I agree with your observation that “the people who have the most power are not the ones who are most affected.” This was also one of the main conclusions I reached from my stakeholder mapping. My mapping similarly placed government agencies, international donors and key project management institutions in the Manage Closely quadrant because of their ability to influence funding, policy, regulations and project implementation.

One difference in our perspectives is that I gave slightly more emphasis to the distinction between formal power and influence. I placed local communities, NGOs and researchers primarily under Keep Informed, because although they may have limited formal decision-making power, they can have considerable influence through local knowledge, advocacy, community mobilisation and technical expertise. Your description of communities as both “implementers and beneficiaries” highlights why their influence can sometimes be greater than the formal mapping initially suggests.

I also agree with your point about the interdependence between stakeholders.…

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.

The stakeholder mapping shows that government agencies and project implementing organisations have high power and influence because they are involved in decision-making, policy, funding, and implementation. Local communities have high interest in the project because they are directly affected by climate change and benefit significantly from improved resilience, although they may have less formal power. NGOs and development organisations contribute through funding, technical expertise, community engagement, and implementation support, while researchers provide scientific knowledge and evidence for adaptation strategies.

The local communities are among the stakeholders that benefit most because the project aims to strengthen their resilience and livelihoods. However, there can be power imbalances because government agencies, donors, and implementing organisations may have greater decision-making power than local people. It is therefore important that community members, including vulnerable groups, are actively involved and that their local knowledge and concerns are considered.

I determined each stakeholder’s position based on their…

How Do You Stay Motivated in a Challenging Computer Class?

I have been finding my computer class difficult because coding, assignments, and technical concepts require a lot of practice and time. I started looking for affordable computer class help services when I felt overwhelmed and wanted to learn how other students manage their coursework. I want to improve my computer skills and build better study habits. Has anyone faced similar challenges? What learning resources, practice methods, or study tips helped you succeed?

• Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most from the project’s outcomes?

  The government agencies and international donors hold the most influence, as they have decision-making power and regulatory authority, while also controlling project resources. Therefore, they directly decide how to design, execute, and prioritize different aspects of the project.

  The local communities and marginalized groups (e.g. women, children, fishermen, farmers etc.) benefit the most from the project’s outcomes because they depend on the project to improve their safety, livelihood, and participation in coastal management.

• What was each stakeholder’s role, potential benefits, and level of influence within the project?

  Based on the case study, the following stakeholders have been identified, along with their roles, potential beenfits, and level of influence:

  
  

  Government agencies

  
  

1. Who holds the most influence

   The government, donors and organisations, for they hold power over resources and decision making roles

   Who benefits the most

   The local community stakeholders

2. Stakeholders role and level of influence

   The role of the influencers is to provide the beneficiaries with financial needs and resources needed to create an environmental-friendly hood and improve livelihoods of the community and must be closely monitored

1. Stakeholder Power & Influence Analysis

To determine where everyone fits, consider these four categories:

High Power / High Interest - Government Ministries, Key Funding Partners (e.g., ActionAid) Manage Closely:These are your primary partners.

High Power / Low Interest - Large Telecoms, National Regulators Keep Satisfied:They can block progress if unhappy.

Low Power / High Interest -Local Youth Groups, Smallholder Farmers Keep Informed:They are the primary beneficiaries.

Low Power / Low Interest - General Public (outside project area) Monitor: -Minimum effort required.

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…

1.

Most influential bodies:

• Government Agencies

• International Donors

• Disaster Management Authorities

Most Benefiaries

1. Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most?

   
   

   Most Influence (High Power)

   (a) National Government of Bangladesh

(b) International Donors (e.g., World Bank, UN agencies)

(c) SRP Project Management Authority

Most Benefit (High Interest)

1. Who Holds the Most Influence

Government of Bangladesh (ministries of Environment, Water Resources, Disaster Management)

International Donor Agencies (UNDP, World Bank, bilateral donors)

2. Who Benefits the Most

Local Communities (fishers, farmers, honey collectors, marginalized groups)

They gain improved coastal protection, restored ecosystems, and diversified livelihood opportunities. Despite low influence, they are the primary beneficiaries of SRP outcomes.

