Argentina

August 30 2022 Fracking, Indigenous Rights

The Mapuche: in defense of ancestral territory in Argentina

In the south of the province of Mendoza, Argentina, several communities belonging to the Mapuche people—one of the 39 self-recognized indigenous peoples throughout the country—have come together in the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization to defend their rights, way of life and territorial integrity from extractive, energy and tourism activities and projects. One of the threats that these communities are currently facing is the advance of the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. In 2018, the government of Mendoza issued Decree 248, which regulates fracking activities in the province. Before issuing the norm, it overlooked the right of the Mapuche communities in the area to be consulted and to give their free, prior and informed consent. It then made the consultation conditional on the communities having legal recognition of rights over their territory. Since then, the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization has been fighting a court battle to have the decree declared unconstitutional. The lawsuit, initiated by the Oikos Environmental Network Association, is backed by national and international environmental organizations, including the Association for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights-Xumek, the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), AIDA and Earthjustice. The Mapuche communities are tireless in their struggle. The reason is simple: their strength comes from what they protect. It comes from their intimate connection to the territory and all that it holds. A broader vision of territory As in the case with indigenous peoples across the American continent, territories of the Mapuche people are rich in natural resources, which causes large interests to set their eyes on them, ignoring or wanting to ignore those who legitimately inhabit them. For the indigenous communities, territory is not limited to geographical space, but is conceived as the wider space from which human activities, such as grazing paths, emerge and converge. Rivers, mountains and animals are essential elements of the ancestral territory of the Mapuche people. They are distinctive parts of their culture. "These elements also make up the transhumance—a type of pastoralism that consists of seasonal movement along migratory routes—of the people who move, who go from one place to another," explains Gabriel Jofré, a traditional authority and spokesperson for Malalweche. "Today the territory is limited by private property, which makes you settle in a place; our parents used to say that you go where the territory takes you.” The intrusion and territorial usurpation by dominant and oppressive elites —at the beginning of the 20th century—led to the exodus of members of the Mapuche people, the dispersion of others and the silence of many more for fear of repression. In defense of community life Faced with the environmental, social and economic impacts of the intrusion of business activities in the ancestral territory of the Mapuche, the organization Malalweche promotes access to indigenous community property. Although the Argentine State recognizes in its Constitution the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of indigenous peoples and has ratified international conventions that oblige it to respect and guarantee their rights, the legal recognition of the rights of Mapuche communities to indigenous territories faces administrative obstacles and delays due to bureaucratic processes. "That is why, to avoid legal obstacles, we have developed the strategy of creating productive cooperatives," explained Gabriel. Kume Matru food products factory, a cooperative enterprise, was inaugurated on June 23, the date on which Winoj Tripantu, or the beginning of the Mapuche year, is celebrated. Kume Matru is a clear example of the versatility of these communities to walk the path of sharing and bringing together their own needs and those of others; to deliver not only food, but also the whole chain of hands that made it possible. "The people who recover these processes are a reflection of the ancestral forces that are in the territory of the pullü, the spirit of our grandparents," said Gabriel. "It is our children who begin to recover what at some point was cut off, these are processes that must be protected in order for that to happen." In line with this need, last March, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights established that, in a context of climate crisis and environmental deterioration, "the States have the duty to title, delimit and demarcate the collective ancestral territory, attending to the particular characteristics of the specific human group and avoiding granting concessions for projects that may affect the territories in titling, delimitation and demarcation processes without a process of consultation and consent". The norms are clear, both domestic and international. States must guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples, avoiding governmental acts and/or judicial rulings that could affect them, and ensuring that economic development is sustainable and respectful of environmental integrity. Let us recover the legacy of the original peoples, who teach us to live in harmony with nature, as parts of the whole, interconnected with their forces, from which our own must also emerge as a renewed impulse to defend our common home.

February 17 2021 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province. Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.

