Open Working Group Research Articles

Temporomandibular disorders: INfORM/IADR key points for good clinical practice based on standard of care

ABSTRACT Objective To present a list of key points for good Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs) clinical practice on behalf of the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM) group of the International Association for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research (IADR). Methods An open working group discussion was held at the IADR General Session in New Orleans (March 2024), where members of the INfORM group finalized the proposal of a list of 10 key points. Results The key points covered knowledge on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. They represent a summary of the current standard of care for management of TMD patients. They are in line with the current need to assist general dental practitioners advance their understanding and prevent inappropriate treatment. Conclusions The key points can be viewed as a guiding template for other national and international associations to prepare guidelines and recommendations on management of TMDs adapted to the different cultural, social, educational, and healthcare requirements.

Southern agency in global norms creation: Bangladesh in the SDGs formulation process

This paper examines which institutions, ideas, and interests have shaped the position of Bangladesh in creating the norms of the United Nations (UN)’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Bangladesh’s contribution to the SDGs norms creation process is examined in two distinct stages: drafting a position paper (June 2012–June 2013) and participating in UN Open Working Group (OWG) negotiations (March 2013–July 2014). Findings reveal how a small cohort of policy entrepreneurs played a key role in both stages. They gave prominence to ideas such as poverty alleviation, global inequality, and migrants’ rights in structuring the SDGs agenda. In the final round of OWG negotiations, Bangladeshi delegates calculated that active participation in the norms creation process would best serve the interests of the Global South by challenging the Global North which wanted to impose its interests. This paper offers an important insight into the norms literature by showing convergence and divergence of interests and agendas of global and local actors.

Abstract 3551: Continued analysis of extensive data towards Genome in a Bottle benchmarks for a new tumor normal pair

Abstract Here, we detail in-progress genome-scale measurements from a variety of technologies of the first tumor normal benchmark from the Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) consortium. We created the first broadly-consented tumor cell line from a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with matched normal pancreatic and duodenal tissue. Data is being collected from a large homogeneous batch of the tumor cell line and paired normal tissues. As we receive data we make it publicly available on the NCBI hosted GIAB FTP site, https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ReferenceSamples/giab/data_somatic/. When complete, this dataset will include WGS measurements from Illumina, ONT, Hi-C, Bionano, single cell WGS, PacBio HiFi and Onso, and Element. Analysis and development of a variant calling benchmark using this data is ongoing in collaboration with an open working group of the GIAB consortium. Initial Hi-C and optical mapping data from the tumor cell line indicates substantial aneuploidy from translocations that cause large deletions. We found roughly 17 large inversions and translocations and 16 chromosomes with extensive loss of heterozygosity due to missing >30% of one copy, in addition to a few smaller duplications. Low coverage single cell sequencing that provides ploidy estimates across chromosomes showed that most of the large deletions appear in all or nearly all cells with some variation in a few cells. These observations are consistent with bulk WGS analyses from two batches of cells. Additionally, many of the observed large deletions correspond to deletions seen in the population of TCGA chromosomal Loss of Heterogeneity samples. Examining somatic SNVs in non-repetitive regions, we find that close to 60% occur in almost all cells in diploid regions, 30% occur in almost all cells in haploid regions, and 5% in only some cells in diploid and haploid regions, respectively. We take these results to indicate the cell line is relatively homogeneous and stable with most CNVs being deletions. As such, we plan to explore using long reads, ultralong reads, and Hi-C data to generate a near-complete genome assembly of the dominant tumor clone as well as a complete diploid assembly of the normal. With this personalized genome assembly, we will explore aligning tumor and normal reads to each haplotype of the normal to characterize somatic variants, including variants in minor clones. Building on the methods GIAB and T2T have developed to polish diploid assemblies of GIAB’s normal genomes and mosaic variant characterization, we will develop benchmarks for somatic variants against the normal assembly as well as standard references. Citation Format: Justin Wagner, Jennifer McDaniel, Gail L. Rosen, Nathan D. Olson, Vaidehi Patel, Chunlin Xiao, Andrew Liss, Justin Zook. Continued analysis of extensive data towards Genome in a Bottle benchmarks for a new tumor normal pair [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 3551.

