Continuity or Disruption? Rethinking Engagement in Multi-Stakeholder Forums Through the Lens of Boundary Objects

Multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) are crucial for managing complex decision-making; yet ways for evaluating engagement, especially for Indigenous peoples, remain ambiguous. This study examines the Honduran Mosquitia, where conflict over the illegal occupation of Indigenous lands led to the creation and eventual dissolution of an MSF. It questions whether the continuity of formal dialogue structures signifies genuine engagement or if disruption might better indicate it. The study applies the lens of boundary objects—concepts or devices that enable collaboration among actors with differing agendas—to assess engagement. In Mosquitia, territorial governance served as a boundary object, fostering the establishment of an MSF. Government, donor, and Indigenous stakeholders had their distinct interests in supporting territorial governance. Indigenous stakeholders exited the MSF when their aims for securing land tenure were unmet, turning to civil disobedience to assert territorial governance. The MSF’s dissolution prevented the co-optation of territorial governance by government and donors, remaining a contentious term that more accurately reflected the tensions among stakeholders. This case shows how engagement might paradoxically be reflected in the MSF’s disruption.