April 28 2020 Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Inter-American Court upholds indigenous rights in Argentina

In Argentina’s Rivadavia department, along the border of Bolivia and Paraguay, the lands have been inhabited by indigenous people for at least 60 years. Communities there subsist primarily from hunting, gathering, and fishing. Many of these ancestral peoples have been battling for governmental recognition of their land rights since 1984, when the country’s transition from dictatorship to democracy began. This lack of recognition has had profound impacts on the lives of indigenous inhabitants, affected by changes in their land and its use. As Creole families settled in the area, they brought their own customs and economic activities, such as animal grazing and illegal logging. Barbed wire fence was erected without consulting indigenous populations, and an international bridge was built that crosses into their land. These developments have changed how the indigenous people eat and disrupted their access to water, threatening their very cultural identity. With no protection from the Argentine government, in 1998 a coalition of indigenous groups took their struggle before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Grouped in the Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Association—made up of Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy'y (Tapiete) indigenous peoples—, they were represented by the Centre for Legal and Social Studies. In 2012, the Commission issued its Merits Report, establishing the violation of indigenous communities' rights and recommending that the State adopt reparation measures. When Argentina failed to comply with the provision, the case was referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On April 2, 2020, the Court’s decision declared Argentina responsible for the violation of the indigenous peoples’ rights to community property, cultural identity, a healthy environment, and adequate food and water. The ruling marks an important milestone in the struggle for indigenous rights. It is the first time that the Court, in a contentious case, has analyzed these rights autonomously on the basis of Article 26 of the American Convention, and ordered specific measures for their restitution, including actions for access to food and water, the recovery of forest resources, and the recovery of indigenous culture. Actions for Reparation Among other implications, the Court's decision could lead to solutions to the health issues afflicting the indigenous communities of Lhaka Honhat. The violation of their rights to food and water has caused deaths from malnutrition and dehydration. The Court demanded that the State present a study within six months that identifies critical situations of lack of access to drinking water and food, formulates a plan of action to address them, and begins its implementation. It also ordered the creation and implementation of a community development fund within a period of no more than four years. As for the territory, the State shall, within a maximum period of six years: Delineate, demarcate, and grant a single collective title without subdivisions or fragmentations for the indigenous communities. Transfer the Creole population out of the indigenous territory through specific mechanisms that promote, above all, voluntary transfer. Remove barbed wire fences and livestock belonging to Creole settlers from indigenous lands. Refrain from carrying out acts, works or undertakings in indigenous territory. Additionally, the Court requested the adoption of legislative and/or other measures to provide legal certainty to the right to indigenous community property in Argentina. Supporting the Indigenous Struggle In March 2019, AIDA helped author and amicus brief in support of the climate of the indigenous communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association. We did so alongside our allies on the litigation group of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), including Amnesty International, the Asociación Civil por Igualdad y Justicia, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, Dejusticia, FIAN International, International Women's Rights Action Watch - Asia Pacific, and the Minority Rights Group International. Our arguments highlighted the importance of recognizing economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights as real enforceable rights—similar to others such as the right to life or personal integrity—due to their independent and indivisible nature. In this sense, AIDA recalled the important advance that the Court promoted with Advisory Opinion 023, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human life. Our brief called on the government to respect the rights of indigenous peoples—as outlined in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights—to a healthy environment, food and water, and cultural identity. The Court's decision establishes an important regional precedent for the protection of the environment in the Americas. It contributes to the consolidation of standards to protect the land of indigenous communities, as well as their rights to a healthy environment, water and culture.

