Discussion Forum Response: Stakeholder Analysis of the SRP
1. Most Influential and Most Benefited Stakeholders
Most Influence:Government agencies such as the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Forest Department (FD), and Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) hold the most influence. They control policies, budgets, and project approvals, making them the primary decision-makers. International donors also exert high influence through funding and technical requirements.
Most Benefited:Local communities, particularly forest-dependent households, marginalized groups, and women, benefit the most. They gain from ecosystem restoration, disaster resilience, livelihood diversification, and climate adaptation support.
2. Stakeholder Roles, Benefits, and Influence Levels
Stakeholder GroupRole in ProjectPotential BenefitsLevel of InfluenceGovernment Agencies (MoEFCC, FD, BWDB, DDM)Decision-making, policy, budget allocation, infrastructure planningProject success, environmental sustainability, regulatory achievementHighInternational Donors (World Bank, UNDP, GCF)Funding, technical guidance, accountabilityAchievement of climate adaptation goals, visibility of successHighLocal CommunitiesParticipate in conservation, adopt alternative livelihoodsImproved resilience, safer living conditions, diversified incomeLow–MediumNGOs & CBOsFacilitate community engagement, awareness, trainingSuccessful project implementation, community trust, recognitionMediumResearchers / UniversitiesEcological monitoring, data collection, advisoryScientific outputs, enhanced understanding of climate impactsMediumPrivate Sector / TradersProvide markets for sustainable productsEconomic benefit, business opportunitiesLow–Medium
3. Contribution and Dependency of Different Groups
Government agencies contribute authority, resources, and coordination; they depend on NGOs and communities for field-level implementation.
NGOs and CBOs contribute local knowledge, mobilization, and awareness; they depend on funding and policy support from government and donors.
Local communities contribute labor, local knowledge, and engagement; they depend heavily on the project for livelihoods, safety, and resource management.
Researchers contribute evidence-based guidance; they depend on access to sites and community cooperation.
4. Power Imbalances and Overlooked Voices
Power imbalances exist: government agencies and donors dominate decision-making, while local communities, women, and marginalized groups have less influence despite high dependence.
Overlooked voices could include seasonal workers, small-scale fishers, and Indigenous minority groups whose concerns may not be fully integrated into policy decisions.
If these voices are ignored, community compliance and long-term sustainability could be at risk.
5. Determining Power and Influence
The power and influence of each stakeholder were determined by:
Decision-making authority: Who sets policies, controls funding, and approves actions.
Ability to implement: Who executes project activities and ensures compliance.
Impact/benefit: Who gains the most from project outcomes.
Knowledge and expertise: Who provides essential technical or local knowledge for project success.
By combining these dimensions, stakeholders were mapped into the Influence–Interest Matrix to identify engagement strategies.
6. Reflection for Peer Comparison
When comparing stakeholder maps with peers, differences may emerge:
Some might emphasize community influence more, highlighting participatory governance.
Others might prioritize donor influence, reflecting financial leverage over decision-making.
These differences reveal that stakeholder relationships in climate adaptation are complex and context-dependent: influence is not just formal authority but also the ability to mobilize support, knowledge, and action.
Thank you for sharing your stakeholder map. Compared with mine, I noticed that you placed local communities in a higher influence category, while I categorized them as high-interest but low-influence actors. This difference shows how influence in climate adaptation can be interpreted in different ways, formal power versus social or moral influence. Your perspective highlights that community mobilization and local pressure can meaningfully shape project outcomes, even without formal authority. In contrast, my mapping emphasized institutional power held by government agencies and donors. Together, our analyses show that climate adaptation requires both top-down support and bottom-up engagement to succeed.