A crucial national exercise is currently underway – the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the 13th Five-Year Plan. As the name suggests, it is not merely a procedural checkpoint, but a moment of reflection on how far the country has travelled in achieving the goals set out at the beginning of the plan period. It is an assessment conducted at the halfway mark, designed to measure progress, identify gaps, and recalibrate strategies for the remaining years.
More importantly, the MTR brings policymakers, implementers, and stakeholders together in one shared evaluation space, turning fragmented departmental and ministerial reviews into a single, collective national dialogue on performance and progress. This convergence is perhaps the most significant feature of the MTR.
Development planning, by its very nature, is not a solo exercise. No single ministry, department, or agency can achieve the broad objectives of a five-year plan in isolation. Whether it is improving education outcomes, strengthening healthcare delivery, expanding infrastructure, or enhancing economic resilience, the outcomes depend on interconnected systems working in sync. Thus, the MTR becomes a mirror reflecting the degree of coordination within the system itself.
Too often, development challenges are not the result of absence of plans, but the absence of alignment. One agency may move forward efficiently while another lags behind, creating bottlenecks that slow overall progress. In such cases, the issue is not lack of effort, but lack of synchronization. The MTR provides an opportunity to identify these disconnects and address them collectively.
More importantly, it allows stakeholders to understand not only what they have achieved individually, but how their work fits into a larger national puzzle. For instance, a road constructed by one agency only achieves its true value when healthcare services, education access, and market connectivity function alongside it. Similarly, policy reforms in one sector often require implementation support from another to produce tangible outcomes. The review process makes these interdependencies visible.
Equally important is the culture of learning that such reviews can foster. When different agencies present their progress and challenges openly, it creates space for mutual learning. One sector’s innovation can become another’s solution. One department’s constraints can prompt another to adjust its approach. This exchange of experiences is invaluable in strengthening the overall system of governance.
This is why such exercises must evolve beyond being treated as administrative checkpoints or compliance requirements. The MTR goes beyond being exercises in accountability alone- focused on reporting, auditing, and justification. It is a platform for coordination – a rare institutional opportunity to step back from operational silos and ask a fundamental question: are we moving together, or simply moving in parallel? The answer to this question determines whether national goals are achieved efficiently or delayed by structural gaps.
In this sense, the MTR has the potential to become more than a technical exercise. It can evolve into what might be called the “temple of coordination” – a space where institutions come together and understand how they can do better together.
The success of a development agenda goes beyond the strength of individual institutions. It depends on the quality of their collaboration. The MTR is, therefore, not just a checkpoint on the road to 2028. It is a reminder that the journey itself must be shared, coordinated, and collectively owned.
