Conclusion
The making of the four District draft regulations had formal and substantive reasons. The formal reasons are clear from the fact that the majority of the draft regulations were made in an effort to implement national legislation.
The drafts were made to adjust the old Kutai district fishery regulations to the new act. This is the unavoidable consequence of having a unitary state system, notwithstanding the decentralisation process that had started in 1999.In the drafting process, the Kutai District officials played a role as interpreters of the provisions of the act. In the process, they did not just simply elaborate these provisions further into local regulations but also tried to envisage how the local regulations could be effective as an instrument to address the needs of the affected group. A provision of the Kutai Draft Regulation on Fishing which introduced an administrative approach to fishery permits is a good example of the latter, even though at the same time it promotes an increase in government control.
District officials would like to promote the social significance of the draft regulations. To make that happen, it was important to have an objective reason for the Draft that responded to a specific purpose, concern, or interest. As explained, the interests included increasing the District revenue from fishery levy, protecting fishery resources and the environment from destructive fishery activities, and resolving conflict in fishery sectors. It was perceived that the old fishery regulations were unable to cope with these issues.
Nevertheless, the district officials were not free from desires and interests in the drafting process. Despite their role as interpreters of the national law by making local regulations, these bureaucrats had interests and perceptions, which did influence the drafting process and the content of the draft.
These interests were sometimes institutional and sometimes personal. In Kutai District, bureaucrats’ personal interests in the law-making were diverse, including gaining additional income and reinforcing the power of their position (jabatan). Important was also how these bureaucrats perceived the capacity and social status of the fishermen and farmers as affected groups. In general, they saw the fishermen and farmers as less educated people who were unable to understand policy or legal issues. They were also suspected of being ‘tricky’ by always finding ways to push the oil and gas companies to compensate for damage caused to their vessels, nets, and fish ponds.Such interests and this perception explain why these district officials were willing to travel hundreds of miles from Tenggarong to do comparative study visits and consultations. They even did so during a holiday. The effort and time this took caused them to have insufficient time to meet the fishermen and farmers for public consultation. As a result, the content of the drafts hardly responded to the real social and environmental issues that they were meant to respond to. Their perception of the fishermen and the farmers mostly led to the drafts adding new forms of government control.
In this manner, the district officials impeded the pursuit ofdevelopment goals. They mainly allocated resources in line with their self-interest. As a result, social change and environmental protection were not realised, even if some of them genuinely intended to play a role as a social agent wishing to generate social transformation.
Notes
1 Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Kutai, 2017, Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara Dalam Angka 2017.
2 See on https://kaltim.bps.go.id/statictable/2015/03/10/81/banyaknya-rumah-tangga- perikanan-menurut-sub-sektor-perikanan-dan-kabupaten-kota-2015.html (downloaded on 14 April 2018).
3 See Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara dan Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara (2016), Statistik Pembangunan Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara.
4 Ibid.
5 See https://kaltim.bps.go.id/statictable/2015/03/10/81/banyaknya-rumah-tangga- perikanan-menurut-sub-sektor-perikanan-dan-kabupaten-kota-2015.html (downloaded on 14 April 2018).
6 This section primarily originates from Simarmata (2012, chap. 7).
7 SSFRC is granted to small-scale or traditional fishing or aquaculture, which is valid for one year with the possibility to renew it for another year.
8 The call was made due to the small contribution of local revenue to the Kutai annual budget. Between 2001-2005, Kutai earned a local revenue of a mere US$2,576,000 (approx.) each year. In 2011, the total sum increased significantly to US$11,240,000. See Kaltim Post (2011).
9 The story was told by a middle-rank officer of Kutai Fishery Agency in August 2008.
10 The other two Kutai Draft Regulations respectively concerning Animal Husbandry and Health and the Utilization of Non-Timber Forest Products.