45 about political accommodation and that only those with close ties to the LGU and its officials are able to benefit from these programs. b. The sustainability of such programs was considered problematic. Issues of poor budget allocation or even no funds allotted by the national government for projects like community fish landing centers350 were reported. The suitability of programs from related agencies was also questioned. Participants recommend that relevant agencies pay particular attention to the specific needs of fisherfolk depending on the area or region, and avoid the “one-size-fits-all” mentality in the implementation of government programs. 351 7. While the Fisheries Code acknowledges the importance of conserving and protecting fishery resources in achieving food security for the population, the continued intrusion of commercial fishing operations in municipal waters has posed a threat to the food security of municipal fisherfolk communities. Competition with commercial fishing operations has brought about not only a decreased amount of food and income for the community, but also impacted the variety of fish that they are able to eat. a. Participants disclose that they were able to haul in good catch volume, particularly during peak season, and that a wide variety of fish species was still available to catch. Particular species like Mahi-mahi and Dorado were so abundant that they could give them away. 352 However, with the rise of commercial fishing operations, the catch volume has decreased. Furthermore, the “good” or high-value fish is sent to cities or export markets, leaving the lower value fish for the municipal communities to sell or put on their tables. b. Due to increasing consumer demand and competition with commercial operations, the food generated by municipal waters will no longer be enough to sustain the needs of a community, particularly as the population in these fishing communities is increasing. c. Limiting the access of artisanal fisherfolk to common fishery areas due to strict boundary enforcement is also seen as a barrier to food security. Participants argue that since fish are transboundary, they need to follow where the fish go to secure their catch. 353 8. The FGDs reveal that majority of the participants do not have access to social security services of the government, in particular, with SSS and PhilHealth. Even fish wardens do not have mandatory social security benefits. 354 They attribute this to the poor implementation and information dissemination of the LGU and relevant government agencies in rural municipalities. This also includes access to calamity funds and crop insurance.355 As most participants said they do not have access to social security services, the number of responses to verify if the programs were adequate was not enough. However, the participants disclosed that the LGU or even the local NGO in the area could facilitate access to these services if they have the political will. a. Access to credit and financing programs were also limited, with only one participant recorded as being able to avail of the Sure-Aid program from the DA. Although they are available, only very few avail them because of the onerous requirements. One example was a feasibility study which seems to be cumbersome for fisherfolk. In addition, the participants argue that artisanal fisherfolk would not have the capability to provide this.356 b. The physical offices of the relevant agencies were also found to be very far from their communities. Since they live in coastal communities, commuting to the inland offices is very expensive and physically taxing. It would be laborious just to travel to and from the offices. 350 Consultations with Fisherfolks, supra note 148 351 Ibid. 352 Ibid. 353 Ibid. 354 Ibid. 355 Ibid. 356 Ibid.