PERMENHUT 1 2026

The Ministry of Forestry has issued a regulation that installs a formal risk management system across its offices and work units. The regulation — Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 tentang Manajemen Risiko Di Lingkungan Kementerian Kehutanan, the Minister of Forestry Regulation 1/2026 on Risk Management within the Ministry of Forestry — sets out definitions, an analysis method, and a governance structure that ties the ministry's internal practice to two national frameworks: National Development Risk Management and the Government Internal Control System.

Indonesian ministries have carried risk management duties for years under the broader internal-control regime, but practice has varied widely between units, and forestry administration covers tasks where the stakes are concrete: permitting, conservation, fire response, and large area-based programs. The regulation responds by giving the ministry one written method for how risk is identified, measured, and treated, rather than leaving each directorate to improvise. Pasal 1 anchors this by defining risk as an event that, if it occurs, produces a negative effect on the achievement of organisational goals, and by introducing a shared set of terms — risk culture, risk appetite, and risk tolerance — that every unit is expected to apply. The same article positions the framework as part of National Development Risk Management, signalling that forestry risk work is not meant to stay internal but to connect to a wider government effort.

Pasal 1 carries most of the definitional weight, listing terms across roughly nineteen entries. It separates risk level, graded as low, medium, or high, from risk magnitude, which it defines as the combination of the likelihood level and the impact level. It fixes risk appetite as the magnitude of risk an owner is willing to accept in pursuing an objective, and risk tolerance as the maximum acceptable deviation from that appetite. The operational core sits in Pasal 11, which sets out the stages of risk analysis: assessing likelihood, determining risk magnitude, determining risk appetite and tolerance, and deciding on mitigation. Pasal 12 breaks the likelihood assessment into two measurements — the frequency with which a risk occurs and the level of its impact — and requires that the scoring show clear differences between levels and stay relevant to the risk map; it also lets assessors weigh information from controls already in place. Pasal 13 ties magnitude determination to both the likelihood result and the availability of existing control systems, keeping the calculation grounded in what the ministry can actually do rather than in abstract scoring.

For the ministry's directorates and technical units, the regulation converts risk management from a reporting formality into a defined workflow with named owners. Units will need to map their risks against the low-medium-high scale, set an appetite and tolerance for each, and document mitigation decisions in a form auditors can check. Because Pasal 12 and Pasal 13 allow existing controls to count in the assessment, units with mature internal controls can show lower residual risk, which creates an incentive to document those controls properly rather than treat them as background. The link to the national development and internal-control frameworks also means forestry risk data is meant to feed upward into government-wide coordination, so the quality of unit-level entries carries weight beyond the ministry itself. The practical burden falls on staff who must learn the method and apply it consistently, and on the Inspectorate General, which Pasal 1 begins to position within the oversight chain. In a sector that handles fire seasons, conservation areas, and contested permits, the difference between a real assessment and a filled-in form can be measured in hectares.

The regulation also defines oversight in Pasal 1 as the process meant to ensure that government and development tasks follow plans, programs, and statutory requirements, and it begins to place the Inspectorate General within that chain. Internal control is described in the same article as any action taken by management or others to manage risk and raise the likelihood that objectives are met, which binds the new method to the existing internal-control system rather than setting it apart. Because the framework draws its categories, levels, and appetite-and-tolerance logic from the national internal-control and development-risk regimes, units across the ministry are expected to produce risk records in a form that higher coordinating bodies can read and aggregate. The definitions, the analysis stages in Pasal 11, and the assessment rules in Pasal 12 and Pasal 13 form the working core of a forty-article instrument that now governs how the Ministry of Forestry treats risk across its directorates and field offices.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official regulation text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.info.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.