PATHWAYS TO NET-ZERO

SBTi Technical Summary

Version 1.0
October 2021

Pathways to Net-Zero: SBTi Technical Summary Version 1.0 | October 2021

sciencebasedtargets.org @ScienceTargets /science-based-targets info@sciencebasedtargets.org
About this technical summary
In July 2021, the SBTi announced plans to increase the minimum ambition of all new science-
based targets (SBTs) from well-below 2°C to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Since the SBTi
was founded in 2015, near-term SBTs have been central to driving business climate action. As
of October 2021, more than 2,000 companies have committed to setting near term targets in-
line with SBTi guidance and criteria, with over 1,000 targets validated and two thirds of all
approved targets being 1.5°C aligned. The SBTi’s Net-Zero Standard, which has been informed
by extensive public consultations, lays the groundwork for long-term SBTs that go further to
steer the economy to net-zero by 2050.

This technical summary documents the SBTi’s approach to determining 1.5ºC-aligned

pathways for target-setting based on concepts from the SBTi’s Foundations of Science-based
Target Setting report, meetings with the SBTi’s Scientific Advisory Group between 2020 and
2021, and feedback from the Net-Zero Standard stakeholder consultations.

About the SBTi

The Science Based Targets initiative mobilizes companies to set science-based targets and
boost their competitive advantage in the transition to the low-carbon economy. It is a
collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute
(WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and one of the We Mean Business Coalition
commitments. The initiative defines and promotes best practice in science-based target setting,
offers resources and guidance to reduce barriers to adoption, and independently assesses and
approves companies’ targets.

Primary authors: Andres Chang (CDP), Christa Anderson (WWF), Nate Aden (WRI)

Method contributions and editorial review from: Alberto Carrillo Pineda (CDP), Araceli
Fernandez Pales (International Energy Agency), Bas van Ruijven (International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis), Christoph Bertram (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research), Fernando Rangel Villasana (WWF), Joana Portugal Pereira (Imperial College
London and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Karl Downey (CDP), Mark Roelfsema
(Utrecht University), Martha Stevenson (WWF), Mikiko Kainuma (Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies), Mphethe Tongwane (Zutari), Myles Allen (Oxford University), Pedro
Faria (CDP), Ritu Mathur (The Energy and Resources Institute), Seth Monteith (ClimateWorks),
Stephanie Roe (University of Virginia), Takeshi Kuramochi (New Climate Institute), Tereza
Bicalho (WWF)

1
Abstract
Pathways used by the SBTi are determined based on a combination of science and principled
judgements that aim to steer voluntary climate action and contribute to achieving the aims of
the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reaching net-zero
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at the global level by 2050 and net-zero greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in 2050 or later. Except for the forestry, land, and agriculture (FLAG) sectors
and in specific cases of bioenergy use, these pathways are used to calculate emissions
reduction targets that do not include CO2 removal. In the SBTi’s cross-sector pathway, which
covers CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from energy supply, transport,
industry, and buildings, emissions are reduced 42% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 from 2020
levels. Because pathways for each of these sectors are developed under projects with different
advisory groups and timelines, sector-specific CO2 budget ranges are established to ensure
that an aggregate CO2 budget is not exceeded. In the land sector, deforestation from
internationally traded commodities—roughly a quarter of overall deforestation—is eliminated
before 2030, total emissions from deforestation are eliminated by 2050, and agricultural CH4
and N2O emissions are reduced through a combination of strategies. Under these conditions,
sector-specific pathways for the FLAG sectors are being developed through the SBTi’s FLAG
sector project. Overall, these pathways stay within the remaining carbon budget for at least a
50% likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5ºC, under the assumption of about 20-40 GT of
cumulative CO2 removal by 2050. In pathways currently offered by the SBTi, fluorinated gases
and CH4 emissions from landfill are not explicitly modelled due to lack of data but are still
required to be covered by company SBTs where relevant.

2
 1. Introduction
Mitigation pathways play a key role in setting science-based targets (SBTs) (Figure 1). For
near-term SBTs covering a 5-10 year timeframe, mitigation pathways inform the rate of
emissions reductions or emissions intensity reductions that are needed. For long-term SBTs
with a target year as late as 2050, they inform the overall emissions reduction or convergence
intensity that must be reached to be consistent with net-zero at the global or sector level. SBTs
are emissions targets that do not include carbon dioxide (CO2) removal, except for SBTs
calculated with dedicated guidance for companies in the forestry, land, and agriculture (FLAG)
sectors and in specific cases of bioenergy use.1

Pathways used by the SBTi are determined based on a combination of science and principled
judgements that aim to steer voluntary climate action and contribute to achieving the aims of
the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reaching net-zero CO2
emissions at the global level by 2050 and net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2050
or later. In accordance with concepts described in the SBTi’s Foundations of Science-based
Target Setting (2019) and principles introduced in Foundations for Science-based Net-Zero
Target Setting in the Corporate Sector (2020), this document provides a detailed, up-to-date
overview of how the SBTi determines 1.5ºC-aligned pathways for calculating SBTs.

This document focuses on global pathways due to the assumption that many companies set
targets covering geographically diverse emissions sources and the justification that the SBTi’s
Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach, a method used to calculate intensity targets, implicitly
accounts for some differences between countries in its target calculation formula (Krabbe et
al., 2015). In certain cases, however, these assumptions may be insufficient, and the SBTi is
exploring regional or country-level differentiation outside the scope of this document. Methods
used to calculate company targets from mitigation pathways are also outside the scope of this
document.

