Stakeholder Power and Influence in the Sundarbans Resilience Project
1. Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most from the project’s outcomes?
In the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP), national government agencies and international donors hold the highest influence due to their control over policies, funding, and strategic direction. They determine project priorities, approve budgets, and shape implementation frameworks.
In contrast, local communities, particularly forest-dependent households, women, and marginalized groups, benefit the most from the project’s outcomes. Improved livelihoods, reduced disaster risks, and strengthened coastal protection directly affect their daily lives, even though they have limited influence over project decisions.
This distinction highlights a common pattern in climate adaptation projects: those with the greatest influence are not always the primary beneficiaries.
2. Stakeholder roles, potential benefits, and levels of influence
Government Agencies (National & Local)
Role: Policy formulation, regulation, coordination, and infrastructure development
Benefits: Reduced disaster-related losses, improved coastal security, national climate resilience
Influence: High (formal authority and resource control)
International Donors & Development Partners
Role: Financing, technical guidance, monitoring and evaluation
Benefits: Successful project outcomes, development impact, accountability
Influence: High (financial leverage and strategic oversight)
NGOs and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)
Role: Community engagement, livelihood programs, capacity building
Benefits: Institutional strengthening, social impact, credibility
Influence: Medium to high (strong local trust but limited formal power)
Local Communities (including women and marginalized groups)
Role: Project implementation at the ground level, ecosystem stewardship
Benefits: Livelihood diversification, safety, long-term resilience
Influence: Low (limited participation in decision-making)
Researchers and Academic Institutions
Role: Monitoring, data collection, impact assessment
Benefits: Knowledge generation, policy-relevant research
Influence: Medium (inform decisions indirectly)
3. Contributions and dependencies among stakeholder groups
Different stakeholder groups contribute to and depend on the project in complementary ways:
Government agencies depend on NGOs and communities for effective implementation.
NGOs rely on government legitimacy and donor funding.
Local communities depend on all other stakeholders for resources, infrastructure, and policy support but contribute essential local knowledge and labor.
Researchers depend on project access and data while providing evidence for adaptive management.
This interdependence underscores that collaboration is not optional but essential for climate adaptation success.
4. Power imbalances and overlooked voices
A key power imbalance exists between decision-makers (government and donors) and primary beneficiaries (local communities). Despite being most affected by climate risks, communities especially women and marginalized groups often have limited influence over planning and resource allocation.
If these voices are overlooked, risks include:
Low community ownership
Inequitable benefit distribution
Reduced long-term sustainability
Strengthening participatory mechanisms can help correct these imbalances.
5. Determining power and influence in the given context
Power and influence were determined based on:
Control over financial resources
Policy and regulatory authority
Decision-making roles
Ability to shape implementation and community behavior
For example, donors have high influence due to funding control, while NGOs have influence through trust and social networks despite limited formal power.
6. Peer Response and Comparison
In response to my peer’s post, I noticed that they placed NGOs in the high-power category, whereas I categorized them as high-influence but lower-power actors. This difference highlights how power can be interpreted differently—either as formal authority or as social and operational influence.
This comparison reveals that climate adaptation projects rely heavily on informal power structures, such as trust and community legitimacy, which are just as important as formal governance. Recognizing both forms of power is crucial for designing inclusive and effective adaptation strategies.
Conclusion
The stakeholder mapping exercise demonstrates that the success of the Sundarbans Resilience Project depends on balancing formal authority with grassroots influence. Addressing power asymmetries and amplifying marginalized voices will be essential to achieving equitable and sustainable climate resilience.