Stakeholder Analysis Principles and the SRP case context.
Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most from the project’s outcomes?
Most Influence:The national government agencies and international donors hold the most influence. Government ministries control policy, regulatory approvals, and integration with national climate strategies, while donors control financial resources, reporting requirements, and strategic priorities. Together, they shape project scope, timelines, and success metrics.
Greatest Beneficiaries:The local communities in the Sundarbans region benefit the most from the project’s outcomes. They gain improved livelihoods, reduced disaster risk, strengthened infrastructure, and long-term environmental protection. The ecosystem itself (mangrove forests) is also a major beneficiary through restoration and protection efforts.
2. Stakeholder roles, potential benefits, and levels of influence
StakeholderRoleBenefitsInfluenceNational GovernmentPolicy, regulation, oversightClimate resilience, national security, compliance with global commitmentsHighInternational DonorsFunding, strategic guidanceImpact outcomes, accountability, climate goalsHighSRP Project Management UnitPlanning, coordinationProject success, institutional credibilityHighLocal GovernmentsLocal implementation, coordinationImproved services, local resilienceMediumNGOs / CSOsCommunity mobilization, livelihoods, advocacySocial impact, mission fulfillmentMediumLocal CommunitiesImplementation, stewardshipIncome security, safety, resilienceLow–MediumResearch InstitutionsMonitoring, evaluation, dataKnowledge generation, policy influenceMediumDisaster Response AgenciesPreparedness and responseReduced disaster lossesMediumPrivate SectorLivelihood alternatives, marketsEconomic opportunitiesLow–Medium
3. How different groups contribute to or depend on the project
Government agencies contribute policy authority and depend on the project to meet national climate adaptation and disaster-risk-reduction goals.
NGOs contribute local trust, social mobilization, and technical livelihood support, while depending on project funding and community participation.
Local communities contribute indigenous knowledge, labor, and stewardship, and depend heavily on the project for livelihoods, safety, and long-term resilience.
Researchers contribute scientific evidence, monitoring, and learning, and depend on project access and data to inform climate research and policy.
Donors contribute financial resources and depend on measurable impact and accountability.
4. Power imbalances and overlooked voices
Yes, several power imbalances exist:
Communities have high stakes but limited decision-making power, despite being the most affected by outcomes.
Women, informal workers, and marginalized groups risk being underrepresented if engagement mechanisms are weak.
Donor and government priorities may dominate over local needs, potentially leading to top-down interventions.
Traditional and indigenous knowledge may be undervalued compared to technical or scientific inputs.
If not addressed, these imbalances could reduce local ownership, compliance, and long-term sustainability.
5. How power and influence were determined
Power and influence were assessed using:
Control over resources (funding, infrastructure, permits)
Decision-making authority (policy, approvals, enforcement)
Ability to shape outcomes (agenda-setting, implementation control)
Level of dependency (who relies most on the project for survival or success)
Knowledge and expertise (technical, ecological, or social capital)
Stakeholders with funding authority and regulatory control were classified as high influence, while those most affected but with limited authority were classified as lower influence.