Governance in Lomerío is best described as collective in form and structure, with deliberations and decisions carried out via member assemblies, organized at different (community, zonal, territorial) levels.

The most important decisions, including those with implications for the use and management of the Indigenous territory-at-large, are taken in territorial-level (general) assemblies, with representation from all 29 member communities. ‘Ordinary’ assemblies occur once a year and are used to report to membership on key advances and plans moving forward. ‘Extraordinary’ assemblies are called as required to discuss and tackle pressing matters that require the attention of member communities. Decisions are made/carried by majority vote, with quorum reached when more than 50% of member communities are present (represented). Every 4 years, a general assembly is held to elect a new set of incumbents to run CICOL; the body responsible for enacting territory-wide governance in Lomerío. CICOL comprises 6 secretaries or ‘carteras’—each headed by a cacique ³ (a community member elected by his or her peers who is responsible for associated activities for a fixed term)—that cover the following sectors: Acts and Communication (Second Cacique); Production, Economic Goods and Services; Gender and Youth; Land, Territory and Natural Resources; Health; Education; and Culture and Sport. The six caciques report to a Cacique General who acts as CICOL’s head authority and works to ensure the Assembly’s stated mandate. Below territorial-level (general) assemblies, each member community has its own local governance structure, consisting of community (communal) assemblies and ‘communal’ caciques, who follow a similar structure to that of CICOL; a ‘Head’ cacique, and five caciques who oversee community-level work tied to the areas of: Education; Economy and Production; Gender; Land, Territory and Natural Resources; and, Health. There are also zonal assemblies and zonal caciques that bring together groups of communities that represent Lomerío’s main territorial zones: Salinas (8 communities); San Antonio (8 communities); San Lorenzo (7 communities); and, El Puquio (6 communities). Each of these zones has a representative who attends the general assemblies (called by CICOL) to advocate for these groups’ particular needs. Coordination across governance institutions is largely reliant on the caciques that hold similar briefs–for example, the ‘Gender and Youth’ cacique in CICOL working closely with the Gender caciques at zonal and community levels, and vice versa.

The above arrangements are designed to provide Lomerío’s member communities with voice and vote across all three levels of governance (community-zonal-territorial), and the ability to collectively determine CICOL’s mandate for each of its 4-year terms. CICOL incumbents are elected by the 29 member communities, with each community presenting a candidate (male or female) for the general assembly to vote on. A first round sees the Cacique General and Segundo Cacique (Cacique of Acts and Communication) chosen, followed by a second round when sector-specific caciques are elected. In all cases, voting is through secret ballot, with results ratified by the Assembly before being made legal. The election of community-level authorities and caciques follows a similar process, with the only difference being that incumbents are elected every one or 2 years, depending on the internal norms/rules of the community in question. CICOL is responsible for supervising these community-level elections.

It should be noted that all caciques (at all levels) are elected; none are hereditary positions. Nevertheless, CICOL has in recent years been pushing to bring more young people into the fold. It has been vocal in expressing how Lomerío’s future will, in large part, be determined by the life and livelihood choices of upcoming generations. The territory’s population was 6,481 in 2012, with over a quarter of its residents aged between 15 and 29 (INE, 2012) ⁴ . These young people are growing up in a region where the local economy remains tied to subsistence farming and forest use, with limited capital investment and market integration. While providing livelihood opportunities is one priority for leadership, so too is a commitment to greater inclusivity in decision-making, with CICOL’s operating principles including a commitment to ‘consensus, broad participation, transparency in gender equality, equal opportunities and parity’, while the Territory’s recently published ‘Plan de Vida’ (Life Plan) of the Monkoxi Nation (2020–2024)’ (CICOL, 2019) states that women and youth should be able to “freely participate in decision-making tied to territorial use and management, with territorial welfare […]rooted in liberty and self-determination”. This is the context within which the work we present here emerged.