January 27 2020 Mining, Public Participation, Freshwater Sources

Learning from Mendoza, Argentina: “Water is not negotiable

Near the end of 2019, the citizens of Mendoza, Argentina united in one of the province’s most important social manifestations. Their objective was clear: to defend their water. People of all ages—members of NGOs, environmental assemblies, anti-mining movements, scientists and academics—took to the streets to demand that the local government reverse the modification of Law 7722, known as "guardian of the water" or "the people’s law." The law is fundamental for the protection of water in Mendoza because it prohibits the use of cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in mining activities—all of which seriously contaminate rivers, lakes and other natural water sources. Enacted on June 21, 2007, this law resulted from a long struggle by civil society. A step back in environmental protection The government intended to modify Law 7722 with another regulation, Law 9209, which allowed for "the use of chemical substances [including cyanide], mixtures or dissolutions of them, to ensure the sustainability of the [mining] project.” The justification for eliminating the prohibition on the use of cyanide and other toxic elements was "to guarantee the sustainability of the use of natural resources, with special emphasis on the protection of water resources and to ensure compliance with mining activities.” The use of cyanide in legal mining is becoming less frequent due to the risks involved in its manufacture, transport and use. Cyanide compounds are highly toxic in their gaseous form or when dissolved in water. Considering that the limit of cyanide in drinking water for safe human consumption is four drops per liter, the concentrations used in mining present high risks. In addition, there is abundant evidence of cyanide spills and losses from mining facilities during transport, and multiple cases of mass fatalities of wildlife near mining facilities, particularly migratory birds. The legislative amendment sought to make the procedures for environmental control and monitoring more flexible, by establishing that it was no longer obligatory for the Environmental Impact Statement of a mining project to be ratified by law. This undermined the effectiveness of Law 7722. These changes, promoted by the government of Mendoza, violated environmental protection principles contained in Argentina’s Constitution, among them sustainability and other national regulations that the provinces are obliged to comply with and enrich. For example, article 41 of the Constitution states that "all inhabitants have the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have the duty to preserve it." The citizen's response The social response to this modification—which intended to give free rein to the use of substances with a high environmental impact—surpassed all precedents. By successfully reversing an initiative already approved by Mendoza's legislators, it became an example for the entire region. The largest demonstrations in Mendoza's history began on December 22. Under the slogans "water is not negotiable" and "water is worth more than gold," the people of Mendoza organized to express their disapproval of the new law. The following day, 50,000 people gathered in front of the Provincial Government House after a journey of more than 100 kilometers, which began in the town of San Carlos, in the Uco Valley. They demanded: Law 7722 is not to be touched. Despite this widespread popular rejection, the Governor of Mendoza enacted the reform. Then, thousands of self-convoked neighbors gathered at kilometer zero—between San Martín and Garibaldi Streets—in the provincial capital to demand the law’s repeal. On December 26, faced with constant and growing social pressure, the Governor announced that he would not enact the new law. That palliative measure was deemed unconvincing and mobilizations intensified. The Governor then decided to reverse the amendment to Law 7722. On Friday the 27th, he announced the reform’s repeal, which finally happened on Monday the 30th. The case of Mendoza teaches a valuable lesson to all Latin American countries: When citizens are aware of the importance of nature and the scale of the dangers it faces, they will not yield. Socio-environmental conflicts are not only a response to those who have control over natural resources, but also to their effects on a complex social network. For humans and also for other beings, nature is a formative part of our identity, culture and customs. We are part of it and it is part of us. It is a living and interconnected network. That is why we must be its main defenders. The prompt and necessary updating of the concept of "sustainable development" is one of the challenges of Environmental Law in the 21st century. We mustn’t promote development that attacks nature and ignores human rights. Learn more about the use of cyanide in mining (in Spanish).

October 23 2018 Fracking, Climate Change

UN Committee recommends Argentina “reconsider” the use of fracking

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations expressed its concern about Argentina’s intention to exploit unconventional oil and gas reserves in Vaca Muerta, one of the world’s largest shale deposits. It recommended the goverment reconsider those plans to ensure compliance with the nation’s international commitments on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland. The Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations recommended that Argentina reconsider its plans for the large-scale exploitation of shale gas and oil in Vaca Muerta, one of the world’s largest deposits of unconventional hydrocarbons. The Committee expressed its concern after reviewing the nation’s fourth report to the Universal Periodic Review on human rights, encouraging the government to reconsider the use of fracking in order to ensure compliance with its international obligations on climate change. "The Committee is concerned that this hydraulic fracturing project contradicts the State’s commitments to the Paris Agreement, and would have a negative impact on global warming and the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the global population and future generations," read the concluding observations on Argentina's report, approved by the Committee at its 64th session, which took place from September 24 to October 12, 2018. The Committee urged the State "to promote alternative and renewable energies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and establish national targets with benchmarks defined over time." The Committee also expressed concern about the lack of adequate evaluation of fracking’s negative impacts on the environment and human health, and about the absence of prior consultation with affected local populations. In that sense, the Committee entrusted the Argentine State to: "... adopt a regulatory framework for fracking that includes assessments of its impact in all provinces, preceded by consultations with affected communities, and with appropriate documentation of its effects on air and water pollution, radioactive emissions, risks to health and safety at work, its effects on public health, noise pollution, light and stress, potential seismic activity, threats to agriculture, soil quality, and the climate system." The UN Universal Periodic Review is a process that offers each State the opportunity to declare what measures it has adopted to improve the human rights situation in the country and to comply with its obligations in this area. Its objective is to improve that situation and address human rights violations wherever they occur. PRESS CONTACTS: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Fernando Cabrera, Opsur, [email protected], +5492995864313