1 The SBTi requires companies to include CO2 emissions from the combustion, processing, and
distribution phase of bioenergy and the land-use emissions and removals associated with bioenergy
feedstocks in the boundary of targets. In cases where biogenic removals exceed the magnitude of these
reported emissions, the excess removals are not counted as progress toward achieving the target.

3
Figure 1. Simplified illustration of how mitigation pathways are used to calculate near-term and long-term SBTs. In
this diagram, emissions are based on the mixed sector pathway and CO2 removal (not covered by most SBTs) is
shown for comparison

2. How does the SBTi determine 1.5ºC-aligned pathways?

The SBTi reviews estimates of the remaining emissions budget, top-down mitigation scenarios,
and sectoral studies to determine 1.5ºC-aligned pathways at the global and sectoral level.
According to the IPCC, the remaining budget to limit global warming to 1.5ºC with a 50%
probability is about 500 GT of CO2 (IPCC, 2021). In top-down scenarios, annual CO2 emissions
are halved by around 2030 and reach net-zero by mid-century. Non-CO2 GHGs such as nitrous
oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4), which is a powerful but short-lived climate forcer, are also
deeply reduced (IPCC, 2018). By comparison to top-down scenarios, most sectoral studies
incorporate a wider range of mitigation options in greater detail but are more limited in temporal
scope and range of emissions sources covered. In the climate action arena, where mitigation
scenarios are increasingly used as a tool to steer voluntary climate action, it is important for
sector pathways not to exceed the global emissions budget in aggregate when used for target-
setting. An understanding of the synergies and trade-offs between different climate change
mitigation pathways and sustainable development is also used to guide climate action.

In aggregate, 1.5ºC-aligned pathways used by the SBTi stay within the 500 GT carbon budget
and reach net-zero CO2 at the global level by 2050, under the assumption of at least 1-4 GT
CO2 removal per year by 2050. Within this framework, the SBTi developed a cross-sector
emissions corridor that covers CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from energy supply, buildings,
industry, and transport based on published studies and expert judgement (see “4. How was
the cross-sector pathway developed?”). Based on the emissions corridor, the SBTi’s cross-
sector pathway reduces emissions at least 42% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 from 2020 levels

4
before considering the impact of CO2 removals. Outside the boundary of the cross-sector
emissions corridor, deforestation from internationally traded commodities—roughly a quarter of
overall deforestation—is eliminated before 2030, total emissions from deforestation are
eliminated by 2050, and agricultural CH4 and N2O emissions are reduced through a
combination of strategies. These profound emissions reductions across all sectors are
complemented by swift action to scale-up CO2 removal under conditions that resolve social and
environmental concerns, while aiming to maximize storage durability (see “5. What are total
cumulative emissions and how much CO2 removal is needed?”).

The IEA (2021), Net-Zero Roadmap, and Roe et al. (2019), ‘Contribution of the land sector to
a 1.5ºC world,’ studies have undergone rigorous peer review, incorporate detailed sectoral
considerations, and utilize recent historical data. These studies are also consistent with
delivering social and environmental benefits guided by the SDGs. Having informed the
development of the SBTi cross-sector emissions corridor, these studies also define the upper
bound of sectoral carbon budgets that must not be exceeded by target-setting pathways (see
“6. How is the carbon budget allocated to sectors?”). Sector-specific pathways meeting
this condition are typically developed under the SBTi’s sector development process, which
fosters stakeholder participation through convening an expert advisory group and inviting
feedback through public consultations. Through the SBTi’s sector development process, a wide
range of studies are drawn from, and available pathways are improved upon with gap-filling,
down-scaling, and other adjustments. The SBTi Research and Development Team may also
incorporate new pathways without completing a full sector development process. Pathways are
available or in development for a range of sectors (see “3. Overview of pathways and which
companies should use them”), including those with significant emissions from forestry, land-
use and agriculture (FLAG).

3. Overview of pathways and which companies should use

them
The SBTi offers a cross-sector pathway and sector-specific pathways for SBT-setting. For most
companies, the recommendation is to set absolute targets using the cross-sector pathway.

Using the cross-sector pathway, many companies set near-term SBTs that reduce emissions
at a linear annual rate of 4.2% (e.g., 50% reduction from 2018 levels by 2030); however, some
sector-specific pathways vary significantly from the cross-sector pathway in the near-term.
More information on the 2020-2030 ambition of the cross-sector pathway, which covers a
subset of global CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, is included in the section “4. How was the
cross-sector pathway developed?” and “S3. How do mitigation pathways compare to
halving emissions by 2030?”

In the long-term (e.g., 2050), emissions in the cross-sector pathway are reduced at least 90%
and most sectors reduce CO2 emissions 90% or more from 2020 levels. Consequently, for

5
many companies, long-term SBTs will be equivalent to at least a 90% absolute reduction across
scopes regardless of whether the cross-sector pathway or sector-specific pathways are used.

Sector-specific pathways are available or in development for energy supply sectors, transport
sectors, industry sectors including cement and steel, the buildings sector, and sectors with
significant FLAG emissions. Companies in sectors where emissions are reduced significantly
faster than the global average, like power generation, are required to use the appropriate
sector-specific pathway to set near-term SBTs. Additionally, companies in the FLAG sectors
will be required to set SBTs using FLAG sector-specific pathways after the completion of sector
guidance. Companies in all other sectors may use either the cross-sector pathway or sector-
specific pathways to cover relevant emissions. The cross-sector pathway and pathways for
energy supply, transport, industry, and buildings are used to calculate emissions reduction
targets that do not include CO2 removal. Pathways for the FLAG sectors may cover both
emissions and removals.

