Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most?
Most Influence (High Power)
(a) National Government of Bangladesh
(b) International Donors (e.g., World Bank, UN agencies)
(c) SRP Project Management Authority
Most Benefit (High Interest)
(a) Local communities (farmers, fishers, forest-dependent households)
(b) Women and marginalized groups
Stakeholder Roles, Benefits & Influence
In the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP), different stakeholders play distinct roles with varying levels of influence and benefits. The national government is responsible for policy-making, regulation, and overall oversight, benefiting through improved political stability and climate resilience while holding high influence. International donors provide funding and technical guidance, gaining global development impact and also possessing high influence. The SRP management team coordinates and executes the project, benefiting from its success and maintaining high influence. Local government authorities handle implementation and enforcement, contributing to regional development with medium to high influence. NGOs focus on community mobilization and training, gaining social impact and visibility with moderate influence. Local communities participate directly in restoration and livelihood activities, benefiting greatly through improved safety and income, though they have low formal influence. Similarly, women and marginalized groups adopt alternative livelihoods and gain economic empowerment but remain low in influence. Researchers contribute through monitoring and data analysis, benefiting from knowledge generation with low influence, while environmental agencies oversee ecosystem monitoring, achieving conservation outcomes with moderate influence.
Contributions vs Dependence
Government Agencies
Contribution: Policy frameworks, Infrastructure development (embankments, shelters), Disaster management systems
Dependence: Rely on project success for governance credibility and climate commitments
NGOs
Contribution: Community engagement, Skill-building and livelihood training, Awareness programs
Dependence: Depend on funding and community trust to operate effectively
Local Communities
Contribution: Mangrove restoration, Local ecological knowledge, Adoption of sustainable livelihoods
Dependence: Highly dependent on Natural resources, Project support for survival and resilience
Researchers & Institutions
Contribution: Climate data and impact assessments, Monitoring ecosystem restoration
Dependence: Depend on project access and funding for research opportunities
Power Imbalances & Overlooked Voices
Key Imbalances
Top-down control vs bottom-up impact
Governments and donors make decisions
Communities face consequences
Knowledge imbalance
Scientific knowledge prioritized over local indigenous knowledge
Overlooked Voices
Women (especially in rural households)
Marginalized and landless populations
Small-scale resource users (e.g., subsistence fishers)
Risks:
Poor adoption of solutions
Inequitable benefit distribution
Social conflict or resistance
How Power & Influence Were Determined
The classification was based on three main criteria:
1. Control Over Resources
Who controls funding, infrastructure, and policies?
(High power → Government, Donors)
2. Decision-Making Authority
Who sets rules and project direction?
(High influence → SRP leadership, national authorities)
3. Level of Dependency
Who is most affected by project outcomes?
(High benefit → Local communities)
4. Ability to Influence Outcomes
Who can enable or block implementation?
(Medium influence → NGOs, local authorities)