Sundarbans resilience project
Most Influence: The Primary Decision-Makers (National ministries, major donors like UNDP/World Bank, and Project Directors). They sit in the "Top Right" quadrant because they control the funding and the "development agendas."
Most Benefit: The Rights Holders (Local coastal communities, fishers, farmers). While they have the most at stake regarding "adaptation success," the project is literally designed for their survival and resilience.
In terms of stakeholder roles, benefits, and Influence Institutional Authorities roles are in Regulatory and Law Enforcement and the benefits falls in Policy alignment while the level of influence is
High (Power to block/approve). Primary Decision-Makers roles are in Funding and Management while the benefit is in Strategic success and in terms of level of influence is Very High (Direct control), while the Rights Holders roles is in Project Participation and they benefit for Survival/Livelihood with low level of influence. Besides, the peripheral actors such as observers/ media whose roles are to gather knowledge or data benefit tend to have minimal direct impact in the project.
Government Agencies/Donors: They contribute capital, legal frameworks, and high-level direction. The project depends on them for its existence. Local Communities: They depend on the project for climate adaptation. However, the project contributes to their safety and economic stability. Researchers/Media: They contribute by providing data and public visibility, though their dependence on the project is low. There is a significant power imbalance between the Top Right (Donors/Ministries) and the Bottom Right (Local Communities).The Risk: Even though communities are "Rights Holders" with high interest, they are placed in the "Keep Informed" category. This suggests they might be treated as passive recipients rather than active partners.
Overlooked Voices: If marginalized groups (smallholder farmers, etc.) are only "informed" rather than "consulted," the project may fail to address specific local needs, leading to a "shallow" participation. Power was determined by the entity’s ability to stop or start project activities (e.g., ministries and donors have the "keys" to the project). Influence/Interest was determined by how much the entity’s daily life or core mission is changed by the project's outcome (e.g., a fisherman's life changes more than a researcher's life).
One thing I really like about your mapping is how clearly you distinguish between “who holds the keys” and “who carries the risk” in daily life. It makes the power imbalance between ministries/donors and local communities very visible and concrete.
Reading your post, I kept wondering what would need to change so that rights holders move from “keep informed” closer to “manage closely” – for example, through community‑based organisations or co‑management structures. Your point about “shallow participation” really raises that question: if those most affected remain in the bottom right, the project may technically succeed on paper but still miss important local priorities. 😄