Current policies and practices in biodiversity conservation have been increasingly influenced by neoliberal approaches since the 1990s. The authors focus on the principle of transparency as a self-proclaimed basis of neoliberal environmental governance, and on the role of standardized science-based measurements which it purportedly affords. The authors introduce the term ‘measurementality’ to signify the governance logic that emerges when transparency comes to stand next to effectiveness and efficiency as neoliberal principles and to highlight the connections that are forged between economic, managerial, and technocratic discourses. The example of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is used to discuss the role of measurementality in global biodiversity governance. The analysis suggests that IPBES aims to coordinate the science–policy interface in order to optimize the generation of user-friendly knowledge of those elements of biodiversity that are considered politically and economically relevant: At the current economic juncture, these being in essence ecosystem services. Based on these findings, the authors proceed by critically reflecting on the ways in which the measurementality logic of IPBES may not only result in an impoverishment of the biodiversity research agenda, but also in an impoverished understanding of biodiversity itself. To conclude, the authors argue that measurementality is part and parcel of the neoliberal paradigm in which science produces the raw materials for subsequent control and exchange and that, as a result, the intersection of science, discourse, policy, and economics within these governance systems requires sustained critical scrutiny.

It has been suggested that in order to address current complex problems, scientists have to take on new roles that link the production and use of knowledge. However, what exactly these new roles mean is often not clearly identified. This paper contributes to this by discussing relevant literature related to different roles of science in society and by presenting the results of a study on the perspectives and activities of knowledge brokering. We identify three knowledge brokering repertoires: supplying, bridging and facilitating, which differ with respect to whether they maintain clear boundaries between knowledge production and use or set out to blur them. Based on our findings, we conclude that new roles of science not only afford, but may even strengthen traditional disciplinary scientific ideals. Thus, it is crucial to look beyond the intentions and ideals of new roles of science to how they are taken up in practice.