4. How was the cross-sector pathway developed?

Companies in the power generation sector and FLAG sectors are required to set SBTs using
sector-specific pathways (effective for FLAG sectors after the finalization of SBTi and GHG
Protocol guidance). For all other companies, the cross-sector pathway (Figure 2a) is a one-
size-fits-all pathway for SBTs. The cross-sector pathway covers all Kyoto Protocol GHG
emissions except FLAG emissions, which are covered by separate FLAG sector pathways, and
emissions from landfill waste and fluorinated gases, which are excluded from our calculation
due to lack of data. Consequently, the cross-sector pathway reflects the main GHG emissions
(CO2, CH4, and N2O) from energy supply, transport, industry, and buildings. Where relevant,
companies with emissions from landfill waste and fluorinated gases must still cover these
emissions with SBTs calculated using the cross-sector pathway or a sector-specific pathway.

To develop the cross-sector pathway, we build on the approach described in SBTi (2019),
Foundations of Science-based Target Setting, where top-down mitigation scenarios are filtered
by probabilistic temperature outcome, emissions budget between the most recent year and net-
zero, year of peak emissions, and qualitative criteria to construct a 1.5ºC-aligned “scenario
envelope.” The updated approach incorporates newer estimates of the remaining emissions
budget and uses a more comprehensive scientific assessment, instead of filtering only top-
down scenarios, to define the cross-sector GHG emissions corridor and pathway. Additionally,
the boundary of the corridor has been updated to cover the main GHG emissions from energy
supply, transport, industry, and buildings, as described above, instead of all GHG emissions.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the updated approach is also guided by consideration of
the synergies and trade-offs between different mitigation pathways and SDGs, in-line with
Guiding Principle 2 (‘Transitioning to net-zero in line with global climate and sustainability
goals’) in SBTi (2020), Foundations for Science-based Net-Zero Target Setting in the Corporate
Sector.

6
First, we disaggregated the remaining CO2 budget into emissions corridors for energy and
industrial process CO2 emissions (herein referred to as the “cross-sector CO2 emissions
corridor,” Figure 2b), deforestation and land-use change CO2 emissions, and CO2 removal
based on a comparative assessment of top-down mitigation scenarios and sectoral studies,
and principled judgements. Among other studies (see “S1. Comparative analysis details”),
our assessment has included the following studies that include full coverage of energy and
industrial processes CO2 emissions:

• The interquartile range of 1.5ºC low/no overshoot scenarios from IPCC (2018), Special
Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15);
• P1 and P3, which were selected by the authors of SR15 as illustrative archetype
scenarios used in the report;
• One Earth Climate Model (OECM), which is a model by the Institute for Sustainable
Futures at University of Technology Sydney (UTS) with scenarios that reach net-zero
by 2050 without overshooting 1.5ºC and with minimal reliance on CO2 removal (Teske
et al. 2020);
• NZE, which is the main scenario from the IEA (2021), Net-Zero Roadmap, and;
• Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS), which is a scenario from the IEA (2017), Energy
Technology Perspectives 2017, that has been used by the SBTi to define well-below
2C SBTs since 2019.

In 2030, the cross-sector CO2 emissions corridor is similar to the interquartile range of 1.5ºC
low/no overshoot scenarios with an upper range similar to IEA B2DS, NZE, and P3; and a lower
range similar to P1. In 2050, the corridor is similar to NZE, OECM, and P1, but considerably
lower than the interquartile range of 1.5ºC low/no overshoot scenarios due to conservatively
low assumptions of CO2 removal availability (see “5. What are total cumulative emissions
and how much CO2 removal is needed?”) Studies have shown that many top-down
scenarios use CO2 removal at rates that are considered infeasible, which suggests that larger
emissions reductions are needed to reach net-zero by 2050 than suggested by those scenarios
(Vaughan & Gough, 2016; Warszawski et al., 2021). Additionally, the IPCC states that
“pathways that feature low energy demand,” like P1, “show the most pronounced synergies
and the lowest number of trade-offs with respect to sustainable development and SDGs (very
high confidence)” (Roy et al., 2018).

Next, to complete the cross-sector emissions corridor, energy-related N2O emissions from the
mean of 1.5ºC low/no overshoot scenarios and CH4 emissions from NZE were added using
100-year global warming potentials from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014). Energy-
related N2O emissions are covered by top-down scenarios but are not covered by any of the
sectoral studies between 2020 and 2050 in our review. Because these emissions are mainly
caused by fossil fuel combustion and can be reduced in much the same way as energy-related
CO2 emissions, we judge energy-related N2O emissions from the mean of 1.5ºC low/no
overshoot scenarios to be consistent with the cross-sector emissions corridor in 2030 and a
likely overestimate in 2050. (The magnitude of energy-related N2O emissions in 2050—less
than 0.25 Gt CO2e—is small enough to ignore this likely overestimate.) By comparison to N2O,
a much larger share of CH4 emissions occurs upstream of fossil fuel combustion. Thus, when

7
combined with efforts to reduce fossil fuel use, interventions that specifically target upstream
fossil fuel extraction and transportation can reduce energy-related CH4 faster than energy-
related CO2 or N2O in top-down scenarios. We judge NZE, which shows a 75% reduction in
methane from fossil fuels between 2020-2030, to be consistent with the level of mitigation
needed to limit warming to 1.5°C in the cross-sector emissions corridor.