September 12 2018 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Argentina’s approval of fracking wells violates international obligations

The authorization of four fracking wells within the Vaca Muerta shale deposit poses a risk to vital water sources and violates the rights of Mapuche communities. In support of an amparo filed to invalidate the project’s approval, AIDA presented evidence detailing Argentina’s failure to comply with international environmental and human rights obligations. Mendoza, Argentina. Argentina violated international environmental and human rights obligations when it authorized the development of four fracking wells in indigenous territory. The wells would damage vital water sources and violate the rights of Mapuche communities, AIDA explained in an amicus brief presented before the Supreme Court of Mendoza Province. The brief supports an amparo seeking to invalidate the project’s approval, filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN, for its initials in Spanish). “Fracking was authorized in Mendoza without any environmental impact assessment,” explained AIDA Attorney Claudia Velarde. “In fact, the project was presented for authorization as ‘infrastructure adaptation’ and the environmental authority granted the permits in a record time of just six days.” The wells are located within Vaca Muerta, the largest non-conventional deposit of shale gas in Latin America. Mapuche indigenous communities—recognized by the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs—live in the project area and, as such, have the right to prior consultation; operators must receive their free, prior and informed consent for any activity affecting their territory. The energy company El Trebol S.A. failed to recognize that right when assessing the project. As a result, the project’s authorization violates Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People—all international standards recognized by Argentina. “The chemicals used in fracking can contaminate both surface and groundwater, including, in this case, those of the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty ratified by the government of Argentina,” said Velarde. “The site is a zone of passage and rest for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds.” In addition, fracking activities require large amounts of water, while Mendoza has for years suffered from drought, a problem only aggravated by climate change. Finally, the brief emphasizes that there is neither detailed geological data of the zone nor quality information on the dynamics of the groundwater. “Faced with this scientific uncertainty, authorities have an obligation to apply the precautionary principle,” Velarde explained. “An activity as potentially harmful as fracking must be rejected unless those seeking to implement it can prove that it will not cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment.” Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107

April 27 2018 Human Rights, Fracking

Defending communities from fracking’s advance in Argentina

In a country highly dependent on hydrocarbons, human rights and those of nature are often overlooked. That's why in Argentina, AIDA and our allies are supporting the efforts of communities and organizations to avoid the damages caused by fracking. In Neuquén province in Argentine Patagonia, a large metal structure rises high above the apple trees. It’s one of many fracking wells that have been installed in this rich natural area. A single well like this one requires roughly 11 million liters of water for operation, the equivalent to 18 years of water consumption for an average family. Despite being internationally recognized as an experimental, risky and contaminating process, fracking is spreading rapidly through Argentina, affecting the land and water of the Mapuche people and other local communities. Much of the nation’s exploration is taking place at Vaca Muerta, the largest unconventional gas reserve in Latin America. Roughly 30 thousand square kilometers, the site covers four Argentine provinces: Neuquén, Rio Negro, La Pampa and Mendoza. The expansion of fracking has brought with it problems like pollution and great harm to the livelihoods of local communities, including the Mapuche, who are forced to find new ways of living on their land in order to avoid migration to urban centers. Oil companies generate unstable and short-term employment. And, due to the increase in the price of land, the residents of the area must earn more money to maintain their standard of living. In a country that gets 90 percent of its energy from hydrocarbons, the government has failed to prioritize the rights of indigenous peoples, of children and of nature. Instead, it has favored the economic income of a highly unsustainable activity. That’s why the efforts of communities and civil society organizations to resist the blind advance of fracking are fundamental. “What motivates me is caring for our land and water; nature is not ours, we belong to it,” stated Santiago Cane, member of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), an organization that is using the courts to stop fracking. FARN filed a writ of amparo to invalidate the authorizations granted for the exploitation of four fracking wells in Mendoza. The environmental authority granted the permits in July 2017, in a record time of six days, without requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. The lawsuit, which AIDA is supporting from our experience in international environmental law, remains in process. “In Mendoza, fracking is advancing at a rapid pace,” Santiago explained. “The national and provincial governments are not taking into account the potentially irreversible pollution of water sources that serve several cities.” In fact, Mendoza is a province that has suffered from water scarcity for years, a problem aggravated by climate change. Those who promote fracking in Mendoza also overlook the fact that, by contaminating both surface and ground water supplies, the toxic chemicals used in fracking will likely reach the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance located in the foothills of the Andes Mountains. The lagoon is a mandatory passage and rest area for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds. Additionally, the region is home to the Mapuche people. According to international law, indigenous peoples like the Mapuche must give their free, prior and informed consent to any activity that affects their territory. That right is not being respected in this case. “I am motivated by the idea of a different economy that does not deprecate nature and that does not generate the accumulation of wealth within small groups of society,” Santiago adds. FARN, together with AIDA, is part of the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, a coalition of organizations that work to slow fracking’s advance in the region. Together we will continue our work to avoid fracking’s damages to our land and water. We are convinced that the power to stop fracking lies with the people.

