The Unfulfilled Dream of an International Science Institute
The delicate balance between global science and national sovereignty in the world's largest rainforest
In the aftermath of World War II, as the world rebuilt from devastation, an ambitious scientific proposal emerged that would forever change how we view international research cooperation in sensitive ecosystems. The year was 1946, and at a UNESCO conference in Paris, Brazilian scientist Paulo Estevão de Berredo Carneiro put forward a revolutionary idea: the creation of the Instituto Internacional da Hiléia Amazônica (International Institute of the Hylean Amazon - IIHA).
The IIHA was designed to bring together countries with Amazonian territories—Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands—to study the world's largest tropical rainforest.
The institute represented a bold vision for "ecologia humana" (human ecology) that would integrate research across multiple disciplines6 .
At a time when the horrors of war were fresh in memory, the Amazon emerged in the international imagination as a potential space for redemption and new forms of geopolitical cooperation6 .
The IIHA proposal emerged during a transformative period for Brazilian science and development policy. The country was actively formulating new initiatives for the Amazon region throughout the 1940s1 , seeking to assert control and promote development in this vast territory.
In 1951, the IIHA proposal was archived without a vote, leading to the creation of the national INPA in 1952.
The creation of INPA did not eliminate the challenges of international scientific collaboration in the Amazon; it merely nationalized them. Today, research hierarchies persist in what anthropologist Aline Moreira Magalhães describes as a telling metaphor: "Nós somos os mateiros deles" ("We are their field guides")6 .
This expression captures the unequal collaboration between researchers from the Global North and South.
Mateiros (field guides) and local fishers—experts with extensive practical knowledge of the forest—remain essential collaborators in Amazonian research yet often receive limited recognition6 .
They create ways to identify, locate, and capture elements of local flora and fauna but are rarely credited as authors in scientific papers6 .
While the IIHA never materialized, the type of interdisciplinary research it envisioned continues to yield fascinating discoveries about human-environment interactions in the Amazon. One particularly revealing area of study examines the Amazonian Dark Earths (ADE)—highly fertile anthropogenic soils that provide lasting evidence of pre-Columbian settlements8 .
| Indicator | Role in Identifying Anthropic Soils | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Phosphorus (P) | Primary indicator of human occupation | Correlates with organic waste deposition |
| Calcium (Ca) | Key marker of anthropic modification | From bone fragments and ash |
| Zinc (Zn) | Reliable proxy for human activity | Accumulates from organic materials |
| Barium (Ba) | Secondary indicator | Traces of mineral residues |
| pH Levels | Variable correlation | Not consistently reliable across sites |
Evidence now indicates human occupation in the Amazon dating back 5,000 years in the Madeira River valley and 2,500 years in the Amazon valley8 .
These were not small, transient settlements but established communities that significantly modified their environment.
| Tool/Material | Primary Function | Research Application |
|---|---|---|
| Soil Augers | Extract soil core samples | Profile collection for chemical and physical analysis |
| GPS Equipment | Precise location mapping | Georeferencing of sampling sites and archaeological finds |
| Portable XRF Analyzer | Elemental composition analysis | Rapid assessment of soil chemical properties in the field |
| Archaeological Sieves | Soil screening for artifacts | Recovery of ceramic fragments and lithic materials |
| pH Meters | Soil acidity/alkalinity measurement | Assessment of soil chemical environment |
The failed IIHA project of the 1940s established patterns that continue to shape Amazonian science and policy. The debates between international cooperation and national sovereignty, between scientific universalism and local knowledge, continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about the Amazon.
The enduring lesson from both the IIHA debate and ongoing research into Amazonian Dark Earths is that effective stewardship of the Amazon requires respecting multiple forms of knowledge—from the sophisticated methodologies of modern soil science to the practical expertise of mateiros who navigate the forest, and from the traditional wisdom of indigenous communities to the technical capabilities of international research institutions.
As we face ongoing challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, the vision that animated the IIHA proposal—of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to understanding one of Earth's most critical ecosystems—may be more relevant than ever. The difference is that today we better understand that such collaboration must be built on genuine partnership rather than scientific hierarchy, acknowledging both the universal value of the Amazon and the sovereign rights of the nations and peoples who call it home.