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project, international donors possess the highest level of influence. This is because they control approval of funding and other resources that are vital to the project. They also have an influence on policies related to the project. Therefore, for the successful implementation of the project, their approval and support in terms of availing funds is vital. Local communities form the group who are set to benefit most from the project outcomes. The project directly impacts on their sources of livelihoods, strengthens disaster protection and restores the ecosystem that they are dependent on. Organizations have a role of becoming a link between the authorities and communities by enhancing awareness of the project and supporting local implementation. They are also vessels for conveying feedback that influence decisions related to the project. Researchers are the technical experts in the project who gather data, analyze and make meaningful interpretations based…

Government agencies and funding institutions hold the highest influence because they control policies, approvals, and financial resources for the project. However, local communities benefit the most, as they directly experience improvements in climate resilience, livelihoods, and access to sustainable solutions.

Each stakeholder plays a distinct role: government agencies provide policy and regulatory support; NGOs facilitate implementation and community engagement; researchers contribute data, analysis, and monitoring; and local communities provide local knowledge and participate in project activities. These groups depend on each other to ensure effective implementation and sustainability.

However, power imbalances may occur when decision-making is dominated by funders or government institutions while community voices are underrepresented. Stakeholder power and influence were determined based on decision-making authority, control of resources, and level of involvement in project implementation.

1. Who Holds the Most Influence and Who Benefits the Most?

The Government of Bangladesh and international donor agencies hold the highest influence in the SRP because they control project funding, policies, regulations, and implementation priorities. These actors decide how resources are allocated and what strategies are adopted for mangrove restoration, infrastructure development, and disaster preparedness.

However, the local communities living around the Sundarbans benefit the most from the project outcomes. They gain improved coastal protection from storms, restored mangrove ecosystems that support fisheries and livelihoods, and new income opportunities through livelihood diversification programs. While they have lower decision-making power, they are the primary beneficiaries of the adaptation measures.

2. Stakeholder Roles, Benefits, and Level of Influence

Government Ministries (Environment, Water Resources, Disaster Management): Role: Provide policy direction, approve regulations, and coordinate national climate adaptation efforts. Benefit: Strengthened coastal protection and progress toward national climate goals. Level of Influence: High

International…

1. Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most from the project’s outcomes?In the Sundarban Resilience Project, the stakeholders with the highest influence are government agencies and donor organizations. Government bodies such as the Forest Department and local disaster management authorities influence policies, permissions, and regulatory frameworks. Donor organizations and international development partners influence project direction through funding decisions and monitoring requirements. However, the primary beneficiaries of the project are the local communities living in the Sundarbans, including fishermen, farmers, women, and vulnerable households who face climate risks such as cyclones, salinity intrusion, and flooding. Although these communities benefit the most from improved resilience, their influence in decision-making processes is relatively low compared to institutional stakeholders.

2. Stakeholder roles, potential benefits, and level of influenceGovernment agencies play a regulatory and policy-making role. They provide permissions, technical guidance, and institutional support for project implementation. Their influence is high because…

The NGOs, Researchers and the Local communities are the one who play a vital role and benefits a lot in implementing projects in such areas of Bangladesh. Researchers and NGOs makes sure that the project is fully implemented to anticipated extent so as to achieve its goal. The benefiting community is taken through several research procedural to make sure they embrace the project positively.

The NGOs who are the key role in making sure that the community are benefiting the project which may at sometimes inconvenience their daily livelihood, they give them an alternative way of living as they implement the current project which will benefit them in the long term when completed.

The Government Agency involved help in monitoring the project which has also help the Government to get revenues and reduced the cost of Development through Donor funding.

In the SRP project, government agencies and local communities have the most influence as they determine the success of the project. Local communities guide the project by bringing forward the local perspectives and knowledge in addressing the climate challenges and the government set regulations and policies guiding the project management cycles. Donors have level of influence through financial decision making affect the project successful implementation.

While the local communities mainly benefit from the project outcomes, the government indirectly benefits as well as community resilience and ecosystem restoration means strengthened systems thus leading to sustainable development.

What was each stakeholder’s role, potential benefits, and level of influence within the project?

Researchers generate knowledge and guide evidence based decision making support the project implementors, the donors and the government to adjust the project based on the evidence generated through research.

The power imbalance exist due to lack of collaboration among stakeholders and…

The one who holds the most influence on the project,the powerful or the elite class of in the society the poor might benefit more because the impact of issues like flooding I mostly affect.