Abstract 876: Sequencing a new broadly-consented tumor/normal cell line for a Genome in a Bottle Benchmark

Abstract Here, we describe analyses towards the first tumor/normal benchmark from the Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) consortium using new cell lines from a broadly-consented pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient. This effort builds on the widely-used germline variant benchmarks for seven normal DNA reference materials. GIAB benchmarks are designed to reliably identify false positive and false negative variant calls, and are formed by combining multiple sequencing technologies and variant callers. To combine technologies and variant callers, we first understand their strengths and weaknesses for different variant types and repetitive regions. In this initial work on the new tumor/normal cell line, we have analyzed sequencing from HiC for copy number and structural variant analysis and 100to150x PCR-free Illumina WGS from normal and tumor cells for small variants. Preliminary HiC results identified substantial aneuploidy common in pancreatic tumors, with ~15 large inversions and translocations and 16 chromosomes with extensive loss of heterozygosity due to missing >30% of one copy. The tumor contains the common G12V mutation in KRAS, and interestingly the ~2Mbp region containing this mutation is likely triplicated. About 300 (76% of) SNVs and 10,000 (69% of) small indels agree between mutect2 and strelka2 with default filtering. After excluding difficult regions, 95% of SNVs and 94% of small indels agree, with remaining disagreements caused by systematic sequencing errors, alignment errors, low frequency, and proximity to germline variants. Examining discordant SNVs indifficult regions, most are erroneous somatic variants inregions with loss of heterozygosity that also have mapping errors due to segmental duplications, sequences missing from GRCh38, and/or tandem repeats. After excluding difficult regions, we also found that somatic SNVs fell in 4 primary classes: ~5100 in most cells in diploid regions, ~2100 in most cells in haploid regions, ~760 in only some cells in diploid regions, and ~450 in only some cells in haploid regions. GIAB plans to perform PacBioHiFi and ultra long ONT sequencing to generate phased assemblies for the normal and tumor, and is forming an open working group to develop the first authoritative benchmarks from publicly available, broadly-consented tumor-normal cell lines. Citation Format: Gail Rosen, Justin Wagner, Andrew Liss, Justin Zook. Sequencing a new broadly-consented tumor/normal cell line for a Genome in a Bottle Benchmark [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 876.

The importance of Communication and Education: Lessons learned from AGREEDementia

AbstractBackgroundWhen and how to communicate effectively the results of genetic and biomarker based prediction, detection, and quantification of the brain substrates of dementia involve important ethical and legal issues critical for precision medicine. AGREEDementia is an open working group that focuses on informed discussions and development of educational material to support communication and use of this information.MethodMembers attend two meetings monthly via videoteleconference. One meeting is a targeted working group that focuses on the following: 1. People with Symptoms, 2. People without Symptoms, 3. Research, 4. Ethics/Healthcare Law, 5. Diversity. Members also attend a monthly “all hands” meeting where they receive updates from other groups, partner organizations, and hear presentations on emerging research and resources.ResultOver the past few years AGREEDementia has produced several collaborative papers, webinars, and decision tools for people considering undergoing biomarker testing that will be discussed. Membership continues to grow to over 120 though level of involvement varies. The group is largely comprised of academic researchers (76%) including neurologists, neuropsychologists, clinical trial coordinators, ethicists, and healthcare lawyers. The second largest subgroup was from advocacy groups and stakeholders (18%) and 6% are students. Collaborations with other organizations including the NIA, Alzheimer’s Association/ISTAART, the Lewy Body Dementia Association, Association for Frontotemporal Dementia, and Cohen Veterans Bioscience greatly enrich the group by publicizing conferences and collaborating on papers and products. The Alzheimer’s & Dementia Outreach, Recruitment & Engagement at NIA also disseminates decision tools and other materials. Over time, the stakeholder group developed from an audience providing consultation to a creative force that pioneered a program to support people with cognitive dysfunction attending AAIC and other scientific conferences. The Diversity workgroup was added in order to mentor and teach research staff in sensitive outreach to diverse cohorts. The ongoing, monthly, lecture series and links to all these materials are hosted at a website, AGREEDementia.com.ConclusionWith controversies around how best to integrate biomarker and genetic information into clinical care, when to share research data with the public, and implement novel biomarker‐based therapies, AGREEDementia has provided an open forum for all to visit and consult.