Partnering with CICOL, the research engaged youth from 23 of Lomerío’s 29 member communities ⁵ , and explicitly involved local, young professionals to facilitate dialogue and engagement. Data collection began in 2017 and ended in 2022. In retrospect, the research interactions and collaborations over this multi-year period constituted four main phases or elements: i) first, a visioning workshop focused on the voice of youth; ii) second, a set of focus groups and follow-up workshop that brought youth and leadership voices together; iii), third, more in-depth research working with individual youth; and, iv) finally, a large-scale gathering of youth pushing for social change. This phased approach, which we describe in much more detail below, emerged organically, with each phase informed by and building upon what previous engagement work had shown and taught us. This enabled youth insights to be integrated into subsequent research design, and for us to innovate and prioritize (where needed) so that the research could contribute to ongoing youth empowerment processes. All phases were co-developed by researchers and CICOL and approved by the latter. All were created to give youth the opportunity to lead and guide discussions to a greater or lesser degree. Communication and collaboration protocols were discussed to help guide work among and between IBIF and University of Saskatchewan researchers, CICOL, and community leaders.

To youth, the idea of territorial governance is not confined to higher-level decision-making but extends to how the territory is accessed, used, and by whom. Youth recognized agriculture as the main land use and livelihood in the territory, with corn, rice, banana, and yucca the main crops planted for household subsistence. Aside from farming, the raising of livestock, hunting, and fishing were other common land-based practices that youth spoke to. A few mentioned timber harvesting from local forests for use in construction or to make furniture. Youth had some knowledge of the rules and policies regarding such activities. For subsistence farming, for example, “each family works on their own farm” (22/male/Palmira), and “everyone [above 18 years of age] has the right to use the land, without discrimination from anyone” (23/female/San Lorenzo). Upon being granted rights to use a designated plot of land, youth understood their responsibility not to use heavy machinery or chemicals and to help prevent fires.

Youth created ‘mapeos de actividades’ (activity maps) to show their activities within the territory and pointed to many being an important source of labour both at home and in the chaco (fields). As a young male from El Puquio explained, “[we] have that energy and action to help the [other] community members”. Some youth help out with ranching, an important source of income for families ⁶ and often used to finance the costs of school and further study. Youth made mention of logging, though few directly participate. Female youth predominantly help their mothers in the home garden and with domestic chores. From an early age, most had taken part in a collective work institution known as ‘Minga’—for most, this involved cleaning and maintaining the church, school, plaza, and soccer field as communal spaces. Some of the youth engaged in activities requiring a degree of specialization: carpentry, construction, and wild honeybee production (in the case of the males), and arts and crafts and nursing (among the females). An ‘Other’ category included football, played regularly by many young women and men, attending church (important for young women), and attending fiestas (noted by some young men). For most youth, attending school was their main daily activity. Because a lot of the research took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic, when most classes were held virtually, youth said that they had been able to dedicate more time to domestic and territorial chores than was the norm. Finally, it is worth noting that the degree of overlap in activities was limited; young women and men coincided in just 5 of the 18 activities listed.

In the Phase 1 ‘visioning’ workshops and Phase 2 focus groups, youth had a lot to say about how improvements in technology and communication had aided connectivity, both within the territory and with the outside world. Improvements in transport and road infrastructure were seen as positives, enhancing movement and commerce between member communities, and facilitating territorial monitoring. At the same time, increased Internet access and cell phone connectivity were blamed for reductions in social interaction, with negative effects on family and community cohesion. Some youth were worried about the loss of tradition, pointing to apathy (among peers), the influence of modern music in the fiestas, and new religions as problematic developments. Youth wanted to connect more with older community members, and for traditional practices to be promoted at local schools and colleges.

Upon turning 18, Lomerío youth are expected to attend the general assembly and community-level meetings and have the right to ask for their own plots of land to farm or turn to pasture. Youth understood their involvement (in assemblies and meetings) to constitute part of responsibilities synonymous with active community membership. As a 22-year-old male from Palmira explained, upon reaching 18, you fulfill the functions of being a community member with [attendant] obligations and rights… [and a young person] can be elected as a representative of their community [cacique ⁷ ].