Each stakeholders like NGOs or small association can help in tree planting, elites can help in assisting with needed resources like documentaries, the community on their part can planting of environments. Everyone is going to be benefit in one way or two as the adverse effects of climate affects.

Stakeholders contribute to the project by participating, taking surveys, assistance in drafting questionnaire, takes part in planting environmental friendly trees.

There are always power imbalances and some voices are overlooked. This include voices of women, minority tribes and people living with disabilities.

This tends to affect the outcome of the project as the ideas of some people are neglected.

The power and influence of each stakeholder is…

The Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) in Bangladesh demonstrates a notable divergence between entities holding significant sway and those primarily reaping the benefits. The highest levels of influence are concentrated with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Forest Department, and international funding bodies, as these organizations dictate financial resources, regulatory policies, and overarching strategic direction.

Conversely, the principal beneficiaries of the project are the local populations, specifically fisherfolk, households dependent on forest resources, women's collectives, and other marginalized groups. These communities experience tangible improvements in their livelihoods, enhanced protection against disasters, and a more stable ecological environment.

Various stakeholders contribute distinct roles to the project: governmental bodies furnish regulatory authority and legal endorsement; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) facilitate active community involvement; researchers supply crucial technical data; and local communities offer invaluable indigenous knowledge and labor. Despite the project's reliance on collaborative efforts, the distribution of authority remains…

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project, national government agencies and international donors have the most influence because they control funding, policies, and major decisions about how the project is designed and implemented. Their approval and financial support are essential for the project to move forward. On the other hand, local communities, especially forest-dependent households and marginalized groups, benefit the most from the project since it directly improves their livelihoods, strengthens disaster protection, and restores the ecosystem they rely on. NGOs help bridge the gap between authorities and communities by supporting awareness, participation, and local implementation, while researchers contribute data and technical knowledge to guide restoration and adaptation efforts. The project clearly shows a power imbalance: those most affected by climate change have less formal authority in decision-making compared to government bodies and donors. I determined the level of power and influence by looking at who controls resources and policies, who shapes…

The Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) in Bangladesh shows a clear distinction between those who hold influence and those who benefit most. The highest influence lies with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Forest Department, and international donors, as they control funding, regulations, and strategic direction.

However, the primary beneficiaries are local communities, particularly fisherfolk, forest-dependent households, women’s groups, and marginalized populations, who gain improved livelihoods, disaster protection, and ecological stability.

Government agencies provide regulatory authority and legitimacy, NGOs facilitate community engagement, researchers supply technical evidence, and communities contribute local knowledge and labor. While the project depends on collaboration, authority remains unevenly distributed.

Power imbalances exist because communities face the greatest risks but hold the least formal decision-making authority. Donor priorities and government dominance may also shape outcomes. Power was assessed based on control of resources, legal authority, decision-making capacity, social legitimacy, and dependency levels.

Overall, the SRP…

Based on the development and climate resilience context of Uttar Bedkashi Union under Koyra Upazila, stakeholders can be identified according to their power, influence, and benefits in local resilience and livelihood initiatives. In comparison with a standard stakeholder mapping framework, government institutions and NGOs possess the highest influence over planning and resource allocation, while local communities remain the primary beneficiaries of development and climate adaptation interventions.

The government holds a high-power and high-influence position due to its authority over policy formulation, disaster management coordination, embankment maintenance, social safety net distribution, and allocation of public funds. Institutions under the local administration structure provide regulatory oversight and institutional legitimacy to projects operating within the union.

NGOs and development partners exert substantial operational influence through project design, funding mobilization, technical assistance, and field-level implementation. In climate-vulnerable coastal contexts like Uttar Bedkashi, NGOs often lead livelihood diversification programs (e.g., aquaculture adaptation, saline-tolerant agriculture, alternative…

Stakeholder mapping helps us understand who is involved in a project and how much power and interest each group has. In many projects, government agencies and funding organizations have the most influence because they control money, policies, and approvals. However, the local community usually benefits the most from the project, even though they may not have strong decision-making power.

NGOs and researchers also support the project by providing funding, training, and technical knowledge. One important issue is power imbalance, where some groups, especially vulnerable community members, may not have a strong voice. If their opinions are ignored, the project may not succeed in the long term.