Interpreting blood‐based biomarker results in heterogeneous populations with multiple co‐morbidities

AbstractBackgroundA major benefit of the use of blood‐based biomarkers in screening for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, or diagnosing AD dementia, is that the collection of blood is less invasive and costly than cerebrospinal fluid or neuroimaging markers. Blood biomarkers are also more feasible and available at the primary care levels, where most individuals will present with cognitive symptoms. However, most studies examining blood‐based biomarkers of amyloid, phosphorylated tau, or neurodegeneration for screening or diagnosis have been conducted in neurology or memory clinics. Patients that reach these clinics often have less comorbidities and are younger than those seen and followed in primary care. Thus, there is a need to assess the utility of these blood‐biomarkers in diverse, community‐based cohorts of older ages, with multiple comorbidities, and with brain co‐pathologies (i.e., cerebrovascular disease).MethodUsing examples from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging and other community‐based studies, we will synthesize the impact of demographics, comorbidities, and co‐pathologies on blood measures of amyloid‐beta, phosphorylated tau, neurofilament light chain (NfL), total tau, and glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP). Additional discussion will focus on how these factors may impact cut‐points and the interpretation of the blood biomarkers across the AD clinical spectrum, as well as potential methods to better elucidate the biomarker results for clinical care.ResultBlood measures of amyloid‐beta, phosphorylated tau, NfL, total tau, and GFAP are differentially affected by age and sex and some comorbidities (e.g., chronic kidney disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, diabetes, body mass index). Although adjusting for covariates has been a method used in some research studies, adjustment will not work on an individualized level for patients seen in primary care. Different cutpoints may be needed based on age and the presence or absence of specific comorbidities. In addition, when interpreting the results for diagnosis and prognosis, co‐occurring co‐pathologies (e.g., cerebrovascular disease) must be considered.ConclusionSeveral studies have shown the promise of blood‐based biomarkers for screening and diagnosing AD in memory clinics. However, several considerations and steps are needed before these blood biomarkers can be implemented for use at the population level and in primary care.BackgroundWhen and how to communicate effectively the results of genetic and biomarker based prediction, detection, and quantification of the brain substrates of dementia involve important ethical and legal issues critical for precision medicine. AGREEDementia is an open working group that focuses on informed discussions and development of educational material to support communication and use of this information.MethodMembers attend two meetings monthly via videoteleconference. One meeting is a targeted working group that focuses on the following: 1. People with Symptoms, 2. People without Symptoms, 3. Research, 4. Ethics/Healthcare Law, 5. Diversity. Members also attend a monthly “all hands” meeting where they receive updates from other groups, partner organizations, and hear presentations on emerging research and resources.ResultOver the past few years AGREEDementia has produced several collaborative papers, webinars, and decision tools for people considering undergoing biomarker testing that will be discussed. Membership continues to grow to over 120 though level of involvement varies. The group is largely comprised of academic researchers (76%) including neurologists, neuropsychologists, clinical trial coordinators, ethicists, and healthcare lawyers. The second largest subgroup was from advocacy groups and stakeholders (18%) and 6% are students. Collaborations with other organizations including the NIA, Alzheimer’s Association/ISTAART, the Lewy Body Dementia Association, Association for Frontotemporal Dementia, and Cohen Veterans Bioscience greatly enrich the group by publicizing conferences and collaborating on papers and products. The Alzheimer’s & Dementia Outreach, Recruitment & Engagement at NIA also disseminates decision tools and other materials. Over time, the stakeholder group developed from an audience providing consultation to a creative force that pioneered a program to support people with cognitive dysfunction attending AAIC and other scientific conferences. The Diversity workgroup was added in order to mentor and teach research staff in sensitive outreach to diverse cohorts. The ongoing, monthly, lecture series and links to all these materials are hosted at a website, AGREEDementia.com.ConclusionWith controversies around how best to integrate biomarker and genetic information into clinical care, when to share research data with the public, and implement novel biomarker‐based therapies, AGREEDementia has provided an open forum for all to visit and consult.