When the concept of territorial governance was brought up in conversation, Lomerío youth were quick to focus on the role that the caciques play in managing and making decisions for how the communal territory is accessed, used, and managed. Most recognized the caciques as “the highest authority in the community or territory” (22/male/Palmira), with the responsibility to plan territorial activities, garner support from the broader community membership, engage and coordinate with external organizations, interact with families on land-based issues, and “carry the community forward”. Parallel to the work of the caciques, CICOL was mentioned by nearly all youth for its role in bringing the 29 member communities together to coordinate territorial use and management decisions. Most youth could (to some degree) articulate how this works. A 19-year-old female from Monterito captured it as follows: “We are organized and have a board […] which is at the head of the 29 communities that watch over the territory of Lomerío… we coexist with nature, the territory is our casa grande (big house), it is where we work, live, and exist and [we] have our own language, music, clothing, and culture”.

In the focus groups, youth participants shared their opinions on territorial rights, dependence on territorial resources, and level of participation in territorial decision-making (selecting 1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, or 5 = Very Good to the questions being posed). The results, shown in Figure 2, make clear that most male and female youth see their tenure as secure ⁸ , providing them access to territorial resources and associated ecosystem services. In terms of territorial dependence, both groups of female youth, and one group of male youth, rated this as ‘medium-high’, with the second group of male youth setting level of dependence as ‘medium-low’.

With regards to (levels of) participation in territorial decision-making, the results were more mixed; two groups (one all-male, one all-female) ranked their participation as low, one group as satisfactory, and another as good. Male participation was overall higher than female participation. It was notable that no group ranked their participation as ‘very good’. We also asked CICOL to give their own set of rankings for youth-territory linkages. Their views were largely congruent with youth in terms of access to land, access to information, tenure security, and territorial dependency, but much higher than youth in terms of the level of youth participation in decision-making.

At the 2022 ‘Encuentro’, youth spoke about the reasons for sometimes limited participation, and possible remedies, with these summarised in Table 3.

These echoed the thoughts of youth interviewed during Phase 3. In particular, the challenge of getting to events and meetings (“we need the support of our parents so we can travel across the territory to take part”), and how the authorities could do a better job of getting the word out: “Many times information does not reach us [about things going on], or if it does it is very late in the day, […] CICOL does not coordinate well [across the communities] so we struggle to participate in different events”. Interview data also raised the issue of participation among the many youth not physically present in Lomerío: “[many] young people do not stay in the community… [there is] high migration […] to the city to search for better study and work opportunities” (22/male/Palmira), with that absence making it “impossible to come and be an integral part of the community” (17/female/Palmira).

We also wanted to know how youth felt when participating. Most felt welcomed by older community members, feeling that they wanted them there because youth were seen as among “the most dynamic” elements of community memberships and “able to contribute to [community] progress” (17/female/Surusubi). However, this also placed pressure on youth to not only attend but be active in these meetings. For some, this was a positive since it meant that their opinions might be heard and valued. Others were less effusive, notably two female interviewees who had unhappy memories of their first meetings, with one “a little nervous due to [their] lack of experience” and another feeling “a little strange [uncomfortable]” in that environment. Indeed, only three of our 18 interviewees said they were vocal and provided interventions–a suggestion, an idea, or a solution to a problem–when having attended a meeting. Most felt that if they did take the floor then everyone would listen but had not wanted to because they lacked the necessary “experience”.

Youth and CICOL participants were asked to consider how well their territory was governed, measured against 4 criteria: Inclusivity in decision-making (to recognize and consider the rights, needs, and concerns of all groups of parties interested in the territory when decisions are made, and rules crafted); Culture of collaboration (the way in which people connect and work together in the territory); Coordination among key actors and sectors (whereby territorial actors and organizations ensure that norms and decisions do not enter into conflict and, where possible, are mutually reinforced and strengthened); and, Collaborative thinking and action for sustainable management (that territorial norms and decisions promote the sustainable use and management of territorial resources). Their average scores (based on; 1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, or 5 = Very Good) are provided in detail in Table 4 and summarized visually in Figure 3 below.

