In the Book of Genesis, God commanded Noah to build a boat that would hold each species; 40 days and 40 nights of continuous rain—a punishment from heaven—would bring flooding, destruction and death.
NOAH is also the acronym for Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards. It is a project of the Department of Science and Technology that seeks to empower communities through access to accurate, reliable and timely hazard and risk information.
The project essentially uses scientific methods to intelligently predict where disaster is likely to strike and in what manner. Through maps, local governments and communities are fed accurate information so that they can better anticipate disasters, take precaution, prepare for when they strike and rebuild and rehabilitate faster, afterward.
Since 2012, it has seen both success and recognition. Several local and international civil society organizations have partnered with the people behind NOAH; the maps, particularly, have served as essential tools in the disaster risk reduction and management activities of local governments.
Over the weekend, however, news reports had it that Project Noah would only have until the end of February; it will be shut down because of lack of funds. Its executive director, Mahar Lagmay, said they were informed their request for project extension would not be approved.
Last year, Lagmay added, the scientists working under the program waited five months for their salaries. The previous year, salaries were delayed three to four months and some of the experts had to leave in search of stable jobs.
The executive director added, sounding cryptic, that there are officials who had been trying to make life difficult for NOAH for a long time— even before the Duterte administration came in.
It appears, then, that funding is not the cause of—just a tool for—the project’s woes.
If there is any evidence at all that the project is a waste of time and resources, and that it has failed to fulfill its mandate, by all means cut the funding and set up something better. The administration, however, should not toy with what is happening if the project delivers some tangible, substantive good for the people, especially those who would not otherwise have access to the input it provides.
But if it does any real good at all, then the Science and Technology secretary should look into the matter and quell ugly politics or any other controversy.
Shutting down a government unit known for the competence and dedication of its people, especially if it promises to save lives and livelihood, would be unwarranted punishment on a country still trying to make itself resilient in the face of forces beyond its control.