a. Cross-sector GHG emissions corridor and pathway b. CO2 only

Figure 2. SBTi emissions corridors (light blue) for a. cross-sector GHG emissions and b. CO2 only with comparison
to the median (dark grey line) and interquartile range of 1.5ºC low/no overshoot scenarios (grey bars) and individual
scenarios (black icons). GHG emissions from forestry, land-use, and agriculture; landfill waste; and fluorinated gases
are excluded from both corridors. The SBTi’s cross-sector emissions pathway (dark blue line), used to define the
minimum ambition of many SBTs, is based on the upper bound of the cross-sector GHG emissions corridor

5. What are total cumulative emissions and how much CO2

removal is needed?
Between 2020 and 2050, the energy and industrial processes CO2 emissions corridor results
in cumulative CO2 emissions of 450-480 GT CO2. This spread results mainly from different
mitigation choices across pathways within the corridor. Deforestation from internationally
traded commodities—roughly a quarter of overall deforestation—is eliminated by 2030 and total
emissions from deforestation are eliminated by 2050, resulting in cumulative CO2 emissions of

8
around 55 +/- 15 GT CO2. This uncertainty results from the uncertainty in baseline annual
deforestation-related emissions, which we calculate to be 5.7 GT CO2 (+/- 2.2 GT CO2) based
on land-use change (LUC) CO2 emissions in 2019 multiplied by the estimated proportion of
LUC emissions from deforestation (Friedlingstein et al., 2020; Houghton & Nassikas, 2017).
Under the assumption of about 20-40 GT of cumulative CO2 removal by 2050—challenging but
within the range of Roe et al. (2019) and NZE before 2050—the 1.5ºC budget is conserved
without overshoot.

SBTi emissions corridors presume that transformative political steps will be taken to rapidly
reduce global emissions. We believe that COP26 is an unmissable opportunity for governments
to step up action by committing to achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions as soon as
possible, strengthening their NDCs and 2030 targets, and laying out policies to achieve these
targets. However, if more forceful policies fail to materialize, the 1.5ºC target could quickly fall
out of reach without increasingly speculative and potentially harmful amounts of CO2 removal
(Dooley & Kartha, 2018; Lade et al., 2020; Strefler et al., 2018). As a risk avoidance measure,
many experts suggest that steps should be taken to advance rapid emissions reductions (e.g.,
near and long-term SBTs) and prepare for scenarios where much larger, speculative amounts
of CO2 removal are needed (Fuss et al., 2018; Lin, 2019).

6. How is the carbon budget allocated to sectors?

NZE and Roe et al. (2019) are used to derive carbon budget allocation across sectors for the
maximum remaining budget of 500 GT CO2. In other words, these studies define the upper
bound of sectoral carbon budgets that must not be exceeded by target-setting pathways. Under
the FLAG sector project, sector-specific pathways meeting this condition are being developed
based on a combination of Roe et al. (2019) and updated commodity-specific pathways from
Smith et al. (2016), ‘Science based GHG Emissions targets for agriculture and forestry
commodities.’ These pathways will cover CH4 and N2O emissions, as well as CO2 emissions
from deforestation, land-use, and land-use change. For the energy supply, transport, industry,
and buildings sectors, sector-specific pathways are being developed under projects with
different advisory groups and timelines. For these sectors, we have estimated a lower bound
on sectoral carbon budgets based on a review of relevant studies, in addition to defining an
upper bound from NZE. Budget ranges for these sectors (third column of Table 1) are intended
to establish a clear set of guardrails for new sector-based research, roadmaps, and
collaborations across the climate action landscape. Using these budget ranges, we also show
each sector’s share of the 2020-2050 energy and industrial processes CO2 budget relative to
its share in 2019 (fourth column of Table 1). This normalised metric makes it easier to assess
the relative size of each sector’s remaining CO2 budget and to compare sectoral carbon budget
allocation across different scenarios (Figure 3). Outside the scope of this document, sector-
by-sector comparisons that focus on emissions intensity and sector-specific mitigation levers
are also being conducted to inform the usage and development of sector-specific pathways.

9
 Sector 2019 CO2 2020-2050 CO2 budget Share of 2020-2050 energy
emissions (GT used by the SBTi to and industrial processes
CO2) assess 1.5°C CO2 budget relative to
pathways (GT CO2) sector’s share in 2019 (%)
Energy supply 15.3 115-146 59-75
Electricity and heat 13.8 102-133 58-76
Transport 8.3 100-129 95-123
Road transport 6.1 73-91 92-117
Maritime transport 0.9 12-16 101-143
Aviation 1.0 15-19 110-147
Industry 8.9 134-153 116-135
Iron and steel 2.5 20-40 62-126
Cement 2.5 35-41 109-131
Chemicals 1.3 13-26 73-153
Buildings 3.0 30-41 75-107
Residential buildings 2.0 20-30 74-117
Service buildings 1.0 10-11 76-89
Cross-sector total (CO2 35.5 450-480 -
only)
Table 1. 2020-2050 CO2 emissions budgets used by the SBTi for the energy supply, transportation, industry, and
buildings sectors. Budgets cover direct emissions only (i.e., scope 1) but when setting SBTs, companies must set
targets that also cover indirect emissions (i.e., scopes 2 and 3). Due to expected mitigation trade-offs across sectors,
the lower bound of “Total” CO2 emissions is higher than aggregating the lower bound of all sectors. 2019 CO2
emissions data are sourced from IEA (2021). Sector-specific pathways in-line with the budget ranges in this table
do not automatically qualify for use by the SBTi.