Transforming our world? Discursive representation in the negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals

Calls to advance the democratization of sustainable development negotiations have recently proliferated. However, the participatory schemes set up by international organizations and governments have fallen short of answering to academic and empirical demands for global democracy, in particular by excluding the most marginalized actors from policymaking. Deliberative democrats argue that discursive representation may, in some contexts, overcome the shortcomings of actor-based representation and advance global democracy. To what extent, then, does discursive representation effectively contribute to the democratization of global policymaking by representing diverse interests, including those of marginalized actors? By performing a qualitative–quantitative discourse analysis of 122 primary documents issued during the formal sessions of negotiations of the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, this article explores the extent to which different sustainability discourses that evolve in the public space got represented within authoritative circles of decision-making. While the negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals involved more than ten million civil society voices and resulted in an agreement that claims to “transform our world” and “leave no-one behind,” the study shows that discursive representation was biased toward a progressive sustainability discourse, depicting a state-centric orientation of equity and responsibilities to address global sustainable development challenges. Besides, the coalitions that emerged between state and non-state actors on alternative sustainability discourses failed to increase the saliency of the interests of marginalized actors in the shaping of the goals. As the understandings of transformation and inclusiveness conveyed in the negotiations were biased toward the interests of the most represented actors in the Open Working Group, the article reveals that in the context of the negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals the effectiveness of discursive representation in democratizing global policymaking was eventually limited.

UNICEF and the WASH: Analisis Terhadap Peran UNICEF Dalam Mengatasi Masalah Ketersediaan Air Bersih di India

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a blueprint for sustainable global development for equitable growth and prosperity between countries. One indicator of equitable growth is the achievement of adequate access to drinking water, sanitation and hygiene and stopping open defecation (BABS) activities. But the difficulty of access to clean water sources and good sanitation facilities is still an urgent problem in India. More than 50% of the water has been polluted and cannot be consumed. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 97 million Indians do not have access to clean water and proper sanitation. This is caused by various factors, among others, first the habits of the people (culture) who conduct BABS activities. Second, lack of education and human awareness of environmental cleanliness. And the third is the lack of public toilet facilities provided by the government. These problems have a major impact on the health of local communities such as diarrhea and pneumonia. Efforts by the Indian government to solve these problems have yet to produce a significant impact. So that the United Nations (UN) opened an open working group to formulate proposals related to global development planning on clean water and sanitation supported by UNICEF through the WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) Program. The implementation of this program is aimed at overcoming the impact of problems that give special focus to children. This research will further examine the role of UNICEF in overcoming sanitation problems in India through the WASH Program. The method used in this study uses qualitative methods to explain systematically and factually. This study uses the theory of the Role of International Organizations. This theory is used to explain and emphasize UNICEF in carrying out its roles based on the values ​​set by international organizations.

The SDGs Indicators: A Challenging Task for the International Statistical Community

AbstractThe 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 Many Meanings of Quality Education: Politics of Targets and Indicators in SDG4

AbstractThe 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.

Commentary on Special Issue: Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring SDGs Numbers and Norms

AbstractThis 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.

Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDGs: Introduction to Special Issue

AbstractThe 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.

The SDGs: Changing How Development is Understood

AbstractThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) constitute a truly transformative agenda which provides a framework to help us effectively confront the fundamental challenges of development in a way that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) did not. This commentary briefly describes the very demanding, at times antagonistic, process that produced the SDGs, including the 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 the first time defined development as a universal agenda, and upended the traditional division of countries into those who need to act and those called primarily to provide development assistance. Many countries across the development spectrum rejected this proposal, which was finally agreed thanks to persistence, lengthy negotiations and consensus building. In the end, the adoption of the SDGs also broke down the divide between environment and development, offering an integrated and inclusive framework for structuring solutions. Yet an agenda of such deep transformative potential faces implementation challenges, and this commentary emphasizes the need for the sort of analysis contained in the papers in this Special Issue in order to ensure that the SDGs are strengthened and continue to evolve.

The Design of Environmental Priorities in the SDGs

AbstractThis 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.

Branding for business? Hungary and the sustainable development goals

Negotiations leading to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) have dominated the diplomacy of global development in the past years. The paper looks at the actions and motivations of a relatively new development actor, Hungary, which co-chaired the United Nations General Assembly’s Open Working Group on SDGs, and thus had a highly visible position during the talks. Hungary had a key priority of having a SDG on water-related issues, driven mainly by its perceived comparative advantage in the sector. Using the insights of the literature on small state influence in multilateral negotiations, the paper argues that Hungarian diplomats used alliance building as well as reputational and framing strategies to counter the structural disadvantages of the country’s small state status, and were successful in shaping the final outcome. However, the Hungarian government did not act out of a strong commitment to sustainable global development, but rather used the forum to brand itself as an expert on water issues, with the hope of future business benefits.

