The main purpose of public funding for biodiversity is to protect ecosystems from harmful pressures, often driven by private interests, and to support or restore these ecosystems where protection and conservation have been inadequate. Consequently, the key to reducing the overall financial burden lies in alleviating these ecological pressures, which often requires long-term systemic societal changes beyond the reach of public funding. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasise the role of government in steering development towards more nature-friendly paths, so as to avoid unsustainable demands on public funds for biodiversity conservation. There is also a need for enforcement of existing laws that improve essential conditions for a healthy natural environment, and a more proactive stance to ensure faster implementation of European and national/regional regulations. Moreover, the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles should be better applied through sectoral policies. Legislative and regulatory reforms that remove perverse incentives and reduce the impact of economic activity on biodiversity are therefore essential.

Understanding the true value of nature and its benefits to our societies and economies is essential if we are to move towards more sustainable use of our planet's resources and halt the decline of biodiversity and ecosystems. Research on the economic value of ecosystems has highlighted the different ways in which nature contributes to our well-being and generated interest in nature-based solutions to key societal challenges. This understanding is essential for a number of reasons; it allows us to understand the full social and economic costs associated with the disappearance of ecosystems and biodiversity, including the costs of replacing the functions they provided for free before they disappeared. Understanding the value of nature can help assess policies, measures and projects in terms of economic, environmental and social impacts and trade-offs, and provide the basis for a more informed choice between competing interventions.

It also makes it possible to assess the benefits of ecosystem protection and restoration, which is essential for effective action and fund mobilisation. Although progress has been made in assessing the value of nature, its full integration into public and private decision-making processes is still lacking. Yet integrating the value of ecosystem services into decision-making can catalyse transformative actions on biodiversity and create an effective policy framework that protects the natural world, both in Belgium and around the world.

Improving our understanding of the state and value of nature is only part of the challenge. It is equally necessary to seamlessly integrate biodiversity into key aspects of governance, economic planning and fiscal policy. This operational objective is closely linked to Objective 5 of this strategy, which focuses on integrating biodiversity into sectoral policies. Innovative approaches such as the implementation of payments for ecosystem services, the issuance of green bonds, the creation of biodiversity offsets and credits, and the introduction of benefit-sharing mechanisms should be encouraged, all of which should incorporate strict environmental and social safeguards.

However, mechanisms for biodiversity offsets and credits, like carbon offsets and credits, may have shortcomings. This financial innovation must be accompanied by environmental integrity and strong governance, especially in countries with indigenous peoples and local communities, to ensure that these efforts respect and use a rights-based approach that reflects their role as stewards of nature. It is essential to ensure that lessons learned from the carbon market are carried over to a future biodiversity credit market, without diverting attention from the need for global systemic change. It is essential to prioritise transformational change by addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss.

For example, the United Nations has developed a framework, the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA), which integrates economic and environmental data to provide a more comprehensive and multifaceted picture of the interrelationships between the economy and the environment, and of stocks and changes in stocks of environmental resources.

In Belgium, the main source of revenue from environmental taxes comes from taxes on transport and energy, and only a small fraction from taxes on pollution or resource use, which are particularly important for nature and biodiversity. There is a need to rebalance the Belgian tax burden, focusing more on pollution and resource use than on labour.

Better use of tax incentives could also contribute to this operational objective. Instead of encouraging and rewarding biodiversity actions through public spending, this could also be done by reducing the tax burden on key stakeholders responsible for implementation - for example, NGOs that acquire and manage nature reserves. Belgian nature conservation authorities are already implementing such measures. For example, the Flemish government offers nature managers various reductions in inheritance tax, gift tax, turnover tax and property tax depending on the level of ambition of their nature management^[1] , while Wallonia grants exemptions from property tax, inheritance tax and gift tax to landowners in Natura 2000 sites.^[2]

^[1] Agency for Nature & Forests web page on Subsidies, benefits and commitments (in Dutch): https://natuurenbos.vlaanderen.be/natuurbeheerplannen/subsidies-voordelen-en- commitments#:~:text=Fiscal%20benefits%3A%20overview&text=Since%201%20January%202022%20is%20valid,two%20or%20three%20is%20approved.

^[2] SPW Wallonie web page on fiscal advantages for biodiversity,