Power, Influence, & equity in the Sundarbans Resilience Project
After completing the stakeholder mapping exercise, my analysis placed national government agencies and international donors (like the EU) in the Manage Closely quadrant, as they hold the most formal power and influence over resources, regulations, and strategic direction.
The group that may benefit the most from the project’s outcomes are local communities, whose livelihoods, safety, and ecosystems stand to gain directly from mangrove restoration, disaster-resilient infrastructure, and alternative income programs. However, their formal power is lower, placing them in Keep Informed.
I determined influence based on decision-making authority (power) and social/community mobilization capacity (influence). For example:
· Government & Donors: High power via funding and policy.
· Local NGOs & Community Leaders: High influence via grassroots trust and implementation role.
· Researchers & Universities: Moderate power via expertise, but often lower direct influence on daily operations.
A key concern is the potential power imbalance between high-level decision-makers and local voices. If communities are merely informed rather than actively engaged in co-design, the project may not address their real needs, risking poor adoption or even resistance. Similarly, the role of women, Indigenous groups, and marginalized livelihood dependents could be overlooked unless intentionally included.
Overall, the mapping reveals that successful climate adaptation in the Sundarbans depends on bridging the gap between those with formal power and those with lived experience and local influence.