Emerging evidence suggests that insect populations may be declining at local and global scales, threatening the sustainability of the ecosystem services that insects provide. Insect declines are of particular concern in the Neotropics, which holds several of the world’s hotspots of insect endemism and diversity. Conservation policies are one way to prevent and mitigate insect declines, yet these policies are usually biased toward vertebrate species. Here, we outline some key policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in the Neotropics and discuss their potential contribution and shortcomings for insect biodiversity conservation. These include species-specific action policies, protected areas and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs), sectoral policies, biodiversity offsetting, market-based mechanisms, and the international policy instruments that underpin these efforts. We highlight that although these policies can potentially benefit insect biodiversity indirectly, there are avenues in which we could better incorporate the specific needs of insects into policy to mitigate the declines mentioned above. We propose several areas of improvement. Firstly, evaluating the extinction risk of more Neotropical insects to better target at-risk species with species-specific policies and conserve their habitats within area-based interventions. Secondly, alternative pest control methods and enhanced monitoring of insects in a range of land-based production sectors. Thirdly, incorporating measurable and achievable insect conservation targets into international policies and conventions. Finally, we emphasise the important roles of community engagement and enhanced public awareness in achieving these improvements to insect conservation policies.

Societies have benefited directly and indirectly from ecosystem services provided by insects for centuries (e.g., pollination by bees and waste recycling by beetles). The relationship between people and insect ecosystem services has evolved and influenced how societies perceive and relate to nature and with each other, for example, by shaping cultural values (‘cultural ecosystem services’). Thus, better understanding the significance of insect cultural services can change societies’ motivations underpinning conservation efforts. To date, however, we still overlook the significance of many insect cultural services in shaping our societies, which in turn likely contributes to the generalised misconceptions and misrepresentations of insects in the media such as television and the internet. To address this gap, we have reviewed an identified list of insect cultural services that influence our societies on a daily basis, including cultural services related to art, recreation, and the development of traditional belief systems. This list allowed us to formulate a multi-level framework which aims to serve as a compass to guide societies to better appreciate and potentially change the perception of insect cultural services from individual to global levels. This framework can become an important tool for gaining public support for conservation interventions targeting insects and the services that they provide. More broadly, this framework highlights the importance of considering cultural ecosystems services—for which values can be difficult to quantify in traditional terms—in shaping the relationship between people and nature.

Nature markets are increasingly being operationalised as a tool for filling the biodiversity finance gap to achieve global biodiversity targets. One example is the off-site market underpinning the requirement for construction projects to achieve Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) in England. Here, we quantify the outcomes of the market after 16 months of operation, collecting data from England’s offset register and planning portals. We evaluate the habitat diversity being delivered and how it aligns with environmental targets and existing efforts to achieve goals such as 30×30. Current habitat delivery is skewed toward a few habitat types, with ‘other neutral grassland’ constituting 44% of planned habitat. There is very limited delivery of new wetland and woodland habitats, with most commitments being to improve the condition of existing habitats. Perhaps more importantly, only around 2% of the registered offset area has been sold. Our results demonstrate how the design of the statutory biodiversity metric used to measure BNG is shaping the market through incentives within the metric. The results also give insight into the demand for off-site BNG units in England and the role which government regulation plays in setting demand and therefore scaling the market.

There is increasing demand for standardised, easy‐to‐use metrics to assess progress towards achieving biodiversity targets and the effectiveness of ecological compensation schemes. Biodiversity metrics based on combining habitat area and habitat condition scores are proliferating rapidly, but there is limited evidence on how they relate to ecological outcomes. Here, we test the relationship between the statutory biodiversity metric used for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) in England—and as the basis for new biodiversity credit systems around the world—and invertebrate richness, abundance and community composition. We find that the combined area‐condition BNG metric does not capture the value of arable farmland and grassland sites for invertebrate biodiversity: invertebrate communities were highly variable across sites that had the same type and condition under the BNG metric. We found no reliable relationship between scores under the metric and either invertebrate abundance or species richness, with the risk of the metric undervaluing sites of high invertebrate value. Policy implications. Our results highlight the need to incorporate factors beyond habitat type and condition into site evaluations, and to complement metric use with species‐based surveys.

Meeting ambitions such as the Global Biodiversity Framework 2030 targets will require multiple conservation mechanisms that benefit the widest possible range of habitats and species. Using England as a case study, here we evaluate the likely impact of a novel and ambitious ecological compensation policy, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), on terrestrial insects, spiders, and other arthropods (‘invertebrates’), a functionally important but rapidly declining component of biodiversity. Current implementation of BNG in England sets out to provide a 10% uplift in biodiversity when infrastructure development (such as housebuilding) occurs. However, BNG is a habitat-driven approach, which risks overlooking important considerations relevant to invertebrate conservation, threatens to further reduce the size and quality of their habitats, and may increase habitat fragmentation. BNG - as currently implemented – therefore represents a missed opportunity to use a universally applied policy to benefit invertebrates and other functionally important components of biodiversity. We suggest ways forward to realign BNG with what we know to be crucial for successful invertebrate conservation, and with other policy mechanisms such as the National Pollinator Strategy. This will ensure that appropriate habitats and conditions for invertebrates are retained, enhanced, and created at a landscape scale, and that BNG is optimised to contribute to broader national conservation targets. As biodiversity accounting and offsetting schemes such as BNG are increasingly adopted around the world, the experience of BNG in England provides valuable insights into how ecological compensation programmes could be better designed, implemented, and monitored to ensure that benefits for a wide variety of taxa are achieved.