Introduction

R. Simarmata

As a unitary state with a decentralised government system, the making of local regulations in Indonesia is a dynamic process. On the one hand, local regulations function as implementing regulations to national laws and regulations.

In addition, some ‘behavioural’ factors are even more influential in local law-making than legal considerations. I talk about behavioural factors when the law-making process is deliberately used to serve individual and group interests. In a similar fashion, the ideas of local bureaucrats regarding issues that local regulation drafts intend to address, affect the law-making process. The social status of those affected by local (draft) regulations also influences the behaviour of the officials involved.

In Kutai Kartanegara district (East Kalimantan), both structural and behavioural factors affected the making of fishery regulations between 2004-2011. In that period, policy in fishery matters was still a matter of the districts and provinces, even though this started to change due to re-centralisation by central government. Four district draft regulations were prepared: Fishery Revenue, Fishing, Standardised Aquaculture, and Fishery Enterprise. Two drafts were made to adjust the old district fishery regulations to the new Act on Fishery. Another two were made in an attempt to respond to specific local issues or need, such as the wish to increase local government revenues and protect the environment from destructive aquaculture.

Kutai Kartanegara officials, in particular from the fishery agency, were involved at every step of the making of the draft regulations. They engaged in formulating reasons to propose the drafts, in drafting, consultation with other stakeholders, and in political lobbying. Even though there are some similarities in the way the district officials were involved, there were also major differences from one draft to another. District officials took various factors into consideration when they formulated arguments supporting the draft proposal, carried out consultations with stakeholders, and engaged in political lobbying to get endorsements from local legislators. The differences in involvement were also caused by such a simple thing as lack ofknowledge ofhow the law-making process ought to be conducted.

This paper examines how the different ways of district officials’ involvement in drafting the four fishing regulations influenced two things: first, the way fishing community groups were involved, and second, the content of the drafts. This paper argues that even though the making of the four drafts meant to implement the national laws and regulations, the interests and perceptions of local bureaucrats made the law-making process complex and extended.