597
provided an alternative narrative to the reports from the coordinators of research
and strategic intervention projects. However, because the monitoring teams were
appointed by the coordination team and reported to them, the alternative narrative
they provided may not have been sufficient to reveal all the essential realities surrounding the success or failure of the project, for example, at its design. This is
explained by the differences in the findings from monitoring team reports and
review reports, where the programme was considered to be too ambitious and
‘spread out’ at the design, a weakness revealed by the review reports, and not by
the monitoring teams.
4.2 Storytelling from Progress Reporting and Midterm Review
Progress reports applied a results framework to show results achieved from planned
work. Because research and strategic intervention projects had just begun, fewer
results were reported at the end of the second year when the midterm review was
conducted. Hence, progress reports during the 4th and 5th years of the programme,
the latter falling under the extension period, were the documents that revealed the
contribution of implemented activities and recorded outputs to the results.
The EPINAV story presents the potential of using progress reporting to build on
the base story, which was set following programme approval. Progress reports
would be equivalent to mid-stories. On the point of departure between PAs and AAs
following programme approval, the first progress reports, together with the midterm
review, were to be subjected to challenges from the AFB because they would not
have realised the results (outcomes and impacts) by that time. These beneficiaries
would update their digital stories, which they set as a baseline, and use them to
confirm that no changes occurred from their side. The first mid-stories would, therefore, have given power to AAs to put pressure on the PAs, mainly the programme
coordinator, to increase efficiency in resource use, both time and monetary. Progress
reports in the last 2 years would have more results to show and would be supported
by the beneficiaries from both AAs and PAs, verified by their updated digital stories.
This level of participation from stakeholders is vital for the success of an initiative
that targets farmers (Pretty 1995).
According to the EPINAV agreement, if the midterm review and audit reports
indicated poor performance, the programme could be discontinued. In this case,
neither PAs nor AAs would have won. However, even if there were no conclusive
findings, verification from beneficiaries who joined both AAs and PAs would have
provided added information to validate the findings. Equally important is the final
programme and audit reports. Results and conclusions of the two stories were the
essential judgement of the programme failure or success when supported directly by
verification from beneficiaries. Essentially, the storytelling from midterm reviews
and progress reporting could have helped in portraying the final winning of either
PAs or AAs. More importantly, there was a possibility to reveal and clarify issues
that might have emerged after the programme had ended. This possibility is an
Assessing the Role of Storytelling Presentation in Knowledge Transfer from Climate…
provided an alternative narrative to the reports from the coordinators of research
and strategic intervention projects. However, because the monitoring teams were
appointed by the coordination team and reported to them, the alternative narrative
they provided may not have been sufficient to reveal all the essential realities surrounding the success or failure of the project, for example, at its design. This is
explained by the differences in the findings from monitoring team reports and
review reports, where the programme was considered to be too ambitious and
‘spread out’ at the design, a weakness revealed by the review reports, and not by
the monitoring teams.
4.2 Storytelling from Progress Reporting and Midterm Review
Progress reports applied a results framework to show results achieved from planned
work. Because research and strategic intervention projects had just begun, fewer
results were reported at the end of the second year when the midterm review was
conducted. Hence, progress reports during the 4th and 5th years of the programme,
the latter falling under the extension period, were the documents that revealed the
contribution of implemented activities and recorded outputs to the results.
The EPINAV story presents the potential of using progress reporting to build on
the base story, which was set following programme approval. Progress reports
would be equivalent to mid-stories. On the point of departure between PAs and AAs
following programme approval, the first progress reports, together with the midterm
review, were to be subjected to challenges from the AFB because they would not
have realised the results (outcomes and impacts) by that time. These beneficiaries
would update their digital stories, which they set as a baseline, and use them to
confirm that no changes occurred from their side. The first mid-stories would, therefore, have given power to AAs to put pressure on the PAs, mainly the programme
coordinator, to increase efficiency in resource use, both time and monetary. Progress
reports in the last 2 years would have more results to show and would be supported
by the beneficiaries from both AAs and PAs, verified by their updated digital stories.
This level of participation from stakeholders is vital for the success of an initiative
that targets farmers (Pretty 1995).
According to the EPINAV agreement, if the midterm review and audit reports
indicated poor performance, the programme could be discontinued. In this case,
neither PAs nor AAs would have won. However, even if there were no conclusive
findings, verification from beneficiaries who joined both AAs and PAs would have
provided added information to validate the findings. Equally important is the final
programme and audit reports. Results and conclusions of the two stories were the
essential judgement of the programme failure or success when supported directly by
verification from beneficiaries. Essentially, the storytelling from midterm reviews
and progress reporting could have helped in portraying the final winning of either
PAs or AAs. More importantly, there was a possibility to reveal and clarify issues
that might have emerged after the programme had ended. This possibility is an
Assessing the Role of Storytelling Presentation in Knowledge Transfer from Climate…