25
because of the efforts of the CRMP in concert with the regional government. This created not only interest in, but knowledge of, coastal issues, so that when DPRD attended public
meetings, they were greeted by a well-informed public who could discuss substantive aspects of policy.
Some procedural deficiencies were also evident, however. The initial public consultations within the 34 villages were not well documented. While the report prepared by the Manado-
based NGO, Kelola, and commissioned by the CRMP, recounted many of the major comments of those meetings, they were not recorded contemporaneously and well distributed.
Another shortcoming in the process was the timing of some of the background materials. The ‘white paper’ was begun early in the process, but not completed until the nearly the time
that the Perda was enacted. This paper, and related materials such as the academic study, are intended to guide lawmakers and inform the public. As a result, in ideal circumstances,
they should be completed even before there is a draft law. It is these documents that should help answer the question whether a new law is even appropriate. The white paper certainly
assisted the efforts of the lawmakers, but it would have assumed additional significance if it had been completed earlier in the process.
Perhaps the most significant shortcomings – even acknowledged by the DPRD members afterwards – was the lack of engagement with the administrative offices of the Bupati until
near the end of the process. Officials within the administration knew informally of the Perda development, through the work of the KTF and discussions among individuals. However,
there was no formal involvement until eight weeks prior to enactment, nine months into the process. This left very little meaningful opportunity for the Bupati’s staff to review, digest and
suggest substantive revisions to the draft Perda. Given that it is the administrative branch of the government that will be implementing the Perda, this was a tremendous opportunity lost.
The reason for not engaging earlier is purely traditional: laws historically either originated with the DPRD, which would shepherd the draft Perda through the process until enactment
and then hand it to the Bupati for implementation, or they originated with the Bupati, in which case his staff would develop the law, and then formally introduce it into the DPRD when
virtually complete. It was very rare to find that the two branches would coordinate in developing a new Perda for enactment. However, given that the legislative branch enacts laws for ad-
ministrative implementation, in the interest of good and efficient governance, it is imperative that this coordination take place.
4.2. Substantive Issues
One of the most important reasons for the success of this Perda is that it does not seek to do too much. Early drafts contain a tremendous array of articles, very few of which were likely to
be implemented due to lack of funding or lack of training. Even though the DPRD desired to show immediate action, it was convinced that poor enforcement of overambitious provisions
would not result in better coastal management. Consequently, it developed the notion of a framework law, one that establishes the basic institutional arrangements for governing coastal
resources, without providing for detailed substantive regulatory provisions for which it had little or no information or ability to enforce.
It makes sense to start with a basic law that serves as a foundation, or framework, for other laws. A framework law will deal with the basic goals, principles, processes, and standards of
an area of governance Andreen, 2000. It will lay down the basic mechanisms for gover- nance – setting an agenda for action, coordination, establishing necessary institutions, en-
26
suring necessary funding, perhaps tackling some basic substantive elements such as edu- cation and outreach. It may set up processes for information access and distribution, or it
may establish the mechanics for administrative review and accountability. Specifically, frame- work legislation would look to accomplish several things: 1 establish an agenda for coastal
resource management, including the goals, the vision, the priorities for actions to conserve and manage resources; 2 delineate the roles and responsibilities of institutions engaged in
coastal resource management which may include creating or modifying governmental and non-governmental bodies; 3 establish the informational needs for future management ini-
tiatives; 4 secure funding sources for coastal resource management; and 5 to the extent possible or practical, establish some programs and activities to fulfill the agenda Patlis,
2002.
What is not included in a framework law is equally important: it doesn’t attempt to manage activities in which there is only limited experience or knowledge. It leaves such management
for subsequent laws. In a district where capacity is weak or experience is thin, the district will not be able to adequately write a new law that is highly detailed and technical. Even if it
succeeds in writing such a law often with outside help through a donor agency project or international non-government organization, the district may not have the ability to adequately
implement or enforce the law. A framework law is a means to build capacity in gradual steps.
As a political matter, a framework law has additional benefits. Because it doesn’t attempt to overreach in regulating stakeholders, it does not alienate stakeholders, which would only
create friction and dilute the usefulness of the law. Rather, it serves to build a constituency around a particular issue, such as the need to better manage natural resources for all stake-
holders. Difficult political issues, such as specific regulations, can be tackled subsequently, after a political base and an educated civil society is established.
Consider Article 1 on Definitions. An early draft included upwards of 50 definitions of scien- tific and biological terms that were not even used in the law. In the end, these were all
Creating a Legal Framework
Process Institutions
Information Financing
Framework Law
Framework for Decision Making coordinated, open process
Forestry Regulations
Mining Regulations
Tourism Regulations
Fishing Regulations
Other Regulations