In quest of universal goals: Analysis of statements from the open working group on sustainable development goals and the United Nations general assembly voting

On 25 September 2015, during the 70th anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly, the 193 Member States adopted a comprehensive and ambitious set of development goals aimed at the eradication of poverty in all its forms. The present article analyses the consultative process of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the positions of countries in negotiations, divided into two groups: donor countries and recipient countries. As to the consultative process, a detailed analysis of the main groups is submitted, along with the institutional design of the process. In addition, a comprehensive review of the countries’ positions in the Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals, which includes a comparative analysis of the donor country statements (traditional, BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa) and Arabic donors) and statements from recipient countries (by region) is presented. The position of the Russian Federation as a donor country is particularly noted. This position along with that of other BRICS countries is closer to position held by recipient countries, namely the Global South position. An analysis of the G20 countries’ annual voting on the United Nations General Assembly resolution 41/128: Declaration on the Right to Development is also provided. In conclusion, the progress achieved in the negotiation process for setting the Sustainable Development Goals presents a solid platform for further progressive work and the opportunity to tackle global challenges.

Advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Experiences of international academic and research libraries

In January 2016 the United Nations (UN) launched new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 to guide development efforts worldwide. In the years leading up to this launch, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) participated in the UN Open Working Group meetings held to discuss the way forward for a new development plan once the Millennium Development Goals ended in December 2015. IFLA advocated for culture, information and communication technologies (ICTs), and access to information to be included in the SDGs.

The global targeting of education and skill: policy history and comparative perspectives

This analysis covers the period from 1925 to 2016 in respect of constructing national and global goals and targets in education and training. Tensions between global and national approaches to target-setting are identified. Equally, the ownership of the global target discourse is discussed along with its contested relevance to both developed and developing economies. The process of constructing Sustainable Development Goal 4 (on Education) is laid out against a background of this essential history. The milestones in this process include national initiatives on education for all in India and China, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNESCO regional conferences on education, the world conferences on education in Jomtien, Dakar and Incheon, and the UN’s Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals. Across these and several other staging posts, the actual texts and framing of the goals and targets are subjected to critical review.

Breaking the mold: a new type of multilateral sustainable development negotiation

Participants in the Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were reminded time and again that there is no model for the process to develop the SDGs. They resolved to not repeat the closed process used to develop the Millennium Development Goals, but the OWG began work when failures to reach consensus and fatigue with multilateral environmental negotiations dominated delegates’ minds, rather than examples of successfully negotiated outcomes. The OWG Co-Chairs were faced with the daunting task of guiding delegates’ efforts to develop a proposed set of crisp SDGs and targets that all could agree to, and thus, had to accomplish the following goals: (1) reduce delegation rigidity, both of individual Member States and within coalitions; (2) maximize the sense of participation, transparency, and ownership to get the most buy-in at the end; and (3) develop a sense of trust that would change the relationship between Member States. To do this, the OWG Co-Chairs broke the mold of UN multilateral negotiations that Member States and observers had become familiar with and created a different approach. This article examines how the OWG accomplished these goals and overcame the shortcomings of other multilateral negotiating processes on sustainable development to produce a widely supported consensus outcome at a time when governments have struggled to achieve agreement in many multilateral negotiation tracks.

Getting to 2030: Negotiating the Post‐2015 Sustainable Development Agenda

The United Nations Member States set a very high bar for themselves at the Rio+20 conference in June 2012: reaching agreement among 193 countries on a broad ‘post‐2015’ sustainable development agenda that could enhance international coordination on all aspects of human and planetary well‐being. However, at a point in history when States were increasingly failing to reach consensus on key decisions, they made history by agreeing on a course that could ‘transform our world’, through ‘an agenda of breathtaking ambition and scope’. This article reviews the two negotiating tracks to develop the post‐2015 outcome – the work of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which originated out of the decision taken at Rio+20; and the agreement to launch a post‐2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals. The final outcome from these two processes represents a fine balance among competing interests and concerns. The article sets the stage for a closer examination of the results of these negotiations. We begin our examination of the ‘original intent’ of the post‐2015 agenda by reviewing the negotiation of the SDGs and the post‐2015 development agenda, with attention to their similarities and differences. The article concludes with a focus on challenges for the implementation stage, based on the themes that emerged during the negotiations.