All sectors require tremendous near-term and long-term mitigation efforts to comply with SBTi
budgets; yet each sector faces unique mitigation challenges, demands, and opportunities that
affect the size of its remaining budget. SBTi budget variance can be large for sectors like
aviation, iron & steel, and chemicals where both projected sectoral growth under a business-
as-usual scenario and mitigation potential from reduced demand are high. In the buildings
sector, different energy demand pathways can also lead to budget variance. Many scenarios
that purposefully incorporate demand-side mitigation require “massive policy support and
investment” (IEA 2021), but the amount of demand-side mitigation still varies substantially
across scenarios, reflecting different modeling philosophies and societal views. One such view
would be that unessential energy-intensive business models and services, however defined,
should be immediately regulated and phased-out; while a contrasting view would be that doing
so is politically infeasible or undesirable. The upper bound of SBTi sector budget ranges, NZE,
seems to fall somewhere in the middle.

10
In addition to reflecting demand-side factors, SBTi budget variance can also reflect energy
supply-side differences like primary energy mix, fuel cost assumptions, nuclear availability, and
constraints on bioenergy.

Figure 3. a. Share of 2020-2050 energy and industrial processes CO2 budget by sector relative to share of energy
and industrial processes in 2019 for SBTi 1.5°C pathways (blue bars) with comparison to the median (dark grey line)
and interquartile range of 1.5ºC low/no overshoot scenarios (grey bars) and individual scenarios (black icons). b.
Size of 2020-2050 energy and industrial processes CO2 budget by scenario. For 1.5°C low/no OS scenarios, median
is shown by the grey bar and interquartile range is shown by the error bar. For SBTi, the upper budget range is
shown by the blue bar and the full budget range shown by the error bar. Sector budgets cover direct CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes

11
Appendix 1. Comparative analysis details
Comparative analysis design

The SBTi conducted an in-depth comparative analysis to inform its 1.5°C-aligned pathway
approach. Our comparative analysis differentiates between top-down mitigation scenarios,
which are derived from integrated assessment models (IAMs), and hybrid scenarios, which are
intended to achieve goals in a specific way, calculated with sub-global models, back-casting,
and/or detailed sector roadmaps. (In this technical summary, the terms “hybrid scenario” and
“sectoral study” are used interchangeably.) The results of our analysis are focused on four top-
down scenarios and five hybrid scenarios. Details on each scenario are included in the section
below.

Our comparison focused on annual emissions in 2020, 2030, and 2050, as well as 2020-2050
cumulative emissions, in absolute and normalized terms across different sectors in all nine
scenarios.

Because these nine scenarios are associated with distinct narratives, assumptions, and
modeling approaches, we did not aim to quantify trends or correlations across the scenarios.
Rather, a comparison of data from the scenarios was used holistically and iteratively to inform
the upper and lower bounds of nested emissions corridors and emissions budgets for different
sectors. Complete data from our comparative analysis will be published as an accompaniment
to this Technical Summary.

Pathway descriptions

Top-down scenarios, which are derived from global IAMs

• 1.5ºC low/no overshoot scenarios from IPCC (2018), Special Report on Global Warming
of 1.5ºC (SR15), are top-down scenarios with a 50% probability of limiting end-of-
century warming to 1.5ºC with less than 0.1C overshoot (Rogelj, Shindell, et al., 2018).
For each scenario variable assessed, the interquartile range is calculated using the
same methodology as SR15 to exclude scenario duplicates that would bias ranges
towards a single study except using release 2.0 of the dataset (Huppman et al., 2019).

• P1 and P3 were selected by the authors of SR15 as two of the four illustrative archetype
scenarios used in the report (Rogelj, Shindell, et al., 2018). P3 is a scenario resulting in
peak warming of 1.61C in 2051 that uses “middle-of-the-road” (SSP2) socioeconomic
assumptions (Rogelj, Popp, et al., 2018). P1 is a scenario resulting in peak warming of
1.53C in 2048 that uses the same SSP2 socioeconomic assumptions as P3 except
social, business and technological innovations result in lower energy demand (Grubler
et al., 2018). P1 and P3 are top-down scenarios that were produced using different
variants of the MESSAGE-GLOBIAM IAM, which includes a coupled energy system and
land-use model. P1 and P3 are both included in the Warszawski et al. (2019) filtered
scenario corridor, which aims to differentiate between mitigation scenarios that rely on

12
 “speculative” levels of mitigation from one or more levers from those that face a lesser
challenge to feasibility.

• LifeStyleChange (LiStCh) is a scenario from van Vuuren et al. (2018), “Alternative

pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies,” that
explores the impact of lifestyle change as a prioritized mitigation lever to reduce the
need for CO2 removal to meet the Paris climate target. In addition to standard mitigation
options that are explored by top-down models, LiStCh includes less meat-intensive diet
(conforming to health recommendations), less CO2-intensive transport modes (following
the current modal split in Japan), less intensive use of heating and cooling (change of
1C in heating and cooling reference levels) and a reduction in the use of several
domestic appliances. LiStCh was produced using the IMAGE-3 model. Like P1 and P3,
it is included in the Warszawski et al. (2019) filtered scenario corridor.

• One Earth Climate Model (OECM) is a model by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at
University of Technology Sydney (UTS) with scenarios that reach net-zero by 2050
without overshooting 1.5ºC and with minimal reliance on CO2 removal (Teske et al.,
2020). As such, OECM demonstrates more aggressive gross emissions reductions than
scenarios where more CO2 removal is used—especially BECCS. Updated sector
pathways from OECM commissioned by the Net-Zero Asset Owners Alliance were
published in 2020 following several rounds of review and feedback from groups
including the SBTi. New sector pathways are under development. Both completed and
draft pathways are included in this comparative assessment.

