Transparency systems for all NIA projects

ALL those decades I have spent covering the agriculture beat, including the National Irrigation Administration, the nearest to transparency that I can remember in my coverage is ocular inspection and briefings of the projects. 

We were told by NIA heads– then and now—the cost of the projects, the size of farmlands that would supposedly benefit from irrigation systems, the supposed benefits it would give to farmers (we were allowed to talk to pre-selected farmers to talk to but never the IPs or indigenous people and those around the project who could be affected by these projects).

We had ocular inspections, during land prep but never ongoing as the movements of trucks, heavy equipment and people might endanger us. But that to me was a flimsy excuse. I always wanted to have a free rein in my interviews and site inspections for picture taking, but there was always an excuse not to have one.

It is no wonder then that we always had a hunger for the real story– those that officials did not want us to dig.

Now, with the assumption of Sen. Kiko Pangilinan in the leadership of the Committee on Agriculture, Food and Agrarian Reform and his proposed inclusion of transparency and accountability mechanisms within the irrigation projects being implemented by NIA, I hope this would give enough grounds for reporters to dig deeper and venture into investigative journalism. This is to prevent the recurrence of anomalies in the preparation of projects, budgeting and bidding of contractors and the impact assessment by those to be affected or benefited by such projects.

Pangilinan said “efficient and corruption-free” irrigation projects are crucial to enhancing agricultural productivity and bolstering the country’s food security, to which I completely agree.

“On the issue of monitoring, precisely, we are introducing a transparency special provision in the budget, and an allocation of about P50M for (a) public online dashboard,” he said in sponsoring NIA’s proposed budget for 2026. 

By this he wants inclusions like photos, geo-tagging, names of contractors, amount, status of projects, all for purposes of transparency.

In the subcommittee report of Sen. Win Gatchalian, chair of the finance committee, Pangilinan pushed for an additional budget for three proposed special provisions–transparency of irrigation projects, citizen participatory audit, and quarterly reporting requirement.  Pangilinan is also vice chair of the Subcommittee J of the Senate Committee on Finance.

Under these special provisions, the NIA will be tasked to establish and maintain a public online dashboard for irrigation projects, where timeline, status, finances (obligated/disbursed/source of funds), awarded contracts, contractors, and geo-tagged photos taken at key stages (start, mid, completion) will be displayed, reported Business Mirror.

“This will enable real-time monitoring of project implementation and ensure that information on project status, contracts, and fund utilization is accessible to the public and oversight agencies,” the committee report read.

The report emphasized the need for NIA to support the Citizen Participatory Audit Program of the Commission on Audit (COA) to empower civil society in auditing government activities to ensure that funds are utilized legally and efficiently.

Pangilinan included the quarterly reporting for NIA to submit a quarterly report on all irrigation projects to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance to detail the projects’ status, implementation progress, financial and physical accomplishments, and any issues affecting completion.

In Gatchalian’s manifestation during NIA’s budget debate, Gatchalian said that Pangilinan has identified each irrigation project with the exact coordinates—instead of merely providing the lump sum amounts in the National Expenditure Program (NEP).