The stakeholder analysis of the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) reveals a clear distinction between those who hold decision-making power and those who benefit most directly from the project’s outcomes. National government agencies and international donors emerge as the most influential actors. Government institutions possess regulatory authority over coastal protection, forestry management, and disaster risk reduction, while donors exercise significant influence through financial resources and strategic priorities. Together, these stakeholders shape the project’s objectives, design, and implementation framework.
In contrast, local communities—particularly farmers, fishers, and forest-dependent households—are the primary beneficiaries of the SRP. The project’s focus on mangrove restoration, livelihood diversification, and disaster-resistant infrastructure directly improves their safety, income security, and resilience to climate shocks. However, despite their high level of interest and dependence on the project’s success, these communities have comparatively limited influence over strategic decisions, highlighting a recurring dynamic in climate adaptation initiatives.
Other stakeholders play intermediary and supportive roles that are critical to translating high-level decisions into tangible outcomes. Local government authorities and non-governmental organizations act as key implementation and coordination agents, facilitating community engagement, delivering livelihood and restoration activities, and ensuring alignment with local development priorities. While these actors have substantial operational influence, their strategic authority remains constrained by national policies and donor requirements. Research institutions contribute technical expertise, ecological monitoring, and evidence to inform adaptive management, yet their role is largely advisory, limiting their direct influence on decision-making.
The analysis also points to notable power imbalances within the project. Decision-making authority is concentrated among actors who are relatively less exposed to the direct impacts of climate change, while those facing the greatest risks—local communities and marginalized groups such as women and landless households—have less voice in shaping project priorities. If not adequately addressed, this imbalance could undermine local ownership, equity, and long-term sustainability of adaptation outcomes.
Power and influence in the SRP were determined by assessing stakeholders’ control over resources, decision-making authority, ability to shape project outcomes, and level of dependency on the project. This approach underscores that influence extends beyond formal authority to include the capacity to enable, legitimize, or constrain action. Overall, the stakeholder dynamics of the SRP demonstrate that effective climate adaptation in complex ecosystems like the Sundarbans depends not only on technical interventions but also on inclusive governance that balances power, participation, and shared benefits.
I largely agree with your stakeholder mapping, particularly your clear distinction between high-influence actors (government agencies and donors) and high-benefit but low-influence actors (local communities). My analysis reached a similar conclusion, reinforcing the idea that climate adaptation projects like the SRP often operate within a top-down governance structure, even when outcomes are community-focused.
One difference in perspective is the emphasis on intermediary actors. While you highlight local governments and NGOs mainly as implementation agents with constrained authority, my mapping placed slightly more weight on their bridging role—not just translating decisions into action, but also shaping community participation and compliance. This suggests that although their formal power is limited, their practical influence over project success may be underestimated.
Overall, the similarities between our analyses underscore a common challenge in adaptation projects: aligning high-level authority with local needs and knowledge. The minor differences highlight how stakeholder roles can be interpreted differently depending on whether influence is viewed as formal authority or on-the-ground impact.