for each theme discussed. Potential exists for harmony or cooperative planning across political boundaries that fragment the natural range of many species and ecosystems of conservation concern, in order to foster range-wide management. Facilitation through greater economies of scale is already being demonstrated in Europe for groups such as butterflies, hoverflies and xylophagous beetles, amongst others. The prospect then follows that similar or parallel regional planning might be useful elsewhere in the world, perhaps using the European Strategy as a model. Several authors have recently compared and contrasted the problems facing effective insect conservation in different parts of the world, emphasizing differing capability and available knowledge between the northern and southern temperate regions (Samways 1995, Stewart and New 2007) and in the tropics (Lewis and Basset 2007). These differences initially appear formidable and likely to thwart any more general integrated planning for insect conservation—but is this really the case?

The major drivers for any such plan include:(1) having sufficient knowledge to formulate a rational informed basic approach and, where necessary to augment it by intelligent precautionary measures;(2) an established conservation policy such as a Wildlife Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, initial Red List, or other conservation legislation or formal guidance toward priorities, not necessarily in all political areas of a region, that can endorse credibility; and (3) the goodwill to proceed, together with foundation locally-based capability and impetus to do so within the local socioeconomic climate. In addition, recognition of the importance of insects, and that this necessitates their conservation within the wider scenario of biodiversity protection, may dictate how local approaches and priorities may contribute to countering global embracing issues of habitat loss and climate change. Despite the fundamental need for scientific knowledge to pursue detail, this may actually be the least important of the above drivers, because sufficient framework usually already exists (see Janzen 1997) for local adaptations to build on the wider principles exemplified from better-known faunas, such as Europe. The principles underpinning Haslett’s (2007) objectives have very broad application, and the major threats to insects are well-defined, at least in general terms, with many of them universal and their relative importance showing regional differences. Regional differences in information available on insect diversity and conservation need are largely those of scale, extent and detail, rather than paradigm shifts that determine major strategy for agreed common purpose. Whereas the minutiae of a European ‘scene’may not transfer directly to the rest of the world, much insect conservation thought and planning elsewhere has historically been stimulated by approaches and examples from Europe and North America, in most cases giving way to locally pragmatic and independent effort.