Discussion from the SRP Case Study
From the reading, we discover that Government institutions, donors, and SRP project managers hold the highest form of power and influence over the project. Together, they control the finances, policies, and strategies needed for the project.
On the other hand, the affected community and its inhabitants benefit the most from the project, yet they have no direct influence over the project, but depend wholly on the local NGOs to use their knowledge of the locality to implement the project.
Government agencies have a high level of power and influence over the project and benefit from national climate adaptation capacities/scores. Their job is to provide policy and regulate. International bodies: have low power but a strong influence; they most often have little to no contribution to operations or running of the project. Provide funding for the project.
NGOs: have a strong influence on how the project is carried out, but low power in terms of finance and decision making, as they still need to be guided by policies and funding provided, NGO’s knows the community and better understand how to implement the project in the community. Often serves as intermediates between the local communities and the government and international bodies.
Local communities and leaders have low power and strong influence, as most times success of the project depends on their cooperation; they are the primary beneficiaries of the project.
Scientific Researchers: They come up with the data-backed scientific strategies needed to execute the project. Their influence is low, but their work is important to the success of the project and its long-term goals.
The different groups contribute and depend on the project differently. Governments provide guidance and expect outcomes of national interest. International bodies provide funds and expect proper utilization of the funds for the project. NGOs hope to serve humans and the environment, while local communities hope to be liberated from the harsh conditions caused by climate change through the solutions brought by the researchers and local NGOs.
The case study didn’t particularly mention any power influences or overlooked voices; however, children and women are more likely to be overlooked in power imbalances in communities.
The power and influence of each stakeholder were determined based on the funding and control, and how funding and control will affect the general outcome of the project.
I agree with the other points raised in the discussion, but I do see clear power imbalances that cannot be overlooked. Communities, especially women and marginalized groups, often have limited decision‑making power despite being the most vulnerable to climate impacts. If their voices are not properly heard, project interventions risk might increase with local priorities, which can hinder both effectiveness and sustainability. power imbalance not only includes political imbalances but also includes who controls resources, who has authority to approve or redirect activities, and who depends on others for outcomes in social context