Scores were in the ‘satisfactory’ range for most questions, with CICOL generally scoring higher than youth across three of the four categories. Both sets of participants scored highest (Satisfactory-Good) in the category of ‘making inclusive decisions’ and lowest (Poor-Satisfactory) in the category of ‘coordination among territorial actors and sectors’. No criterion was rated as ‘very good’ by either group, suggesting significant room for improvement.

Throughout all phases of the research, youth gave the sense that they wanted to be more involved in territorial governance. Many spoke about a welcoming environment that could potentially support such participation, but that certain realities limited their current level of involvement. It was noted how youth who farm (independently) were in the strongest position to speak out and have their views considered, but they represented only a small minority of young people in the territory. And for the “big” land-related issues, youth in general did not “have the right to make decisions, […] older people or the elderly [do that]” (21/female/Coloradillo). The lack of a ‘youth representative’ in [territorial] decision-making spaces was identified as a problem. Youth also said that being encouraged to get involved, especially by their families, was important: “a big challenge for us is to get our parents to trust and believe in us, to petition CICOL to bring us together, to become leaders, to encourage and applaud those youth that are doing things, to bring us together and get us a seat at the table”.

But youth were also aware that they themselves could (and should) do more to demand or create the change they want to see. An important, early example of self-organization had been the Jóvenes Unidos por el Medio Ambiente (JUMA) (Youth United for the Environment) group, established as a response to the forest fires of 2019, and led by youth who wanted to be “more involved and ensure the revitalization of the environment” (18/male/El Puquio). Indeed, concerns about local environmental change were consistently raised by youth during Phase 1 and Phase 2 activities. Youth talked about agricultural production being down, impacted by pests and prolonged dry spells. They perceived declines in water bodies and fish diversity, prompting some to call for a ban on forest clearing along streams and rivers. Youth wanted to see funds to support forest restoration work; noting a decline in forest cover in recent years, driven by fires and logging that fell outside of the territory’s sustainable forest management plan. At times, one concern would contradict another, such as when worries about forest loss (in general) would butt up against youth-led calls for forest clearance to expand ranching (to potentially increase household earnings, which would not only help with living costs but also help fund continued education). Overall, though, youth in Lomerío vocalized interest in and concern for territorial issues and wanted a say in how the home territory is used and managed.

For CICOL’s part, there was an understanding that giving youth greater involvement would bring new and needed skills, knowledge, and training to the territory. With many young people continuing their studies (outside of the home territory), leadership were encouraging more among this group to get training in areas that could serve the future needs of their community. It was notable that they rarely discouraged young people to leave, especially those who want to “be professionals… [but also] a part of the community again by helping with the knowledge [they acquire]”. Youth themselves have picked up on this, with several highlighting (in their conversations with us) how young professionals are being hired and given important roles within CICOL and among its technical staff.

Our case from Bolivia offers several lessons for building Indigenous youth engagement and empowerment in the area of territorial governance, which we summarise here.

When young people participate in community activities with various levels of involvement, beginning in the fields (chacos) and extending to community meetings and assemblies, they become more cognizant of their land-based culture. When this does not happen, youth know less about their community and territory and may be less invested in those aspects of their cultural and personal identities (Zetina et al., 2019). The degree to which they have and are participating in wider community life can help to build a culture that values young people and lays the ground for them to voice their opinions and ideas. This scenario is not widely reported in the literature, which talks more about youth feeling underappreciated and underrepresented in decision-making spaces and institutions (Yunita et al., 2017; Quaedvlieg et al., 2019). Cultivating a strong sense of belonging increases the chance of success in youth engagement and empowerment, particularly in Indigenous territorial contexts predicated upon notions of comunalidad; of shared norms, shared cultural identity, and collective action (Kelles-Viitanen, 2008; Robson et al., 2018).