Hybrid scenarios, which are intended to achieve a goal in a specific way that are calculated
with sub-global models, backcasting and/or detailed sector roadmaps

• NZE is the main scenario from the IEA (2021), Net-Zero Roadmap. It charts a pathway
for the world to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes
by 2050 – consistent with around a 50% chance of limiting long-term warming to 1.5ºC
with no overshoot. It also aims to ensure that energy-related and industrial process CO2
emissions to 2030 and aligned with 1.5ºC scenarios with no or low overshoot.
Cumulative net CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes in this scenario
are limited to about 460 GT CO2 between 2020 and 2050. Methane emissions from
fossil fuel extraction and transport are also deeply reduced. NZE aims to deliver
sustainable development including universal energy access by 2030, major reductions
in air pollution and pollution-related deaths, and job creation.

Mitigation scenarios produced by the IEA incorporate top-down modelling and

information from bottom-up sectoral studies. While they are more limited in scope than
top-down IPCC scenarios, they include a much greater degree of technological and
geographic resolution.

13
• The “Beyond 2°C Scenario” (B2DS) is a scenario from the IEA (2017), Energy
Technology Perspectives 2017. It was described by the IEA as a scenario where
“technology improvements and deployment are pushed to their maximum practicable
limits across the energy system in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060 and to
stay net zero or below thereafter.” Cumulative net CO2 emissions from energy and
industrial processes in this scenario are limited to about 750 GT CO2 between 2015 and
2100 (and about 530 GT CO2 between 2020 and 2050).

Sector pathways from B2DS have been used by the SBTi to define well-below 2C SBTs
since 2018. By comparison to B2DS, sector pathways in NZE reflect (1) the influence
of a smaller CO2 budget on mitigation, and (2) the opposing influence of delayed action,
which may affect how mitigation is balanced across sectors and time.

• Exponential Roadmap is a scenario that explores how the “carbon law,” which aims to
reduce CO2 emissions by half each decade (Rockström et al., 2017), can be
implemented across all sectors of the global economy to limit climate change to 1.5°C
above pre-industrial levels with a specific focus on the decade leading up to 2030 (Falk
et al., 2019). The Exponential Roadmap highlights 36 solutions and includes clear
action steps for businesses, cities, and policymakers.

• Roe et al. (2019) is a review study that aggregated top down IAM models (from the IAM
and SSP databases) with bottom up studies such as Griscom et al. (2017) to assess
mitigation in the land sector for a 1.5 C future. The study includes a “roadmap” for the
land sector divided into seven main mitigation wedges. The roadmap seeks to align with
other international commitments and policies, in addition to the Paris Agreement,
including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2, 6, 12, 14 and 15, the New York
Declaration on Forests (NYDF) goals 1 and 5, and the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity (UNCBD) Aichi Targets 5 and 15.

• The Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) is a global coalition of leaders from across
the energy landscape committed to achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century, in line
with limiting global warming to well below 2°C and ideally to 1.5°C (Energy Transitions
Commission, 2021b). ETC produces transition roadmaps, as well as recommendations
and tools to inform the implementation of those roadmaps, using detailed bottom-up
analyses. For analyses in this report, we use updated data from “Scenario B,” which
reflects mitigation from energy efficiency, supply-side decarbonisation, and material,
obtained directly from ETC (personal communication, October 26, 2021) based on ETC
(Energy Transitions Commission, 2021a), Reaching climate objectives: The role of
carbon dioxide removals (ETC Consultation Paper).

14
Appendix 2. Planned updates after the publication of the IPCC 6th
Assessment Report: Mitigation of Climate Change
After the release of the IPCC 6th Assessment Report: Mitigation of Climate Change in March
2022, we will assess whether updates are needed to the cross-sector pathway or sector
emissions budgets used by the SBTi to assess 1.5°C-alignment. These assessments will
include an evaluation of non-CO2 GHGs and mitigation assumptions for the FLAG sector.
Changes to the cross-sector pathway, if needed, will be introduced in early 2023. If changes
are needed to 1.5°C-aligned sector emissions budgets used by the SBTi, new budgets will
become effective for sector projects in 2023. In that case, 1.5°C-aligned sector pathways
developed before the end of 2022 will continue to be used by the SBTi unless replacement or
retirement is deemed necessary by the SBTi. Sector-specific projects may also use AR6 to
conduct analyses on non-CO2 GHG mitigation under the scope of each project.

Appendix 3. How do pathways used by the SBTi compare to

halving emissions by 2030?
Section C1 from the IPCC SR15 Summary for Policymakers is frequently cited to highlight the
importance of near-term emissions reductions. It states “In model pathways with no or limited
overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010
levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055
interquartile range)” (IPCC, 2018).

In aggregate, SBTi pathways reduce CO2 emissions at least 40% from 2010 levels and 45%
from 2019 levels by 2030. By comparison to C1, the 5% difference is mainly caused by how
top-down models calculate AFOLU CO2 emissions, which is inconsistent with GHG emissions
inventory accounting methods used by companies. To a lesser extent, it also reflects
differences in the mix of mitigation options included in boundary of SBTi pathways; for example,
bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is not included in the boundary of SBTi
pathways and SBTi pathways often include a greater role for demand-side mitigation options
than top-down pathways.

