Ethno-mapping is the first step when it comes to develop a PGTA. Through various meetings that usually involve the entire population of an indigenous territory [known as terra indígena, in Portuguese] a map is constructed in a highly participatory manner. All members of the tribe can include their perspectives. The finished map eventually contains a perspective of the tribe on their own territory, marking hunting areas, points of religious importance, important fruit trees, settlements, infrastructure and water courses, but also much more subtle points of interest such as pointers to where animals reproduce, where water courses have their origin, etc, as well as areas of conflict, such as sites where environmental crimes are prone to occur or where infrastructure is affecting local processes.

Based on the map developed in the first step, more rounds of consultations identify issues and opportunities that the tribe faces. This often results in a written testimony of the tribe’s lived reality, touching on issues such as education, language conservation (or recovery), the need for infrastructure or opposition to such, strategies on how to market goods, need for outside support in various areas, etc. – every diagnosis is as unique as the reality that inspired it. Its content really depends on what the tribe identifies as important for its own future and well-being.

ILO Convention 169 gives indigenous peoples the right to free, prior and informed consent [FPIC] to any endeavour that will affect their livelihoods and identity as an indigenous people. It does not specify, however, how this consent is given – an issue that often results in abuse and reinterpretation of what counts as “consent”. An important part of a PGTA have therefore been protocols in which tribes agree on what constitutes “consent” and how it has to be given. This part has been missing in earlier versions of PGTAs but is increasingly recognised as an integral part of a full PGTA.

Once the three first steps are completed, they are combined into a PGTA, which usually comes in the form of a booklet or pdf file, but is unfortunately almost never digitalised.

Indigenous territories are no isolated islands, disconnected from the outside world. On the contrary, they are and have always been deeply affected by and connected to events happening outside of the territory. Oftentimes, a lack of effective communication has resulted in disasters for indigenous peoples. A PGTA is a powerful tool precisely because it builds a bridge between indigenous ways of doing things and the ways of the nation state and international actors in that it pays respect to the often oral and communitarian tradition of indigenous peoples and uses them to produce a written document – the preferred way of communication and knowledge of the nation state and the international mainstream society – which can then act as a tool to connect the two levels that often struggle to make themselves understood in the face of the other. An important step prior to the actual implementation is therefore the connection to other actors based on the PGTA. If the PGTA identified a need to protect the territory from environmental crimes and identified where these occur, the logical next step is to take this information to the relevant institution that is responsible for protecting the territory – be that the an organ of the state, such as the environmental police, in the case of Brazil, or, if that doesn’t work, the international community that can try to act through awareness raising and campaigns. Other instances of building bridges with other actors would be resolving the question of what to do with trash in the often growing settlements of the territory (along with municipal agencies that deal with trash), how to get produce certified as organic based on a detailed description of the cultivation methods found in the PGTA (along with the certification agency), negotiating a special permit to hunt an endangered fish based on the description of sustainable hunting methods (together with the environmental protection agency), etc.

Bridges can not only be build with institutions but also to laws and norms, such as – in the Brazilian case) the National Policy on Climate Change and the National Policy on Environmental and Territorial Management in Indigenous Territories, that both foresee some kind of “management plans” as instruments of their implementation, or international norms such as the Nagoya Protocol that also foresees “community protocols” as tools to protect biodiversity.

However, it is important to state that these dynamics and connections only strengthen the PGTA and facilitate its implementation. They are not the instances that impart the moral authority or legal importance of the document, as both are rooted exclusively in the collective desire of the tribe to make their voice heard. This is what makes a PGTA such a powerful tool to protect sociobiological diversity even in times when governments are opposed to indigenous peoples’ rights. For one, they don’t need to agree to indigenous peoples raising their concerns and, at the same time, national governments are not the only actors that can be consulted.

Unfortunately, the publication of a PGTA booklet tends to be the end of the process for most donors and supporters. It’s by no means the end of the process, though. The publication of the PGTA is only the beginning of the process. After indigenous peoples have defined their vision for what they want to do with their territory and how they want to live their lives, they need support for implementing their vision – be this securing their territory, marketing their crafts and produce, installing internet, making sure their children continue to learn the local language and history or any other issue identified in the iPCA.

As the reality of indigenous peoples develops, plans and visions need to be reviewed and updated. This process is still ill-defined and has almost never happened due to a lack of interest and resources from donors and the high costs involved. It has also not yet been a very urgent issue as PGTAs have really only started to emerge in the past 15 years, resulting in most of them being younger than 10 years as of now. However, this issue will become more prominent in the next years.