After 5 years of collaborative research, we have learnt that young people in Lomerío feel a part of their home territory, and this appears to hold true for girls as much as it does for boys. While bonds such as these can and do exist in other settings, the Lomerío experience stands out. For example, Indigenous youth in Mexico, Guatemala and other parts of eastern Bolivia have spoken to us of strong bonds that connect them to their community (Robson et al., 2020; Campos Rivera, 2022) but of customary institutions that are exclusionary because they have yet to “earn” the right to speak and make decisions through service and experience (Mora Sánchez, 2021). This can engender a feeling of alienation, of distance (rather than belonging), increasing tensions between the generations and becomes a push factor behind the decision to migrate (Aquino-Moreschi and Contreras-Pastrana, 2016). Lomerío would appear to buck this trend, with youth feeling welcomed in decision-making spaces and able to voice their opinion if they so choose. CICOL has always had youth participation clear in its statutes. However, little was done to promote their participation until after Lomerio’s successful struggle for territorial sovereignty and autonomy (and establishment of the Monkoxi Nation in 2009), which gave member communities impetus to (re)consider their relationship with one another and their customary territory and make efforts to bridge and consolidate youth-community relations (this research; Chuvirú Garcia et al., 2021; CICOL, 2022). In this way, the engagement work of the past 5 years should be viewed within the context of a larger socio-cultural-political project and serves as a reminder that Indigenous Peoples are at different moments in their struggle against (ongoing) settler colonialism (see Hernandez, 2022), and so their capacities to build social inclusion into these structures and norms are shaped by these particular histories and trajectories.

At the beginning of this paper, we said that we wanted to reflect on how typical or atypical a case, Lomerío may be. It is difficult to make such a determination, given the small sample size of published studies focused elsewhere. However, while we are not yet able to determine that Lomerío provides an experience atypical among Indigenous territories and communities, we are willing to speculate (based upon wider reading and our own experiences engaging youth in rural, remote communities across multiple global regions (see Robson et al., 2019d) that youth in Lomerío seem to be (or at least, feel) less impinged by the hierarchical, patriarchal nature of structures and norms that often limit participation and access to land in other places, and how certain demographics are viewed, valued, and represented. In Latin America, in particular, we have generally observed limited opportunities for youth in community-building processes (Robson et al., 2020; Campos Rivera, 2022; Mora Sánchez and Robson, 2022), consistent with insights from other global regions where rural youth are not actors within decision-making processes (see Cahill, 2007; Yunita, et al., 2017; IFAD, 2019).

This research was focused on the role of young people in territorial governance, and how Indigenous communities might engage youth to be more than just a source of physical labour in land-based and community activities (i.e., farming or forestry); to become leaders and agents in the territorial sphere. In Lomerío, connections between youth and the home territory are forged through hands-on involvement in land-related activities. The significance of work in family and community chacos cannot be overlooked, since it is through such activities and practices that young people build ties to the land and appreciate the importance of holding land tenure from which they can draw benefits. It is significant that young people in Lomerío, irrespective of gender, can access and use land upon turning 18. The broader literature suggests that this is not common among Indigenous youth across global regions, where many are denied such rights (FAO et al., 2014; Kosec et al., 2018; Yeboah et al., 2018), limiting their power and authority within the home community and territory (IFAD, 2019). Also significant is the fact that young people in Lomerio have access to productive lands, again in contrast to scenarios elsewhere where youth are more likely given degraded plots of limited value (FAO et al., 2014; Yeboah et al., 2018). Access to good land appears to be one important entry point for youth engagement and integration, as it helps youth to exercise their rights and capabilities (UNDESA, 2015), be better positioned to carve out a land-based livelihood and shows them how customary norms shape their engagement and empowerment as community actors.

