recently joined the Data for Development Symposium, encouraged by how far Pakistan’s data ecosystem has come. The volume of knowledge products is impressive. Data on almost every development issue — from health and education to poverty and youth — is now available and increasingly accessible. Amid this abundance, a troubling question kept resurfacing: if we have so much evidence, why does progress remain slow? Why do inequalities continue to persist?

This question was central to the D4D Symposium convened this week. The initiative is not about producing more statistics. It is not to simply modernise the statistics either, but to transform how evidence is used in public decision-making in Pakistan. The discussions also revealed a persistent gap between knowledge and action, one that continues to limit progress on equity, inclusion and development outcomes.

Pakistan no longer suffers from a lack of data. What it struggles with is something more complex and far more consequential: deciding which evidence matters, how it is to be used and who it ultimately serves.

Over the past decade, Pakistan has made a remarkable transition from data scarcity to data abundance. Surveys have expanded, administrative systems have improved, digital platforms have multiplied and sub-national datasets are more accessible than ever before. But abundance alone does not translate into impact. The uncomfortable truth is that much of this evidence fails to shape budgets, guide programme design, inform legislation and strengthen accountability.

Evidence matters only when it is decision-relevant — when it is timely, trusted, disaggregated and actionable. Otherwise, it risks becoming performative: impressive in presentation, but marginal in influence.

What turns data into evidence that truly matters? First, evidence must be people-centred. Too often, averages dominate our narratives, masking deep inequalities beneath national progress. National indicators can improve while girls drop out of school before secondary education, young people remain disconnected from education or employment, women continue to face unmet need for family planning and entire districts experience services that exist on paper but not in reality. Evidence matters when it reveals who is being left behind, where and why. The most powerful contribution of D4D knowledge products—whether youth indices, population profiles or district-level analyses—is their ability to make invisible populations visible.

Evidence matters only when it is decision-relevant — when it is timely, trusted, disaggregated and actionable. Otherwise, it risks becoming performative: impressive in presentation, but marginal in influence. 

Second, evidence must be policy-ready. Policymakers do not need more tables; they need choices framed clearly. Evidence matters when it answers practical questions: what happens if we invest here instead of there? What is the cost of inaction? Which intervention delivers the greatest equity return? When analysis translates complexity into options—rather than prescriptions—it strengthens decision quality while respecting national ownership. This is where well-crafted policy briefs, synthesis reports and analytical notes outperform even the most sophisticated raw datasets.

Third, evidence must be trusted and institutionalised. Data influences decisions only when it is produced through credible institutions, governed by transparent standards and embedded in official systems rather than parallel projects. Trust cannot be improvised. It is built through consistency, methodological rigor and clear ownership. The investments in statistical modernisation and data governance are therefore not technical exercises; they are political commitments to protect evidence as a public good.

Fourth, evidence must be used across sectors. Population data is not just for population departments. Youth data does not belong only to the youth ministry. Gender data cannot sit solely with women’s commissions. Development challenges—whether climate vulnerability, education outcomes, health inequities or fiscal stress—do not exist in silos. Evidence matters when it travels across sectors, informing education planning, health financing, climate adaptation, social protection and macro-fiscal decisions simultaneously. This is why interoperability and integration across data systems are so critical.

The real measure of progress is not any single portal, index or report. It is the gradual shift from knowledge products to a knowledge culture—one in which officials ask for evidence before approving plans, provinces compare progress constructively rather than competitively; young people engage not only as data subjects but as data users; and evidence becomes a shared language across government and its partners.

Such a culture does not emerge overnight. It demands leadership, incentives and sustained investment, as well as a shift in how we think about evidence itself. Producing data is not enough—we must invest equally in its use, ensuring that interpretation, dialogue and feedback loops are built into decision-making processes.

As Pakistan looks ahead, the question is no longer whether we can produce more data. It is whether we can use what we already have with greater wisdom and courage. The future will not be shaped by the volume of evidence we generate, but by the choices it enables.

The writer is the international family planning advisor at the UNFPA, Pakistan. She has over three decades of experience in sexual and reproductive health, health system strengthening and health policy.