590
3 EPINAV Programme and Its Associated Storytelling
3.1 The EPINAV Programme
The EPINAV programme started in December 2011 through the signing of the
agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the
Kingdom of Norway. It was implemented for 6 years and was a continuation of the
Norwegian Government’s assistance to Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA),
which started in 1973. The programme involved a collaboration between SUA and
the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). Previous projects and programmes aimed at improving the teaching and learning environment at SUA,
improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, and the development and dissemination of appropriate technologies to the end beneficiaries. They included the
Future Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Learning (FOCAL) programme (2003–2006) and the Programme for Agricultural and Natural Resources
Transformation for Improved Livelihoods (PANTIL) (2006–2010).
EPINAV involved three main components: Research and strategic interventions
(RSI); capacity building and institutional collaboration (CBIC); and planning,
monitoring, and evaluation (PME). The RSI component had two subcomponents:
The first of these was research based and focused on promoting the more widespread use of best agricultural and natural resources management practices; the
second subcomponent was concentrated in strategic intervention and was designed
to demonstrate the best practices and technologies generated from SUA research.
The CBIC component focused on capacity building within human resources, the
improvement of selected infrastructures, gender equality, and other cross-cutting
issues. The PME mandate was to assess and carry out baseline studies for all project areas and conduct periodic monitoring and evaluation of project activities as
well as impact assessment.
The EPINAV programme’s communication strategy utilised traditional project
management presentation modes, that is, starting with the approved application,
followed by five annual progress documents, and ending with the final project and
evaluation report. The materials were prepared and presented to the steering committee and the Norwegian Embassy (the programme’s funding agency). EPINAV
also monitored its interventions and prepared various reports for internal use. The
end review and audit reports provided an independent assessment of the programme
regarding the use of programme funds and the approved work plans and budgets.
These documents followed a formal format and used a conventional presentation
technique.
The following sections provide a review of how the implementation of the
EPINAV programme could have utilised storytelling techniques to strengthen links
between the initiatives laid out in the proposal, the progress reporting, the final
report, and the evaluation. An introduction of the project storytelling framework
(PSF) could have increased the level of engagement of key stakeholders from the
project coordination team. Merla (2009) points out that storytelling is useful in
strengthening the relationship between stakeholders and the project team by making
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.
3 EPINAV Programme and Its Associated Storytelling
3.1 The EPINAV Programme
The EPINAV programme started in December 2011 through the signing of the
agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the
Kingdom of Norway. It was implemented for 6 years and was a continuation of the
Norwegian Government’s assistance to Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA),
which started in 1973. The programme involved a collaboration between SUA and
the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). Previous projects and programmes aimed at improving the teaching and learning environment at SUA,
improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, and the development and dissemination of appropriate technologies to the end beneficiaries. They included the
Future Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Learning (FOCAL) programme (2003–2006) and the Programme for Agricultural and Natural Resources
Transformation for Improved Livelihoods (PANTIL) (2006–2010).
EPINAV involved three main components: Research and strategic interventions
(RSI); capacity building and institutional collaboration (CBIC); and planning,
monitoring, and evaluation (PME). The RSI component had two subcomponents:
The first of these was research based and focused on promoting the more widespread use of best agricultural and natural resources management practices; the
second subcomponent was concentrated in strategic intervention and was designed
to demonstrate the best practices and technologies generated from SUA research.
The CBIC component focused on capacity building within human resources, the
improvement of selected infrastructures, gender equality, and other cross-cutting
issues. The PME mandate was to assess and carry out baseline studies for all project areas and conduct periodic monitoring and evaluation of project activities as
well as impact assessment.
The EPINAV programme’s communication strategy utilised traditional project
management presentation modes, that is, starting with the approved application,
followed by five annual progress documents, and ending with the final project and
evaluation report. The materials were prepared and presented to the steering committee and the Norwegian Embassy (the programme’s funding agency). EPINAV
also monitored its interventions and prepared various reports for internal use. The
end review and audit reports provided an independent assessment of the programme
regarding the use of programme funds and the approved work plans and budgets.
These documents followed a formal format and used a conventional presentation
technique.
The following sections provide a review of how the implementation of the
EPINAV programme could have utilised storytelling techniques to strengthen links
between the initiatives laid out in the proposal, the progress reporting, the final
report, and the evaluation. An introduction of the project storytelling framework
(PSF) could have increased the level of engagement of key stakeholders from the
project coordination team. Merla (2009) points out that storytelling is useful in
strengthening the relationship between stakeholders and the project team by making
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.