Discussion Forum Response
After identifying and mapping the stakeholders involved in the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) based on their levels of power and influence, a clear hierarchy of roles and benefits becomes evident when compared to the reference framework.
The stakeholders holding the greatest influence are national government agencies and international donors. They control funding, policy direction, regulations, and overall project priorities, which gives them significant authority over decision-making processes. However, the groups that benefit the most from the project’s outcomes are local communities, particularly fishers, farmers, and women’s groups, whose livelihoods, safety, and resilience directly depend on the success of ecosystem restoration and disaster preparedness efforts.
Each stakeholder plays a distinct role within the project. Government agencies provide policy frameworks, regulatory approval, and coordination across sectors. International donors offer financial resources and technical guidance. NGOs act as intermediaries, translating policies into local action, supporting community engagement, and implementing livelihood and restoration activities. Local communities contribute traditional knowledge, labor, and long-term stewardship of the mangrove ecosystem, while researchers and universities support monitoring, data collection, and evidence-based decision-making.
Different groups contribute to and depend on the project in varying ways. Government agencies and donors contribute resources and authority, while NGOs depend on both funding and community trust to operate effectively. Local communities are highly dependent on the project for protection from climate risks and improved livelihoods, even though they often have limited formal power. Researchers depend on the project context for data and learning, while also strengthening the project’s credibility.
There are notable power imbalances within the project. While local communities and women’s groups are central to implementation and are most affected by climate impacts, their influence over strategic decisions remains relatively low. If these voices are not meaningfully included, there is a risk that project outcomes may not fully reflect local needs or knowledge, potentially undermining long-term sustainability.
The power and influence of each stakeholder were determined by assessing their control over resources, decision-making authority, level of engagement in implementation, and degree of dependence on project outcomes. Stakeholders with financial, regulatory, or policy control were categorized as high power, while those most affected by outcomes but with limited decision-making authority were categorized as high influence but low power.
In responding to a peer’s post, I noticed differences in how NGOs and local authorities were positioned. While my mapping placed NGOs as key local influencers with moderate power, my peer categorized them as lower influence. This difference highlights how stakeholder relationships can be perceived differently depending on whether emphasis is placed on formal authority or on day-to-day engagement and community trust. Such differences reveal the importance of context-sensitive stakeholder analysis in climate adaptation efforts.
When comparing my stakeholder mapping of the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) with your analysis, there is a strong convergence on the overall power structure of the project, alongside subtle but important differences in perspective. Both mappings identify national government agencies and international donors as the most influential stakeholders, given their control over policy direction, funding, and regulatory authority. Similarly, both analyses agree that local communities—particularly fishers, farmers, and women’s groups—are the primary beneficiaries, as their livelihoods, safety, and resilience are directly shaped by the project’s outcomes.
Where the two perspectives begin to diverge is in how intermediary actors, particularly NGOs and local authorities, are understood in terms of influence. In my mapping, NGOs are positioned as key local influencers with moderate power, reflecting their central role in implementation, community engagement, and translating high-level strategies into locally meaningful action. Your response, while acknowledging NGOs’ importance, places comparatively greater emphasis on their dependence on donor funding and government frameworks, which results in NGOs being perceived as having lower influence. This difference highlights two valid but distinct ways of interpreting power: one grounded in formal authority and resource control, and the other in operational influence, trust, and proximity to communities.
A similar nuance emerges in the treatment of local government authorities. My mapping views them as important bridging actors who mediate between national policies and community-level realities, whereas your framing leans more toward their administrative role within existing hierarchies. This contrast reveals how stakeholder influence in climate adaptation is often relational rather than absolute—actors may wield significant influence in practice even if their formal decision-making authority is limited.
Both analyses also converge on the presence of power imbalances, particularly between decision-makers and those most affected by climate risks. While local communities and women’s groups are essential to implementation and long-term sustainability, their influence over strategic decisions remains constrained. The shared recognition of this imbalance underscores a central challenge in climate adaptation: those with the greatest exposure to climate impacts often have the least voice in shaping responses.
Overall, the differences between my mapping and your reveal that stakeholder relationships in climate adaptation efforts are highly context-dependent and shaped by the lens through which power is assessed. Whether influence is defined primarily by control over resources or by everyday engagement and legitimacy can significantly alter how stakeholders are positioned. This comparison reinforces the importance of adopting a multi-dimensional approach to stakeholder analysis, one that recognizes both formal power and informal influence to support more inclusive and effective climate adaptation outcomes.