While ‘engagement’ largely concerns reaching out to youth and opening up spaces for their participation, ‘empowerment’ is about creating the environment (mechanisms) by which youth build an enhanced sense of control and esteem through participating and feel encouraged to lead initiatives for the benefit of their peers and communities (Pritzker and Metzger, 2011). In other words, it “sets the stage for clearly identified youth roles and long-term participation in the community development process” (Brennan and Barnett, 2009: 305). A sense of empowerment also comes from knowing that youth are really being listened to, and for youth this means being able to talk about the aspirations that orient their future (White, 2019), influence life choices and self-perception (Schaefer and Meece, 2009) and, ultimately, life outcomes (Leavy and Smith, 2010). Youth aspire to a better future, but what that means or looks like for a young person growing up in a remote and rural region cannot be understood (by others) unless these same youth feel comfortable to share their thoughts and ideas in a non-judgmental setting. Our sense is that the authorities in Lomerío are doing well in the area of engagement but are yet to translate this into youth feeling sufficiently empowered to contribute to the long-term, transformative change that they want to see (see Salter, 2022). Youth are made to feel welcome in general assemblies and community meetings, and some have even been elected to fill leadership positions because of the skills they possess. Yet, while many youth might be considered ‘territorial actors’ from a use or livelihood perspective, few make decisions about how lands are used or managed. The formation of JUMA Monkox, the recent series of youth engagement workshops and other initiatives (see Chuvirú Garcia et al., 2021), and the emerging trend of young professionals taking on key positions (as caciques or technical staff), are important recent advances. Similarly, the current 4-year (2022–2026) plan to develop local education curricula that better connect young people to Monkoxi identity and territory (CICOL, 2022) may prove extremely important. Nevertheless, most young people in Lomerío are not active in governance but regarded a source of labour “[of] energy, ideas, and skills” for rural production–a scenario that mirrors findings from the Future of Forest Work (FOFW) initiative, where most youth from participating communities fell into the same category (Robson et al., 2019a).

It would seem that many Indigenous territories have work to do in this area. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be receiving the right support from external rural development agencies and organizations, many of which espouse youth engagement but design associated interventions towards market-oriented livelihood and skills development to boost local rural economies. Only a handful of the 66 youth engagement projects/initiatives reported upon in FAO et al. (2014), IFAD (2018) and Robson et al. (2019a) looked to engage youth in a dialogue about community-related pathways or to co-create solutions together. And none spoke explicitly about youth as key actors in territorial governance. These kinds of initiatives certainly have the potential to enhance local livelihood opportunities, and thus help to retain youth in their home communities, but they fall short of what youth themselves are asking for (this research; Clendenning, 2019; IFAD, 2018; IFAD, 2019; Mora Sánchez and Robson, 2022); namely, a sense of empowerment and to feel a degree of “ownership” over community-generated projects, initiatives, and policies.

Of course, the life pathways that youth choose for themselves are equally relevant in any discussion of youth-community linkages, and how choices (of youth) take place within a broader development context where mobility and ideas about what constitutes the “good life” may or may not sit well with the daily realities of territorial life. In Phase 1 engagement workshops and Phase 3 interviews, youth spoke of the challenges of rural life, repeating things heard in other places (IFAD, 2019; Robson et al., 2020; Mora Sánchez, 2021)—from limited educational and work opportunities to the fit between collectivist ideologies and personal (life, work, family) aspirations. In other words, do places like Lomerío offer what young people believe they need? In Lomerío, young men and women enjoy equal access to productive land upon turning 18, and yet many still leave the home community or territory for work or study. This serves as a powerful reminder that secure tenure alone is rarely enough (Hecht et al., 2015); work, education, and life goals must still stack up against the realities of community life.

This speaks to a broader tension evident in many remote and rural communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Even if youth are proud of their roots and their Indigeneity, and feel connected to their communities, some will expect–often encouraged by their parents–to leave for a “better” life elsewhere. It is a reality that presents community leaderships with a conundrum; tasked to bring young people into the fold, they are part of a society that also pushes them to (potentially) build a future elsewhere. This serves a reminder that power and influence resides with families and households and is not only exercised within community-level institutions, and that tensions, which we have observed everywhere we work, needs to be navigated if the integration of youth is to be achieved and sustained, and requires bridging the gap between youth-held aspirations and the social and political realities and structures that these communities are founded upon (Rajani, 2000; Checkoway and Gutierrez, 2006; Brennan and Barnett, 2009). It seems inevitable that some of those structures will need to be adapted, even reimagined, to better reflect emergent realities–work that has begun (see Robson et al. (2019c) for an analysis of Indigenous community adaptation to change driven by pervasive out-migration) but requires more investigation and tracking to fully understand.

