Stakeholder Power-Interest Mapping
I mapped 10 SRP stakeholders into a power-interest matrix:
Manage Closely: Forest Department, international donors, implementing NGOs (IUCN, BRAC)
Keep Satisfied: Ministry of Environment, shrimp farming industry, local government
Keep Informed: fishing communities, honey collectors, women's groups
Monitor: research institutions
Influence vs. benefit: The Forest Department and donors hold the most influence through funding and policy control, but local fishers, honey collectors, and women's groups benefit most directly, since their livelihoods depend on the ecosystem. This gap between power and benefit is common in climate adaptation projects.
Roles and dependencies: Government and donors provide authority and capital; NGOs bridge policy and implementation; communities hold local knowledge and sustain restoration long-term; researchers build the evidence base. Each group depends on the others.
Power imbalance: The groups with the highest stake fishers, honey collectors, women have the least formal power. Without real decision-making roles (not just consultation), the project risks reflecting donor priorities over community realities. Shrimp farming interests may also quietly conflict with restoration goals.
Method: I assessed power by who controls resources/regulation, and interest by whose livelihood is most directly affected separating who shapes the project from who it's meant to serve.