In conclusion, stakeholder mapping shows that projects work best when powerful stakeholders are managed properly and local communities are included in decision-making. Thus, allowing room for all voices and all parties even the lower communities.

In projects like this, secondary stakeholders are the most influential authority, and the affected community people will get the benefits. At first the primary stakeholders, like local farmers or fishermen, identified and conveyed their problem to the local government. After that the vulnerability gets an exposure to the secondary stakeholder, like the central government, INGOs or NGOs, then according to the policies they give financial aid and deploy researchers for necessary mapping, data collection and analysis to get the best output for a quick solution. Researchers and NGOs join hands and get the best results for implementation, like setting up advanced rainwater harvesting technologies. Then there's a maintenance part for the community youth and interested people for sustainability. The power imbalance happens due to the greed of achieving unstoppable money by the local govt. It also comes up with not listening to the disabled and restricted women of that community.…

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project, the national ministries responsible for environment, water resources, disaster management, and planning, along with major international donors and the project management team, fall into the high power–high influence category and therefore require close engagement. They control approvals, funding, and strategic direction, and the success of the project directly affects their institutional standing.

Authorities at higher levels, as well as regulatory or law enforcement bodies whose primary role is ensuring legal compliance and alignment with policies, belong in the high power–low influence quadrant. These actors can block or shape the project if necessary, but they are less involved in day-to-day project activities. The recommended approach is to keep them satisfied.

Local coastal communities, including fishers, small-scale farmers, and other vulnerable residents, are placed in the low power–high influence segment. They should be kept well-informed because the project directly impacts their livelihoods and safety. While their formal…

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project, the national ministries directly in charge of environment, water, disaster management and planning, together with the main international donors and the project management team, clearly fall in the high power–high influence quadrant, so they should be managed closely. They control approvals, funding and overall direction, and their institutional reputation is tied to the project’s outcomes.

Higher‑level authorities and regulatory or law‑enforcement bodies that mainly ensure legal compliance and policy alignment would sit in the high power–low influence area, where the strategy is to keep them satisfied. They can halt or shape the project, but their day‑to‑day interest in this specific initiative is more limited.

Local coastal communities, including fishers, smallholders and other vulnerable residents, belong in the low power–high influence quadrant, to be kept informed. Their livelihoods and safety are directly affected, so their interest and potential benefit are very high, but they have limited…

Most Influence: The Primary Decision-Makers (National ministries, major donors like UNDP/World Bank, and Project Directors). They sit in the "Top Right" quadrant because they control the funding and the "development agendas."

Most Benefit: The Rights Holders (Local coastal communities, fishers, farmers). While they have the most at stake regarding "adaptation success," the project is literally designed for their survival and resilience.

In terms of stakeholder roles, benefits, and Influence Institutional Authorities roles are in Regulatory and Law Enforcement and the benefits falls in Policy alignment while the level of influence is

High (Power to block/approve). Primary Decision-Makers roles are in Funding and Management while the benefit is in Strategic success and in terms of level of influence is Very High (Direct control), while the Rights Holders roles is in Project Participation and they benefit for Survival/Livelihood with low level of influence. Besides, the peripheral actors such as observers/ media whose roles are to gather knowledge …

After mapping stakeholders based on their power–influence relationships and comparing it with the provided reference framework, it becomes clear that government agencies hold the highest level of influence, while local communities stand to benefit the most from the project outcomes.

Government agencies (such as municipal bodies, urban planning authorities, and environmental departments) possess high influence because they control policy decisions, funding approvals, and implementation mechanisms. Their role is primarily regulatory and strategic—shaping project priorities, approving interventions, and ensuring alignment with climate adaptation and development goals. While they benefit indirectly through improved governance capacity and policy outcomes, their gains are more institutional than personal.

Local communities, on the other hand, have relatively low formal power but high stakes. They benefit most directly through reduced climate risk, improved resilience, better access to resources, and enhanced environmental quality. However, their influence is often limited to consultation phases rather than decision-making, which creates a…

Based on the Sundarban Resilience Project (SRP) case study, stakeholders were identified according to their power, influence, and benefits from the project. In comparison with the reference framework, government and NGOs hold the greatest influence over major project decisions, while local communities benefit the most from project outcomes, particularly through improved livelihoods and increased resilience.

