The formulation of the SDG education targets was more inclusive than the processes linked with the MDGs. Key constituencies making representations through the Open Working Group and other consultative processes succeeded in formulating targets that stressed inclusion, quality and equality in all phases of education. However, the development of the global indicators for SDG4, has resulted in metrics that miss many of the values of the targets, most notably with regard to quality and free education and substantive, not simply distributive, meanings of equality. The article analyses why some of these slippages took place, and what potential there may be to mobilise for metrics that better depict the key tenets of the education goal and targets. The analysis thus considers ways forward for exploring measurement of the many meanings of quality and equalities in education, reflecting on numbers as instruments that impose power and hierarchy, and the possibility of using reflections on numbers and indicators for critical dialogue and an enhancement of participation, accountability, and work to change injustices in education.

The papers in this Special Issue raise a number of relevant and important questions, of which three particularly deserve comment. Are indicators reductionist? They might be indeed, both regarding the process of defining them and in their use, which is why it is essential that each be based on a deep and sufficient knowledge of the phenomenon concerned. The human development index illustrates both the pitfalls and potential of global indicators. Are there dark forces behind the selection of indicators? The agreement of the 2030 Agenda was the outcome of a political process that led to a negotiated consensus accomplished by the Open Working Group. In determining the indicators, the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG SDG) was asked for a simple and robust framework which would not affect the political equilibrium reached in the Open Working Group (OWG); no easy task. Is the IAEG SDG an arcane bureaucratic entity? In the face of this immensely challenging task, it has sought a balance between what is feasible in the short term and what is required in the long term. The IAEG SDG has become a space for open and constructive dialog between national statistical offices and international agencies.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) constitute a truly transformative agenda which provides a framework to help useffectively confront the fundamental challenges of development in a way that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) didnot. This commentary briefly describes the very demanding, at times antagonistic, process that produced the SDGs, includingthe crucial role of the Open Working Group (OWG). It points out the strengths of the SDGs by comparison with the MDGs,with respect to both process and product. The SDGs, proposed and championed by a country from the Global South, for thefirst time defined development as a universal agenda, and upended the traditional division of countries into those who needto act and those called primarily to provide development assistance. Many countries across the development spectrumrejected this proposal, which wasfinally agreed thanks to persistence, lengthy negotiations and consensus building. In theend, the adoption of the SDGs also broke down the divide between environment and development, offering an integratedand inclusive framework for structuring solutions. Yet an agenda of such deep transformative potential faces implementationchallenges, and this commentary emphasizes the need for the sort of analysis contained in the papers in this Special Issue inorder to ensure that the SDGs are strengthened and continue to evolve.

This article argues that the environment was extensively incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with broad and ambitious targets, reflecting environmental concerns throughout the SDGs. Many environment?related targets – including some of the most important ones – were placed under ‘non?environmental’ goals. The SDGs also adopted the view that economic growth can be made environmentally sustainable using ‘decoupling’ and ‘resource efficiency’ as key technological solutions. Governments rejected a more transformative objective ‘beyond GDP’, the concept of planetary boundaries, and strong implementation mechanisms. Most disappointing, the environmental elements in many targets were not included in indicators, or the indicators lacked ambition, or were watered down. Key factors in achieving the strong and integrated approach to environment and development at the level of goals and targets were: (1) the role of new ideas on the importance of the environment and an integrated approach to sustainable development which was promoted by the science and research community; (2) a group of norm entrepreneurs, who promoted these ideas; and (3) the institutional structure and working modalities of the Open Working Group (which drafted the text of the SDGs) whose special characteristics facilitated the final agreement. The dilution of the indicators resulted from a very different institutional structure and process with different actors and from the development focused legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that had not resulted in sufficient capacity for thoroughly measuring environmental concerns.

This Special Issue usefully analyses the links between statistics, knowledge, policy making and politics, and uncovers intended and unintended consequences of using indicators to frame policy. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) were actively involved in the Open Working Group, and some have continued their advocacy into the ongoing process of developing the SDG indicator framework. Some indicators are being reconsidered; but despite repeated efforts there is still no indicator to measure inequality between countries. There is a recognized need for innovative ways to supplement already existing data. The use of proxy measurements is already underway, and initiatives such as a collaboration between some UN agencies and Gallup. The active public engagement in the process that determined the SDGs may help to resist the reductionism often evident in translating from the goals to the targets to the indicators. The 2019 meeting of the High?Level Political Forum (HLPF) will be an essential occasion to address some of these issues and to chart a correction course.

The papers in this special issue provide accounts of the politics and knowledge that shaped the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The open and transparent processes in the Open Working Group (OWG) and Post?2015 agenda consultations challenged the MDG paradigm and set more transformative and ambitious goals. But across many goals, there was slippage in ambition when targets and indicators were selected. In some cases, this is due to genuine difficulty in defining a suitable indicator. In other cases, there is clearly a contestation about the agenda, and indicators are used to reorient or pervert the meaning of the goal. The accounts of the negotiations– concerning inequality, sustainable agriculture, access to justice, education, environment – show how the selection of an indicator is purportedly a technical matter but is highly political, though obscured behind the veil of an objective and technical choice. The papers also highlight how the increasing role of big data and other non?traditional sources of data is altering data production, dissemination and use, and fundamentally altering the epistemology of information and knowledge. This raises questions about ‘data for whom and for what’ – fundamental issues concerning the power of data to shape knowledge, the democratic governance of SDG indicators and of knowledge for development overall.

In the latter part of 2014, a group of countries started on an initiative to pilot illustrative work on governance in the context of the discussions on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). At the time, SDG “Goal 16” as we now know it did not exist, but the fundamental aspects of peaceful, just and inclusive societies under discussion in the UN Open Working Group (OWG) were already of significant interest to a number of countries. Member States willing to champion such a goal and targets, raised the following questions: if we could start now, to work on the aspects of peace, justice and institutions under consideration in the OWG, where would we start and what would we prioritise? That was the start of an interesting initiative that UNDP has been proud to support in the five pilot countries – Albania, Indonesia, Rwanda, Tunisia and, at a later stage, the United Kingdom – who volunteered to address these questions. The Pilot countries have emphasised that whilst measuring Goal 16 is a challenge, more data is available on peace, justice and institutions than is often assumed. In addition to presenting the different phases of the Pilot Initiative, the report draws out the main lessons learned from the Pilots experience, and identifies some guidelines for work on implementation of aspects of Goal 16.