We wrote this, first and foremost, as an empirical paper, with neither research co-design nor knowledge co-production the central arc or theme. However, both approaches have been fundamental to how our work emerged and was conducted, and how empirical findings were generated, shared, and validated (and built upon throughout the process). It also provides an example of how co-production not only happens in the context of community-researcher collaborations, but also internally, among (and across) community actors. In this final section, we reflect on what we have learnt from working together in this way, and how that might shape our research in the future.

First, co-design can emerge organically and without prior intent on the part of the researcher (or the community). This was a 5-year, phased research design. But that is what it became, not how it started out. We had begun as a collaboration between University of Saskatchewan and IBIF researchers; part of an international team of academics and practitioners working on the Future of Forest Work and Communities project. We approached CICOL with the idea of doing a couple of visioning workshops with local youth and they agreed because it coincided with concerns that they had (at the time) about youth involvement in territorial life and decision-making, and rates of youth out-migration. In the discussions that followed all parties were interested to work together to keep youth engagement on the agenda. That led to Phase 2, which in contrast to Phase 1, brought youth and community authorities together to co-produce knowledge and to learn from one another. That objective was jointly formulated but driven by CICOL. Phase 3 (interviews with youth) emerged because it became apparent that group settings were not always conducive for all youth to share their ideas and perspectives. Phase 4 built on what we had learnt through Phases 1-3, to create a bigger platform for local youth (over 100 participated) to convey a message to their authorities–that they cared about the home territory and wanted to be involved but needed to be listened to.

This phased approach was a powerful reminder that co-design manifests in different ways and sits on a spectrum; guided by the needs and resources of the community partner, not all elements of research necessarily incorporate, indeed require, co-design, while others do. Phases 1 and 3 were more researcher-driven, with design reviewed and approved by CICOL. Phases 2 and 4 were much more driven from below, with CICOL taking a lead in methodological design and how those activities were organized and run. This is the mix that proved appropriate for our emergent collaboration. And by allowing elements of co-design to feed into the process, more of us (as collaborators) felt invested in the work. From a researcher perspective, we were better positioned to honour and respect several key principles, from ‘conducting research in a good way’ to ‘generating benefits for community partners’ (see Reed et al., 2023), that we wanted to adhere to. From a Lomerío perspective, we were in a position to ensure that the work was always tied to our priorities and conducted in accordance with local norms and ways of doing things. As an Indigenous Territory, we are uncertain as to where our ongoing process of youth engagement will go, but by working with IBIF and the University of Saskatchewan over the past number of years, we have been able to develop a variety of platforms and spaces by which our youth can share their voice and perspectives. And this has generated insights that will assist CICOL as it works to get a meaningful role for youth ever more established on the territory’s agenda.

The other benefit, perhaps not anticipated (or certainly not by design), is that these encounters have reinforced a notion among youth that their territorial authorities do see them as an important and valued constituency. While none of this should be overplayed (or underplayed for that matter), it is a reminder that perhaps the true value of creating these spaces is not for research purposes (i.e., for the empirical knowledge it generates), but for how it facilitates or prompts community members to talk about things that are important to them and that do need thinking about. It is why CICOL have been open to collaborate with IBIF and the University of Saskatchewan over multiple years, and why youth have been generally enthusiastic about participating in these research activities. Such an insight strengthens the idea that co-production processes are about more than creating knowledge; they are processes to “develop capacity, build networks, foster social capital, and implement actions” (Norström et al., 2020). At the same time, those of us from outside of Lomerío have become acutely aware of the care needed when discussing, what are, internal and sovereign territorial matters; the importance of getting to understand and then work within the boundaries or limits of where and how to get involved. Fortunately, CICOL knows this only too well, and have been forthright with us (as Bolivian and international researchers) about our remit and role, and that decisions about how information is used internally or what strategies to pursue are for them to deliberate and decide upon. So, while this collaborative process has been useful for the territory, what comes of this work is not something the rest of us can (or should) be a part of. Rather, the Monkoxi Nation, together, will determine, guided by their Statute, their cosmovision, and their ‘saberes locales’ (traditional knowledge) (see Chuvirú Garcia et al., 2021; CICOL, 2022), what the future will bring.