In SBTi pathways, different sectors reduce absolute emissions by different amounts, which are
compared to model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C below:

• Gross CO2 emissions from energy, transport, industry, and buildings, as covered by the
cross-sector pathway and sector-specific pathways used by the SBTi, are reduced by
an amount consistent with model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C. In
pathways used by the SBTi, these emissions are reduced at least 40% from 2019 levels
by 2030. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, these emissions are
reduced an average of 40% (33%-50% interquartile range) from 2019 levels by 2030;

15
 • FLAG sector pathways used by the SBTi are consistent with Roe et al., (2019), which
is roughly equivalent to the level of mitigation in model pathways with no or limited
overshoot of 1.5°C in 2030. Using the FLAG sector pathway, deforestation in company
value chains is eliminated before 2030. Land-sector mitigation covering a large share
of avoided deforestation and nature restoration is also needed outside of company
value chains.

In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, net AFOLU CO2 emissions
are reduced an average of 100% (90-120% interquartile range) from 2019 levels by
2030. Top-down models calculate AFOLU CO2 emissions differently from GHG
inventory accounting methods, which allocate deforestation emissions over 20 years
following a deforestation event, making a 1:1 comparison of the emissions reduction in
SBTi pathways and top-down pathways inaccurate (IPCC, 2003; World Resources
Institute and WBCSD, 2014);

• Model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C also include an average of 0.4
GT CO2/year of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (0-1 interquartile
range) in 2030. No pathways currently used by the SBTi include CO2 removal with
geologic storage in the pathway boundary.

Halving gross CO2 emissions every decade is also supported by the “carbon law,” which
describes a scenario-informed roadmap to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement
(Rockström et al., 2017). As a planning instrument intended to drive institutional alignment and
mitigation breakthroughs, the carbon law is a heuristic tool that can be used to steer mitigation
for any sector.

Using the mixed pathway, companies reduce GHG emissions (including non-CO2 GHGs) at a
linear annual rate of 4.2% between the base year and target year. Differences in the choice of
company base year, target year, and level of emissions reduction already achieved affect each
company target uniquely; but in many cases, targets are consistent with halving emissions over
the course of a decade, and in all cases, targets calculated using the mixed sector pathway
reduce emissions at a rate that is close to the carbon law.

With the exception of cement, all 1.5°C-aligned sector pathway that are currently available
(power) or planned for immediate release (buildings) reduce scope 1+2 emissions more than
50% by 2030. Other 1.5°C-aligned sector pathways will be reviewed on a sector-by-sector
basis.

Appendix 4. Methodological notes on Figure 2

Several adjustments were made to scenario data to improve comparability

All scenarios

16
 • Scenario variables from a single scenario were in some cases added or subtracted to
derive new variables not included in reported data. For example, gross energy and
industrial process CO2 emissions was calculated for NZE based on the sum of net CO2
emissions and CO2 removal reported in scenario data

• For scenarios that incorporate actual emissions data for historic years, 2019 data is
used in place of 2020

• Except where otherwise noted, 2020-2050 cumulative budgets were calculated by

interpolating emissions data over 5-year or 10-year timesteps based on data availbility

OECM

• Where sector emissions in 2019 varied more than 20% from NZE values, cumulative
CO2 emissions for the sector were calculated based on a pathway normalized to 2019
base year data from NZE

Exponential Roadmap

• To calculate budgets, data for 2030 were compiled from Falk et al. (2020) and data for
2040 and 2050 were estimated by applying the “carbon law” – a key principle underlying
the report that specifies for all sectors to halve emissions every 10 years

1.5°C low/no overshoot scenarios, P1, P3, and LiStCh

• Because direct process emissions from industry are not available in publicly available
data for these scenarios, process emissions were added based on the mean of a no-
CCS scenario and a high-CCS scenario. The no-CCS scenario assumes that process
emissions from industry are twice as high as process emissions from cement (2020-
2050) in the OECM pathway based on the proportion of industry direct emissions from
cement calculated in AR5 (Fischedick et al., 2014). The high-CCS scenario is identical
to the no-CCS scenario until 2035 and then reduces process emissions 80% at a linear
rate between 2035 and 2050.

17
References
Dooley, K., & Kartha, S. (2018). Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation
and impacts on sustainable development. International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-
9
Energy Transitions Commission. (2021a). Reaching climate objectives: The role of carbon
dioxide removals (ETC Consultation Paper). https://www.energy-
transitions.org/carbon-dioxide-removals/
Energy Transitions Commission. (2021b). Who we are. Energy Transitions Commission.
https://www.energy-transitions.org/who/
Falk, J., Gafney, O., Bhowmik, A. K., Bergman, P., Galaz, V., Henningsson, M., Hojër, M.,
Jacobson, L., Jónás, K., Klingenfeld, D., Kaberger, T., Loken, B., Lunden, D.,
Malmodin, J., Malmqvist, T., Olausson, V., Pearce, A., Pihl, E., & Shalit, T. (2019).
Exponential Roadmap 1.5. Future Earth. https://exponentialroadmap.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/ExponentialRoadmap_1.5.1_216x279_08_AW_Download_S
ingles_Small.pdf
Fischedick, M., Roy, J., Abdel-Aziz, A., Acquaye, A., Allwood, J., Ceron, J.-P., Geng, Y.,
Khenshgi, H., Lanza, A., Perczyk, D., Price, L., Santalla, E., Sheinbaum, C., &
Tanaka, K. (2014). Industry. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter10.pdf
Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., Peters,
G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le Quéré, C., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P.,
Jackson, R. B., Alin, S., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Arneth, A., Arora, V., Bates, N. R., …
Zaehle, S. (2020). Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth System Science Data, 12(4),
3269–3340. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., de
Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J.,
Smith, P., Vicente, J. L. V., Wilcox, J., del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M., & Minx, J. C.
(2018). Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental
Research Letters, 13(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A.,
Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C.,
Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T.,
Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114
Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Bento, N., Boza-Kiss, B., Krey, V., McCollum, D. L., Rao, N. D., Riahi,
K., Rogelj, J., De Stercke, S., Cullen, J., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Guo, F., Gidden, M.,
Havlík, P., Huppmann, D., Kiesewetter, G., Rafaj, P., … Valin, H. (2018). A low energy

