Taking climate change mitigation action involves more than simply stating that a project can reduce emissions. Companies need to answer two important questions: what will be done to reduce emissions, and how much emission reduction has actually been achieved once the project is implemented?
Under Indonesia’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Certification Scheme (SPEI), two key documents address these questions: DRAM (Mitigation Action Design Document) and LCAM (Mitigation Action Achievement Report). Both documents play an important role in the Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) process for climate change mitigation actions.
What Is DRAM?
DRAM is a Mitigation Action Design Document that explains how a mitigation action will be implemented and how its emission reductions will be calculated, monitored, and reported.
Under the SPEI scheme, DRAM is prepared according to the type of mitigation action to be certified and submitted through SRN PPI. The document then undergoes validation by an independent validator.
In simple terms, DRAM means Design and Plan. It describes the mitigation action, the implementing party, the project location, how the project operates, the baseline scenario, the project boundary, relevant emission sources, and the quantification methodology. DRAM also establishes monitoring parameters, data collection methods, the monitoring period, and the procedures for calculating emission reductions.
Why Is DRAM Important?
Imagine a company stating that a newly installed technology is expected to reduce emissions by 50,000 tCO₂e per year. The next question is: where does that figure come from?
Without a clear methodology and supporting data, the figure remains an estimate. Therefore, DRAM helps transform an emission reduction claim into a structured mitigation action design that can be assessed.
The relationship between the mitigation action, data, calculations, and emission reductions must be clearly explained. This ensures that every claim has a basis that can be traced and evaluated.
How Is DRAM Validation Conducted?
Once DRAM has been prepared, the document may undergo validation by an independent party in accordance with the mechanism of the applicable scheme.
Validation does not aim to prove the amount of emission reduction that has already occurred. At this stage, the project may not yet have achieved any actual emission reductions. Instead, validation focuses on whether the mitigation action design has an adequate basis and methodology to support its emission reduction claims.
During the process, the validator assesses the mitigation action boundary, baseline, greenhouse gas (GHG) sources and sinks, methodology, assumptions, data, monitoring plan, and calculation method. Other relevant aspects may also be included in the assessment.
In practice, SRN PPI provides a record of DRAM together with its validation documentation.
What Happens After DRAM Is Validated?
After the mitigation action design has been validated, the company begins implementing the project according to the established design. At this stage, monitoring becomes essential because the company must collect actual data based on the parameters specified in DRAM.
For example, an energy efficiency project may require monitoring energy consumption, production output, operating hours, fuel consumption, equipment performance, and emission factors.
The collected data is then used to calculate the actual emission reductions achieved during the monitoring period. Therefore, data quality and consistent data collection are essential for supporting project performance reporting.
What Is LCAM?
Once the mitigation action has been implemented and the data has been collected, the company prepares the Mitigation Action Achievement Report (LCAM). While DRAM explains what is planned, LCAM describes what has actually been implemented and achieved.
LCAM is used to report the implementation of mitigation actions and the resulting emission reductions during the measurement period. The SPEI guidelines require LCAM to be prepared based on a validated DRAM.
The LCAM format also requires information about the applicable DRAM version, measurement period, implementation status, changes in project conditions or implementation, quantification methodology, and achieved emission reductions. This connects the original project design with actual results in the field.
What Is the Difference Between DRAM and LCAM?
DRAM and LCAM serve different but complementary functions. DRAM focuses on planning, while LCAM focuses on implementation and actual performance.
| Aspect | DRAM | LCAM |
|---|---|---|
| Function | Mitigation action design | Mitigation action achievement report |
| Focus | Plans and projections | Implementation and actual results |
| Baseline and methodology | Establishes the basis for calculations | Uses the established basis |
| Monitoring | Defines the monitoring plan | Presents monitoring results |
| Emission reductions | Explains the calculation method | Reports the reductions achieved |
| Independent assessment | Validation | Verification |
In general, the relationship between the two documents follows this sequence:
DRAM → Validation → Implementation and Monitoring → LCAM → Verification → Verified Emission Reductions
This sequence demonstrates that planning, implementation, monitoring, reporting, and performance assessment are interconnected processes.
Why Must LCAM Be Consistent with DRAM?
One important aspect of preparing LCAM is maintaining consistency with the validated DRAM. DRAM serves as the reference for assessing whether project implementation follows the original design.
For example, DRAM may specify the use of Boiler A with a capacity of 20 MW and a baseline of 100,000 tCO₂e. Project emissions are then calculated using the established methodology.
However, actual conditions may differ. The technology, capacity, location, or operating conditions may change. These changes must not be overlooked because they may affect the quantification of emission reductions.
The LCAM format under the SPEI scheme requires explanations of changes in project conditions and implementation compared with the validated DRAM, including their impact on emission reduction calculations.
Therefore, companies need to document changes systematically so that reported results remain traceable and can be assessed against the validated project design.
Read also: ISO 14064-2: Measuring Emission Reductions from Mitigation Actions
How Is LCAM Verification Conducted?
While DRAM validation assesses the suitability of a mitigation action design, LCAM verification assesses whether the reported emission reductions are supported by sufficient evidence and data.
During this process, the verifier assesses the information presented in LCAM and its supporting evidence. The assessment may cover activity data, monitoring records, calculations, emission factors, baseline, project emissions, supporting evidence, changes during the monitoring period, data quality, and consistency with DRAM.
By examining these aspects, verification helps determine whether the reported emission reductions are supported by adequate evidence.
SRN PPI also indicates the existence of verification documents for LCAM reports submitted for mitigation actions.