The government plays a key role in policy formulation, regulation, and control of funding and resources, placing it in a high-power and high-influence position. NGOs and development organizations provide funding, design interventions, and implement project activities, giving them significant operational influence. The local community, although the primary beneficiary, mainly participates in implementation, monitoring, and evaluation and has limited influence over strategic decision-making.

Different stakeholder groups contribute to and depend on the project in various ways for instance;

Government agencies provide the institutional framework, NGOs contribute technical expertise and financial resources, and local communities depend on…

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP), power is concentrated at the top, with national government agencies and international donors wielding the strongest influence through their control over policy, funding, and strategic priorities. While researchers provide the technical blueprints and NGOs serve as essential intermediaries that bridge the gap between policy and practice, these groups remain secondary to the primary decision-makers who hold formal authority.

This creates a distinct power imbalance for local communities; although they are the primary beneficiaries and possess vital contextual knowledge, they remain largely dependent on project outcomes with minimal formal influence over high-level design. This vulnerability is most acute for marginalized groups, such as women and forest-dependent households, whose voices are often overshadowed.

The Sundarbans Resilience Project involves multiple stakeholders with varying levels of power, influence, and benefits. A comparison of these stakeholders shows a clear distinction between those who hold decision-making authority and those who benefit most directly from the project.

Influence and Benefits

The stakeholders with the greatest influence are national government agencies and international donors. Government agencies control policies, regulations, forest management, and disaster infrastructure, while international donors provide essential funding and set strategic and accountability requirements. In contrast, local communities benefit the most from the project’s outcomes. They gain improved livelihood security, reduced exposure to climate-induced disasters, and long-term protection from restored mangrove ecosystems. This reflects a common development pattern where high influence does not necessarily align with high benefit.

Roles, Benefits, and Influence

Government agencies play a central role in project planning and implementation and benefit through improved coastal protection and national climate adaptation outcomes. International donors support the project financially and technically…

The stakeholder analysis of the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) reveals a clear distinction between those who hold decision-making power and those who benefit most directly from the project’s outcomes. National government agencies and international donors emerge as the most influential actors. Government institutions possess regulatory authority over coastal protection, forestry management, and disaster risk reduction, while donors exercise significant influence through financial resources and strategic priorities. Together, these stakeholders shape the project’s objectives, design, and implementation framework.

In contrast, local communities—particularly farmers, fishers, and forest-dependent households—are the primary beneficiaries of the SRP. The project’s focus on mangrove restoration, livelihood diversification, and disaster-resistant infrastructure directly improves their safety, income security, and resilience to climate shocks. However, despite their high level of interest and dependence on the project’s success, these communities have comparatively limited influence over strategic decisions, highlighting a recurring dynamic in climate adaptation initiatives.

Other stakeholders play intermediary and supportive…

  Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most?

Government agencies usually hold the most influence because they control money,approvals, and policies. On the other hand, Local communities benefit the most from the project’s outcomes but they still have less influence in decision‑making.

Roles, benefits, and influence of each stakeholder

Government agencies:   Role: policy, funding, regulation. Benefit: development goals, political control. Influence: it very high.

NGOs :  Role: spreding social awarness, community support, monitoring. Benefit: social impact, reputation. Influence: medium.

Local communities :  Role:give realistic view , provide feedback, participate. Benefit: improved living standards. Influence: low to medium.

Les projets d’adaptation au changement climatique impliquent une diversité de parties prenantes aux rôles et aux intérêts différenciés. L’identification des acteurs disposant de la plus grande influence, ainsi que des groupes bénéficiant le plus des résultats du projet, constitue une étape essentielle pour garantir l’efficacité, l’équité et la durabilité des interventions. Cet article analyse ces dynamiques dans le contexte du projet de réduction de la vulnérabilité climatique à Protapnagar, dans le district de Satkhira au Bangladesh.

Les parties prenantes détenant la plus grande influence

À Protapnagar, les parties prenantes les plus influentes sont principalement les autorités gouvernementales locales et nationales, les agences de gestion des catastrophes, ainsi que les organisations non gouvernementales internationales et les bailleurs de fonds. Ces acteurs disposent d’un pouvoir décisionnel élevé, lié à leur capacité à définir les priorités stratégiques, à mobiliser les ressources financières et techniques, et à coordonner les actions sur le terrain. Leur…

After identifying and mapping the stakeholders involved in the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP) based on their levels of power and influence, a clear hierarchy of roles and benefits becomes evident when compared to the reference framework.

