ACCESS4ALL Group

I agree with your observation that “the people who have the most power are not the ones who are most affected.” This was also one of the main conclusions I reached from my stakeholder mapping. My mapping similarly placed government agencies, international donors and key project management institutions in the Manage Closely quadrant because of their ability to influence funding, policy, regulations and project implementation.

One difference in our perspectives is that I gave slightly more emphasis to the distinction between formal power and influence. I placed local communities, NGOs and researchers primarily under Keep Informed, because although they may have limited formal decision-making power, they can have considerable influence through local knowledge, advocacy, community mobilisation and technical expertise. Your description of communities as both “implementers and beneficiaries” highlights why their influence can sometimes be greater than the formal mapping initially suggests.

I also agree with your point about the interdependence between stakeholders. Government may provide authority and coordination, donors provide resources, researchers provide evidence, NGOs facilitate engagement, and communities provide local knowledge and support the long-term sustainability of interventions.

What the difference in our mapping reveals is that power and influence are not static. A stakeholder may have low formal power but still have considerable influence over whether an adaptation intervention succeeds. This is particularly true for local communities, because their cooperation and participation can determine whether interventions such as mangrove restoration and livelihood diversification are sustained.

Overall, both perspectives demonstrate that effective climate adaptation requires more than identifying who has the authority to make decisions. It also requires understanding whose knowledge matters, who is affected by decisions, and whose participation is necessary for long-term success.