Referenced Comparison and Justification of the Stakeholders Mapping for the Sundarbans Resilience Project.
International donors, national government agencies (such as BFD, MoEFCC, and the Disaster Management Bureau), and the SRP Project Management Unit (PMU) emerge as the most influential stakeholders because they shape project priorities, approve budgets, define safeguards, and oversee execution. In contrast, local communities and the Sundarbans ecosystem are the primary beneficiaries.
The roles and contributions of each stakeholder group are summarized in the stakeholder table attached. Government agencies provide regulatory authority, coordination capacity, and enforcement mechanisms, making them central to project legitimacy and scale. Donors contribute financial resources, technical standards, and monitoring requirements, which directly influence project design and accountability structures. NGOs and community-based organizations act as intermediaries, facilitating community engagement, promoting behavioral change, and strengthening local accountability. Researchers contribute data, monitoring tools, and adaptation strategies that inform evidence-based decision-making. Meanwhile, the private sector supports sustainable livelihood investments. However this must be regulated to avoid undermining restoration efforts.
Power imbalances that could affect the project success are marginalized groups such as women, ethnic minorities, landless households, and subsistence fishers who often have high dependency on project outcomes but limited voice in planning and implementation. If their needs are not explicitly integrated, project benefits may be unevenly distributed. Similarly, overlooking informal governance structures and local leadership can generate resistance or weak community ownership. At the same time, powerful private-sector interests may push for short-term economic gains that conflict with long-term ecological restoration goals.
Stakeholder power and influence were determined based on formal authority and mandates, control of financial and material resources, operational and technical capacity, social legitimacy and mobilization potential, and the level of dependence on project outcomes.
I appreciated your stakeholder mapping, especially how you highlighted NGOs as the most influential actors. In my analysis, I ranked government institutions slightly higher due to their regulatory authority and control over national frameworks. This difference reveals how context matters—in some settings NGOs drive implementation, while in others government leadership shapes outcomes. Both perspectives show the importance of strong partnerships to balance power and ensure community voices are meaningfully included in climate adaptation efforts.