The stakeholders holding the greatest influence are national government agencies and international donors. They control funding, policy direction, regulations, and overall project priorities, which gives them significant authority over decision-making processes. However, the groups that benefit the most from the project’s outcomes are local communities, particularly fishers, farmers, and women’s groups, whose livelihoods, safety, and resilience directly depend on the success of ecosystem restoration and disaster preparedness efforts.

Each stakeholder plays a distinct role within the project. Government agencies provide policy frameworks, regulatory approval, and coordination across sectors. International donors offer financial resources and technical guidance. NGOs act as intermediaries, translating policies into local action, supporting community engagement, and implementing livelihood and restoration activities. Local communities…

In the context of our climate adaptation projects in Ghana, I found that government agencies like NADMO and the EPA hold the highest structural influence due to their role in policy and resource allocation. However, the stakeholders who benefit the most are the local farming and fishing communities, whose livelihoods are directly tied to the project’s success in building resilience against hazards like tidal surges in Keta or droughts in the North. While the government provides the framework and organizations like Rotaract contribute technical expertise and grassroots mobilization, there is a clear dependency where communities rely on these external actors for "adaptive capacity." In my mapping, researchers from institutions like UHAS play a critical role in providing the evidence base (such as cardiotoxic or environmental health data), but their influence is often limited by a lack of direct decision-making power in the final implementation phases.

A significant power imbalance remains evident between…

From the reading, we discover that Government institutions, donors, and SRP project managers hold the highest form of power and influence over the project. Together, they control the finances, policies, and strategies needed for the project.

On the other hand, the affected community and its inhabitants benefit the most from the project, yet they have no direct influence over the project, but depend wholly on the local NGOs to use their knowledge of the locality to implement the project.

Government agencies have a high level of power and influence over the project and benefit from national climate adaptation capacities/scores. Their job is to provide policy and regulate. International bodies: have low power but a strong influence; they most often have little to no contribution to operations or running of the project. Provide funding for the project.

NGOs: have a strong influence on how the project is carried out, but low power in…

After comparing my stakeholder mapping with the reference matrix provided, I found that the categorization of stakeholders according to their levels of power and influence is largely consistent and reflects the actual governance structure of the project.

1. Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most from the project?

Government institutions, main international donors, and the SRP project management hold the highest level of power and influence over the project. They control financial resources, regulatory frameworks, and strategic decision-making processes.

However, local communities in the Sundarbans benefit the most directly from the project outcomes, particularly through improved coastal protection, ecosystem restoration, and diversified livelihood opportunities. Their benefits depend largely on how well their needs and local knowledge are integrated into the project.

2. Roles, potential benefits, and level of influence of each actor

• Government agencies

  
  

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…

National government decentralized departments and the project donor holds more power and influence, as the control the core parts of the project in terms of decision-making regarding resources, resource allocation, budgets and other approvals, policy directtion, among others. However, the beneficiary community members are those who benefit most from the project outcomes though the national government and its decentralized departments and the donor also benefit somehow.

The national government decentralized partments are the main coordination and planning unity on behalf of beneficaries, and benefits from several angles including capacity building, strengthened coordination and planning, trust and reputation from both the communities and the donor. They hold high power and high influence over the project, as the can do or undo the project.

The donor provides the financial means for the project to happen besides providing technical guidance and direction in alignment with the project goal and objectives. They intend benefit…

1. Who holds the most influence, and who benefits the most from the project’s outcomes?

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP), national government agencies and international donors hold the highest influence due to their control over policies, funding, and strategic direction. They determine project priorities, approve budgets, and shape implementation frameworks.

In contrast, local communities, particularly forest-dependent households, women, and marginalized groups, benefit the most from the project’s outcomes. Improved livelihoods, reduced disaster risks, and strengthened coastal protection directly affect their daily lives, even though they have limited influence over project decisions.

This distinction highlights a common pattern in climate adaptation projects: those with the greatest influence are not always the primary beneficiaries.

