32 resources is also in peril if sufficient protection and conservation methods, particularly of mangroves and coral reefs,217 are not implemented. The participants also mentioned the limitation of fishing rights in waters of adjacent municipalities as a barrier to food security,218 as the population in fishing communities is increasing, but the area for fishing remains the same. They added that the resources in municipal waters would be adequate if commercial fishing vessel operations were not allowed there. 219 Artisanal fisherfolk access to government support and social services Section 24 of the Fisheries Code provides that municipal fisherfolk shall receive support from the DA and the LGUs through “appropriate technology and research, credit, production and marketing assistance, and other services such as, but not limited to, training for additional/supplementary livelihood.”220 During the consultation, the participants were asked to enumerate government support programs they have encountered and how these have affected their livelihood.221 Programs mentioned were: • Giving of nets, boats, motorboats; • Giving of fishing paraphernalia like “pukot”, “banyera”,222 weighing scales, and food items; • Alternative livelihood programs and training (e.g seaweed farming, fish drying, aquaculture); • Microloans, and loans for new or repair of boats; and • Community Fish Landing Centers (CFLC) However, the participants said that although these programs are available, the problem remains in their implementation. The main issue they cited is political accommodation, wherein only select individuals, usually those affiliated with the LGU, could access these programs and services. 223 They also disclosed that some of the fishing paraphernalia they received were unsuitable for their livelihood.224 Another problem is with budget allocations for the programs. One example is the CFLC; no budget was allocated by the national government, thus the LGU had problems sustaining the project.225 The participants also mention that the allocation for livelihood projects of fisherfolks in the LGU was small, saying that it was only around 1%,226 with most of the budget going to farming projects227 and infrastructure. Very few programs also sought to aid them during periods of calamities, particularly during typhoons where they could not operate due to rough seas and thus would have no income.228 Another concern they shared was the Registry System for Basic Sectors (RSBA). 229 They complained that they were being asked to represent only one sector, but according to them, most fisherfolks are also farmers and vice versa. 230 This is attributed to the fact that fisherfolk had to resort to other livelihood 217 Consultations with Fisherfolks, supra note 148 218 Ibid. 219 Ibid. 220 RA No. 8550, supra note 8 221 Consultations with Fisherfolks, supra note 148 222 Pukot is a conical shaped net used to catch fish, Banyera is a metal tub used to store the catch 223 Consultations with Fisherfolks, supra note 148 224 Ibid. The nets were too short, and they ended up just selling them 225 Ibid. 226 Consultations with Fisherfolks, supra note 148 227 Ibid. 228 Ibid. 229 A program implemented in 2011 to create a list of farmers, farm workers, and fisherfolks in the 75 provinces of the country, excluding the ARMM and NCR. The list will be used for targeting of various government programs. Evaluation of the Registry System for Basic Sectors in Agriculture (repec.org) (last viewed 11/23/2021) 230 Consultations with Fisherfolks, supra note 148