Based on the stakeholder power–influence analysis and comparison with the reference framework, national government decentralized departments and the project donor hold the most influence in the project. This is because they control key decision-making processes, including policy direction, budget allocation, approvals, and access to resources. Local communities benefit the most from the project outcomes, as they are the primary recipients of improved livelihoods, resilience-building interventions, and enhanced wellbeing, even though they hold comparatively low power and influence.
Each stakeholder plays a distinct role within the project. Government agencies act as the main coordinators and planners, facilitating implementation at local levels while benefiting from capacity building, strengthened institutional coordination, and enhanced legitimacy with communities and donors. The donor provides financial resources and technical guidance and gains reputational benefits, credibility, and influence over development priorities. NGOs support community engagement, implementation, and facilitation, relying on government authority while benefiting from project experience and institutional partnerships. Researchers contribute evidence, analysis, and learning, depending on both government approval and community participation to generate relevant findings. Local communities provide contextual knowledge, participation, and legitimacy but have limited influence over strategic decisions despite being the most affected.
These groups are highly interdependent. Government agencies depend on NGOs and researchers for effective field-level engagement and knowledge generation, while NGOs and researchers rely on government authority to operate within communities. Local communities depend on these actors to channel their needs and priorities into project design and implementation, while the project’s success ultimately depends on meaningful community participation.
However, there are clear power imbalances. Communities particularly women and marginalized groups have limited decision-making power despite being the most vulnerable to climate impacts. If their voices are insufficiently integrated, project interventions risk being misaligned with local priorities, potentially undermining effectiveness and sustainability.
Power and influence were determined based on control over resources, decision-making authority, ability to shape project direction, and dependence relationships among stakeholders. Those who could approve, delay, or redirect project activities were assessed as having high power, while those primarily involved in implementation or affected by outcomes were assessed as having lower influence.
Thank you for this well-structured and comprehensive analysis. I strongly agree with your assessment that decentralized government departments and project donors hold the greatest influence due to their control over decision-making, funding, and approvals, while local communities are the primary beneficiaries despite having limited formal power.
I particularly appreciate how you highlighted the interdependence among stakeholders. Your point that government agencies rely on NGOs and researchers for effective field engagement, while those actors depend on government authority to operate, clearly illustrates the collaborative nature of climate adaptation projects. This reinforces the idea that influence does not operate in isolation but through networks of dependency.
I also agree with your observation on power imbalances, especially regarding women and marginalized groups within local communities. Even though communities are the most affected by climate impacts, their limited role in strategic decision-making poses a real risk to project sustainability. This underscores the importance of moving beyond participation as consultation and toward more inclusive, co-decision mechanisms.
Compared to my own stakeholder mapping, your analysis further clarifies how institutional power (control over resources and approvals) often outweighs social influence, even when communities are central to implementation and outcomes. This comparison highlights a recurring challenge in climate adaptation efforts: aligning decision-making authority with lived experience and local priorities.
Overall, your contribution clearly demonstrates how unequal power relations, if not intentionally addressed, can undermine the effectiveness and long-term impact of otherwise well-designed adaptation projects.