596
3.5 Resolution of the Base Story
The ending of EPINAV design and planning is manifested in the approval for funding by the Norwegian Embassy. The conclusion was also displayed in the approval
by the Tanzanian authority, the Ministry of Finance and Planning. Based on PSF
proposed by Mkwizu (2016), support of the EPINAV proposal would have revealed
a ‘winning side’ of the PAs. Mostly, the AAs views and opinions that doubted and
challenged the PAs were not successful. But the AAs would have promised to prove
the PAs wrong and to provide evidence for it in the next ‘episode’, that is, at a relevant time of the project. Thus, the programme would have remained a vital process, presenting the opportunity for future approvals, where both PAs and AAs offer
their cases. AAs, with farmers as the primary beneficiaries, would have concluded
at this stage that they would carefully follow how activities implemented under
strategic interventions were to lead to their increased productivity and enhanced
income. The next verification would have happened during progress reporting and
midterm review.
4 Implementation of Activities, Midterm Review,
and Progress Reporting
4.1 Storytelling During Implementation
The EPINAV programme communicated its implemented actions and results
through regular progress reports. The coordination team prepared the documents
under the leadership of the coordinator, showing achievements during each reporting period. Considering that EPINAV was comprised of several projects, progress
reports informed on the implemented activities and achievements of a combination
of individual projects. The reporting was required to list all activities conducted and
to show how those activities were linked to higher-level results, and how they contributed towards attaining the programme goal.
The EPINAV story provides an alternative narrative to support reporting and to
verify the information presented on implemented activities. One major challenge
that the coordination team faces is the danger of assuming that reports from individual projects were accurate. Otherwise, the programme story helps the PIT in
reporting to the Steering Committee and the Embassy and in receiving reports from
the field.
The EPINAV programme had a substantial geographical coverage and broad
stakeholders’ involvement, which made the monitoring of fieldwork challenging,
both for the coordination team and for the funder. A monitoring team was constituted and assigned the role of undertaking field-based verification on an annual
basis. Reports from these missions indicated a need for informing the coordination team on what was happening in the area. The monitoring team reports
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.
3.5 Resolution of the Base Story
The ending of EPINAV design and planning is manifested in the approval for funding by the Norwegian Embassy. The conclusion was also displayed in the approval
by the Tanzanian authority, the Ministry of Finance and Planning. Based on PSF
proposed by Mkwizu (2016), support of the EPINAV proposal would have revealed
a ‘winning side’ of the PAs. Mostly, the AAs views and opinions that doubted and
challenged the PAs were not successful. But the AAs would have promised to prove
the PAs wrong and to provide evidence for it in the next ‘episode’, that is, at a relevant time of the project. Thus, the programme would have remained a vital process, presenting the opportunity for future approvals, where both PAs and AAs offer
their cases. AAs, with farmers as the primary beneficiaries, would have concluded
at this stage that they would carefully follow how activities implemented under
strategic interventions were to lead to their increased productivity and enhanced
income. The next verification would have happened during progress reporting and
midterm review.
4 Implementation of Activities, Midterm Review,
and Progress Reporting
4.1 Storytelling During Implementation
The EPINAV programme communicated its implemented actions and results
through regular progress reports. The coordination team prepared the documents
under the leadership of the coordinator, showing achievements during each reporting period. Considering that EPINAV was comprised of several projects, progress
reports informed on the implemented activities and achievements of a combination
of individual projects. The reporting was required to list all activities conducted and
to show how those activities were linked to higher-level results, and how they contributed towards attaining the programme goal.
The EPINAV story provides an alternative narrative to support reporting and to
verify the information presented on implemented activities. One major challenge
that the coordination team faces is the danger of assuming that reports from individual projects were accurate. Otherwise, the programme story helps the PIT in
reporting to the Steering Committee and the Embassy and in receiving reports from
the field.
The EPINAV programme had a substantial geographical coverage and broad
stakeholders’ involvement, which made the monitoring of fieldwork challenging,
both for the coordination team and for the funder. A monitoring team was constituted and assigned the role of undertaking field-based verification on an annual
basis. Reports from these missions indicated a need for informing the coordination team on what was happening in the area. The monitoring team reports
Y. B. Mkwizu et al.