June 07 2016 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Victims of business-influenced human rights violations face obstacles to achieving justice

The asymmetry of power between companies and affected people, among other factors, makes access to justice difficult in the Americas. Organizations provided detailed information on this problem during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Santiago, Chile. Across the Americas, people and communities whose human rights have been violated by business activities face obstacles when exercising their right to access justice and achieve reparations for damages done. They are often confronted with criminalization, harassment and threats. Among other reasons, the situation reflects the reality that, in many countries, businesses are not properly controlled and may even receive government incentives to continue operations, despite the fact that they violate human rights. In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society organizations[1] demonstrated, through emblematic cases in South America, that this is a problem that happens throughout the region. One of these cases occurred in Brazil on November 5, 2015, when a dam of mining waste owned by Samarco burst in the Río Doce basin. The rupture caused the worst socio-environmental disaster in the country’s history: tons of toxic sludge moved down the river, destroying homes, schools, crops and livestock on its slow and deadly path to the Atlantic Ocean. The government and the company have since closed the case on the disaster, after reaching a settlement in which the victims were not even able to participate. “I lived a quiet life. I never would have expected to see what I saw, to witness families destroyed. We need employment, but we need it responsibly, not in a way that ends up killing people. We are asking for help now, because we can’t let these companies do whatever they want. If this Commission can help us, we would be grateful,” said Antonio Gregorio Santos, a victim of the case in Brazil. In the hearing, the organizations also referred to the case of Southern Peaks Mining, financed by the British-owned Barclays Bank, in which they are accused of breaching agreements with Mala communities in Peru. Here the victims found persecution and illegal detention in their search for justice. “We have identified various barriers to access to justice for the victims. Some—such as socio-economic, cultural and linguistic barriers—were identified in the Commission’s Report on indigenous peoples, afro-descendent communities and extractive industries,” said María José Veramendi Villa, attorney at the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense, one of the petitioning organizations at the hearing. “Many obstacles are exacerbated in disputes with companies due, in large part, to the sharp asymmetry that exists in this relationship, expressed, for example, in political interference on the part of companies and in the lack of adequate independent safeguards for judicial power in many countries of South America.” The organizations requested that the Commission remind the States of their obligation to guarantee access to justice for those who have suffered human rights violations at the hands of companies, and urge them to strengthen domestic legislation accordingly. They also requested that the Commission develop binding standards regarding business and human rights in its rulings on petitions and individual cases—as well as in its thematic reports—in particular with regards to access to redress mechanisms. Finally, they highlighted the work of those who defend human rights against the actions of companies and reminded States that they must provide adequate conditions for their operation. [1] Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA, regional); Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH, regional); Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL, regional); Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA, Argentina); Campanha para parar o poder das Corporações (Brasil); Justiça Global (Brasil); Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS, Colombia); Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER, México); Fundar Centro de Análisis e Investigación A.C (México); Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC, México); Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA, México); Código DH - Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (México) y Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Perú).