1.
Most influential bodies:
Government Agencies
International Donors
Disaster Management Authorities
Most Benefiaries
Forest Dependent Communities
Farming Communities
Marginalized Communities
Roles/Benefits/Level of Influence
Government Agencies: Project Approval/National policy achievement/high (Keep satisfied)
International Donors: Funding/International policy achievement/high (Keep satisfied)
Ministry, Disaster Authorities, and Research Institutions: Analysis, technical assessment/High (Manage closely)
Local actors and informal observers: Facilitation and communication/Closer relationships with communities/Low(Monitor)
Dependent Households and Farming Communities: Communicate their needs/retrieval with their professional activities that guarantee their livelihood. Low (Keep informed) 3. Contribution and dependency:
Government agencies provide the means to research institutions along with ministries to carry out studies on the disaster and plan a resolution route. The authorities transform this research into a tangible project which will be submit to international donors for a potential funding. All the decisions regarding the project are on them.
The local actors and informal observers act as the intermediaries between households and the decision makers. They have the ability to communicate effectively and know the exact role of each stakeholder. They can make pressure on the authorities but do not have power of decision.
The farming communities and households Collaborate with the project teams, allow them to access different places to conduct a comprehensive research and an effective project implementation. They are fully dependent on the project outcome.
4. Power Imbalance Power imbalance is existing. The farming communities may undergo power imbalance effects by not having the opportunity to express their specific needs as the authorities just implement the project in a general manner while there are exising specific needs that needs deeper consideration.
I really like how you structured your stakeholder mapping, especially the way you clearly separated the most influential actors from the main beneficiaries. It aligns closely with how I also understood the case, but there are a few areas where my perspective slightly differs.
For me, I would place government agencies and international donors under “manage closely” rather than “keep satisfied.” The reason is that they are not just influential but actively involved in shaping the direction of the project through funding decisions, policy alignment and implementation oversight. So their level of engagement seems more continuous and direct, rather than passive.
I agree strongly with your identification of forest-dependent and farming communities as the main beneficiaries. They clearly gain the most in terms of livelihood security and protection from climate risks. However, what stands out to me is exactly what you mentioned about power imbalance. These communities are at the center of the impact, yet they remain at the edge of decision-making. That gap is critical.
Your point about local actors acting as intermediaries is also very important. I think this role is often underestimated. Even though they have low formal power, they can influence how well the project is accepted and implemented at the community level. In some cases, I would even argue they could shift toward “keep informed” or slightly higher influence, depending on how strong their connection to the community is.
What your analysis really highlights for me is that climate adaptation projects are not just technical, they are deeply political and social. Who speaks, who decides and who benefits are not always aligned. And if those voices at the bottom, especially marginalized households are not properly included, it can affect the long-term success of the project.
Overall, your mapping clearly shows the structure of the system, but it also reveals a key issue:
those who are most affected still have the least control and that’s something future projects really need to address.