What Is the Relationship Between DRAM, LCAM, and ISO 14064-2?
ISO 14064-2 provides a project-level framework for quantifying, monitoring, and reporting GHG emission reductions or increased removals. This framework covers planning, baseline establishment, monitoring, quantification, and reporting.
Under the SPEI scheme, the process includes DRAM, validation, implementation and monitoring, LCAM, and verification.
Therefore, DRAM and LCAM are important documents in applying the principles of project-level GHG quantification, monitoring, and reporting. The 2023 SPEI guidelines explicitly state that the scheme is implemented in alignment with the latest version of SNI ISO 14064-2.
Why Should Companies Build an Effective Monitoring System?
A common mistake is to treat DRAM and LCAM merely as documents required for compliance. In reality, the foundation of both documents lies in data quality and the monitoring system implemented in the field.
A well-prepared DRAM without adequate monitoring may result in an LCAM that is difficult to verify. Conversely, companies with an effective monitoring system can more easily collect data, perform calculations, prepare LCAM, provide evidence, respond to verifier questions, and substantiate their emission reduction results.
Therefore, DRAM readiness begins before the document is written. Companies need to ensure that data sources, measurement methods, recording processes, and supporting evidence are prepared during the planning stage.
Which Regulations and Standards Are Relevant?
In Indonesia, several regulations and standards are relevant to the preparation of DRAM and LCAM and to GHG emission reduction processes.
| Regulation or standard | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Presidential Regulation No. 110 of 2025 | Governs the implementation of Carbon Economic Value instruments and national GHG emission control, including carbon allocation, NDC, Carbon Economic Value instruments, transparency, monitoring and evaluation, and GHG emission reduction certification. It has been in force since 10 October 2025 and revoked Presidential Regulation No. 98 of 2021. |
| Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 21 of 2022 | Governs the implementation of Carbon Economic Value, including MRV, SRN PPI, and GHG emission reduction certification. It contains provisions and guidelines related to DRAM and the issuance of SPE-GRK. Its status is recorded as in force in the BPK database, but its application should be considered alongside developments in the regulatory framework under Presidential Regulation No. 110 of 2025. |
| SPEI Scheme 2023 | Provides technical guidance on DRAM, validation, implementation and monitoring, LCAM, verification, and the issuance of SPE-GRK. |
| ISO 14064-2:2019 | An international standard for project-level quantification, monitoring, and reporting of emission reductions or increased removals. |
| ISO 14064-3:2019 | Relevant to the validation and verification of GHG assertions. |
These regulations and standards provide frameworks related to mitigation action planning, performance measurement, reporting, and independent assessment. Companies should understand the applicable requirements and ensure that their implementation is consistent with the scheme being used.
What Should Companies Prepare?
To prepare for mitigation actions, companies should establish a system covering action design, baseline establishment, monitoring plans, data management, calculations, documentation, DRAM and LCAM preparation, and validation and verification.
| Component | Preparation requirements |
|---|---|
| Mitigation Action Design | Define the technology, activities, location, and emission reduction objectives. |
| Baseline | Establish the reference conditions used to calculate emission reductions. |
| Monitoring Plan | Determine which data must be collected and how it will be obtained. |
| Data Management | Ensure that data has identifiable sources, supporting evidence, and traceability. |
| Calculation | Establish the calculation methodology and formulas. |
| Documentation | Maintain systematic records of supporting evidence throughout the monitoring period. |
| DRAM | Document the mitigation action design. |
| LCAM | Document actual implementation results and emission reductions. |
| Validation and Verification | Prepare for independent assessment in accordance with the applicable scheme. |
Structured preparation helps companies maintain consistency between planning and implementation. In addition, an effective data system simplifies reporting and the provision of evidence during independent assessments.
How Do DRAM and LCAM Support Carbon Management?
DRAM and LCAM demonstrate that carbon management goes beyond stating that a company has implemented mitigation actions. Companies must also demonstrate what was done, how the results were measured, how much emissions were reduced, and how those results were verified.
This approach helps make emissions management more measurable, transparent, traceable, and accountable.
By connecting project design, monitoring, calculations, and reporting, companies can establish a stronger basis for assessing the emission reduction performance of their projects.
Conclusion
DRAM and LCAM serve different but interconnected functions in the GHG emission reduction process. DRAM explains what will be done, while LCAM reports what has been implemented and the emission reductions achieved.
Under the SPEI scheme, these documents are connected through the sequence Design → Validate → Implement → Monitor → Report → Verify. This sequence forms part of the process for obtaining recognition of emission reduction performance through SPE-GRK, in accordance with the applicable scheme requirements.
Ultimately, the success of a mitigation action depends on more than the technology used. The action must be properly designed, data must be monitored, emission reductions must be calculated, results must be reported, and claims must be verifiable.
From Mitigation Action to Verified Emission Reduction.
Prepare Your Emission Mitigation Actions with CBQA Global
Ensuring that mitigation action design, monitoring, and emission reduction reporting follow the applicable scheme is an important step toward credible GHG management.
CBQA Global provides GHG Project Validation & Verification services to support organizations in assessing mitigation actions and reporting emission reductions in accordance with relevant standards and schemes.
Contact the CBQA Global team to discuss your project’s GHG emission reduction validation and verification needs.
Email: info@cbqaglobal.com
Marketing Email: marketing.cbqaglobal@gmail.com
WhatsApp: 08118468777
Phone: +62 21 2781 4200
CBQA Global. We Inspire in Trust.
