Honestly, when I was mapping out the stakeholders for this project, one thing became very clear to me:
the people who have the most power are not the ones who are most affected.
Starting with influence, I identified government agencies and international donors as holding the highest level of power. They control funding, policy direction and overall project design. Without them, the project literally cannot exist. So in my view, they are the ones that must be managed closely, not just kept satisfied, because they are actively shaping outcomes, not just observing them.
On the other hand, the biggest beneficiaries are the local communities especially forest-dependent households, farmers, and marginalized groups. These are the people whose lives are directly impacted by climate change and who stand to gain the most from improved livelihoods, protection from disasters and environmental restoration. But here’s the irony: they benefit the most, yet they have the least influence.
Looking at roles, I see the project almost like a system:
The government and donors act as the “decision-makers and funders”
NGOs and researchers act as the “brains” (providing knowledge, data and technical solutions)
Local communities are both the “implementers and beneficiaries” because they are the ones living with the outcomes daily
What I find interesting is how interdependent everyone is. The government depends on researchers for data, donors depend on government for implementation, and the entire project depends on communities for cooperation and long-term sustainability. If one part fails, the whole system weakens.
Now, the issue of power imbalance is where things get real. There is a clear gap. Communities, especially marginalized groups and women, may not always have the space to express their specific needs. Projects can sometimes be designed in a “top-down” way, meaning decisions are made at higher levels and then applied generally, without fully capturing local realities. That’s risky because climate impacts are very context-specific.
One thing I kept asking myself while doing this mapping was: “Who makes the decisions, and who lives with the consequences?”
That question helped me determine power vs influence. If a stakeholder controls money, policy or implementation, they have high power. If they are directly affected by the outcomes, they have high interest.
In the end, what this case really shows is that climate adaptation is not just about planting mangroves or building infrastructure. It’s about balancing power, voices, and participation. Because if the people at the center of the problem are not truly included in the decision-making process, then even the best-designed projects might not fully succeed.