2. Stakeholder roles, potential benefits, and levels of influence

• Government Agencies (National & Local)

In this project, government agencies and implementing NGOs hold the most influence because they control funding, policy alignment, technical design, and implementation frameworks. However, local communities—especially women, youth, and livelihood-dependent groups—benefit the most from the project’s outcomes through improved resilience, livelihoods, and environmental protection.

Each stakeholder plays a distinct role:

• Government agencies provide policy direction, coordination, and legitimacy, with high influence and long-term institutional benefits.

• NGOs and civil society organizations act as implementers and facilitators, translating policy into community action and ensuring participation, with medium-to-high influence.

• Local communities are the primary beneficiaries and frontline implementers of adaptation practices, though they often have low formal influence despite high dependency on project success.

• Researchers and universities contribute evidence, monitoring tools, and best practices, with moderate influence but strong knowledge value.

Stake holders in the SRP Project include, International donors, National Agencies, Private Organizations, Local Agencies and community folks. The community folks stand to benefit the most from the project outcome. All other entities would derive some level of satisfaction having fulfilled their mandate. Influence and contributions of the stakeholders are as follows;

1. National Agencies: I believe they hold the most influence since the solicit for and provide funding for the project. Project design depends largely on this agency.

2. International Organizations: Provide funding and contribute to project design

3. Organizations: Provide research findings and baseline data for project design. May also contribute funding

4. Local Agencies: Directly responsible for implementing project with community folks

5. Community Folks: Assist with implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the project. They are the direct beneficiaries of the interventions

International donors, national government agencies (such as BFD, MoEFCC, and the Disaster Management Bureau), and the SRP Project Management Unit (PMU) emerge as the most influential stakeholders because they shape project priorities, approve budgets, define safeguards, and oversee execution. In contrast, local communities and the Sundarbans ecosystem are the primary beneficiaries.

The roles and contributions of each stakeholder group are summarized in the stakeholder table  attached.  Government agencies provide regulatory authority, coordination capacity, and enforcement mechanisms, making them central to project legitimacy and scale. Donors contribute financial resources, technical standards, and monitoring requirements, which directly influence project design and accountability structures. NGOs and community-based organizations act as intermediaries, facilitating community engagement, promoting behavioral change, and strengthening local accountability. Researchers contribute data, monitoring tools, and adaptation strategies that inform evidence-based decision-making. Meanwhile, the private sector supports sustainable livelihood investments. However this must be regulated to avoid undermining restoration efforts.

Power imbalances…

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP), the identification of the stakeholders and their management is central to the success of the project because every group has the potential to support or hinder implementation initiatives. National government agencies, international donors, and project management team are the most powerful stakeholders since they have the powers to make decisions on policies, allocation of funds, and the general orientation of the project. They have power which is reflected on the control of financial resources, power to make regulations and ability to define the project priorities and outcomes.

Despite the fact that these actors have the most influence, the major beneficiaries are the local communities, namely the fishers, farmers, women, indigenous communities among other marginalised communities that rely directly on the Sundarbans as their livelihoods and resistant to the effects of climate-related hazards. These communities gain advantages in terms of better livelihood, better disaster preparedness…

Last month, we tested a simple circular-economy idea: seed pens (paper pens that can be planted after use).

This wasn’t just a “craft activity” — it was a behaviour-design experiment: Can climate action become simple enough to fit into everyday life?

In 18 days: ✅ 20 teenagers learned the process and produced seed pens

✅ 120+ seed pens were made by youth

✅ 200+ households joined conversations on plastic waste and climate-friendly habits

In the Sundarbans Resilience Project (SRP), national government agencies hold the highest level of influence due to their authority over policy, regulation, funding allocation, and implementation of coastal protection and ecosystem management measures. International donors also exert high influence by shaping project priorities through financing and accountability requirements. Local communities are the primary beneficiaries of the project, gaining improved protection from climate hazards, livelihood diversification, and ecosystem services, but they have relatively low formal influence over decision-making.

Government agencies act as primary decision-makers, NGOs and civil society organisations function as local influencers by facilitating community engagement and implementation, and researchers provide technical and scientific inputs that inform project design. Local communities contribute contextual knowledge and stewardship of natural resources while remaining largely dependent on project outcomes for resilience and livelihoods.

A key power imbalance exists between decision-makers and community actors, particularly marginalised groups such as women and forest-dependent households, whose voices may be…