18
 demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals
without negative emission technologies. Nature Energy, 3(6), 515–527.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6
Houghton, R. A., & Nassikas, A. A. (2017). Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use
and land cover change 1850-2015: Carbon Emissions From Land Use. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 31(3), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005546
Huppman, D., Kriegler, E., Krey, V., Riahi, K., Rogelj, J., Calvin, K., Humpenoeder, F., Popp,
A., Rose, S. K., Weyant, J., Bauer, N., Bertram, C., Bosetti, V., Doelman, J., Drouet,
L., Emmerling, J., Frank, S., Fujimori, S., Gernaat, D., … Zhang, R. (2019). IAMC
1.5°C Scenario Explorer and Data hosted by IIASA. Integrated Assessment Modeling
Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
IEA. (2017). Energy Technology Perspectives 2017. International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2021). Net Zero by 2050—A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. International
Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
IPCC. (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry /The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed. By Jim Penman (J. Penman, Ed.).
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC.
IPCC. (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special
report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and
related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the
global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts
to eradicate poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_L
R.pdf
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press.
Krabbe, O., Linthorst, G., Blok, K., Crijns-Graus, W., van Vuuren, D. P., Höhne, N., Faria, P.,
Aden, N., & Pineda, A. C. (2015). Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions
targets with climate goals. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1057–1060.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2770
Lade, S. J., Steffen, W., de Vries, W., Carpenter, S. R., Donges, J. F., Gerten, D., Hoff, H.,
Newbold, T., Richardson, K., & Rockström, J. (2020). Human impacts on planetary
boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nature Sustainability, 3(2), 119–
128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0454-4
Lin, A. (2019). Carbon Dioxide Removal after Paris. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z386M3340F
Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Joachim, H.
(2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331).
Roe, S., Streck, C., Obersteiner, M., Frank, S., Griscom, B., Drouet, L., Fricko, O., Gusti, M.,
Harris, N., Hasegawa, T., Hausfather, Z., Havlík, P., House, J., Nabuurs, G.-J., Popp,

19
 A., Sánchez, M. J. S., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., Stehfest, E., & Lawrence, D. (2019).
Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nature Climate Change, 9(11), 817–
828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9
Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K. V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, J., Gernaat, D., Fujimori, S.,
Strefler, J., Hasegawa, T., Marangoni, G., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., van Vuuren,
D. P., Doelman, J., Drouet, L., Edmonds, J., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., … Tavoni, M.
(2018). Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C.
Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3
Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V., Handa, C., Kobayashi,
S., Kriegler, E., Mundaca, L., Séférian, R., Vilariño, M. V., Calvin, K., Emmerling, J.,
Fuss, S., Gillett, N., He, C., Hertwich, E., Höglund-Isaksson, L., … Schaeffer, R.
(2018). Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable
Development. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Roy, J., Tschakert, P., Waisman, H., Halim, S. A., Antwi-Agyei, P., Dasgupta, P., Pinho, P. F.,
Riahi, K., Suarez, A. G., Aragón-Durand, F., Babiker, M., Bangalore, M., Choudhary,
B. B., Byres, E., Cartwright, A., Engelbrecht, F., Salili, D. H., Huppmann, D., Huq, S.,
… Ellis, N. (2018). Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing
Inequalities. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Science Based Targets initiative. (2019). Foundations of Science-based Target Setting.
Science Based Targets initiative. (2020). Foundations for Net-Zero Target Setting in the
Corporate Sector. Science Based Targets initiative.
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/legacy/2020/09/foundations-for-net-zero-
full-paper.pdf
Smith, P., Nayak, D., Linthorst, G., Peters, D., Bucquet, C., van Vuuren, D., Stehfest, E.,
Harmsen, M., & van den Brink, L. (2016). Science-based GHG emissions targets for
agriculture and forest commodities. University of Aberdeen, Ecofys, and PBL.
Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Kriegler, E., Popp, A., Giannousakis, A., & Edenhofer, O. (2018).
Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between
large-scale CDR and high costs. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044015.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab2ba
Teske, S., Niklas, S., Atherton, A., Kelly, S., & Herring, J. (2020). Sectoral pathways to net
zero emissions. Universty of Technology Sydney for the Net Zero Asset Owners
Alliance.

20
Vaughan, N. E., & Gough, C. (2016). Expert assessment concludes negative emissions
scenarios may not deliver. Environmental Research Letters, 11(9), 095003.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095003
Warszawski, L., Kriegler, E., Lenton, T. M., Gaffney, O., Jacob, D., Klingenfeld, D., Koide, R.,
Costa, M. M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., Schellnhuber, H. J., Schlosser, P.,
Takeuchi, K., Van Der Leeuw, S., Whiteman, G., & Rockström, J. (2021). All options,
not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: A scenario appraisal.
Environmental Research Letters, 16(6), 064037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/abfeec
World Resources Institute and WBCSD. (2014). GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance.
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/GHG%20Protocol%20Agricultural
%20Guidance%20%28April%2026%29_0.pdf

21