Based on the stakeholder mapping exercise and the reference framework provided, a clear pattern emerges regarding power, influence, and benefits within climate adaptation projects in South Punjab (Multan Division). Provincial and district government agencies, particularly disaster management authorities and irrigation departments, hold the highest level of influence because they control policy decisions, funding allocations, infrastructure planning, and emergency responses. However, the groups that benefit the most from successful project outcomes are local communities—especially smallholder farmers, landless laborers, and women-headed households—as their livelihoods, safety, and long-term resilience directly depend on effective adaptation measures.
Each stakeholder plays a distinct role with varying levels of power and benefit. Government agencies act as duty bearers responsible for planning, coordination, and implementation; they have high influence but often derive indirect benefits such as political legitimacy and institutional performance rather than direct livelihood gains. Local communities are primary rights holders with deep contextual knowledge and the highest exposure to climate risks, yet they typically have low formal influence despite being the main beneficiaries. NGOs and community-based organizations occupy a middle position, translating community needs into actionable programs, supporting capacity building, and advocating for inclusive approaches; their influence is moderate and often dependent on donor support. International organizations and donors exert strategic influence through funding priorities and technical guidance, while researchers and academic institutions contribute evidence, risk assessments, and monitoring tools but usually have limited decision-making power. Religious and informal institutions play an important but often underestimated role by providing social safety nets and mobilizing local trust during and after disasters.
Different stakeholder groups contribute to and depend on the project in complementary ways. Government bodies rely on NGOs and researchers for implementation support and data, while communities depend on both state institutions and civil society for resources, early warning, and recovery assistance. NGOs, in turn, depend on community participation for legitimacy and on government approval for scale and sustainability. This interdependence highlights that effective climate adaptation cannot be achieved by any single actor.
Several power imbalances and overlooked voices could affect project success. Marginalized groups—particularly women, landless workers, and the poorest households—often have limited representation in planning processes despite facing the greatest risks. Top-down decision-making and short-term project cycles may further weaken community ownership and long-term resilience. If these voices are not meaningfully included, adaptation measures risk being technically sound but socially ineffective.
The assessment of power and influence was based on control over resources, decision-making authority, legal mandates, and ability to shape outcomes, combined with stakeholders’ exposure to climate risks and dependence on project results. Tools such as the interest–power matrix and rights-holder analysis were used to distinguish between formal authority and lived vulnerability.
In responding to a peer’s stakeholder mapping, I noticed that while they placed NGOs as the most influential actors, my analysis identifies government agencies as holding greater structural power, with NGOs acting as intermediaries. This difference reveals how perspectives can vary depending on whether influence is viewed through formal authority or on-the-ground operational presence. Together, these perspectives underscore the importance of aligning institutional power with community-centered approaches to ensure equitable and effective climate adaptation outcomes.