Cambridge has again shifted its policy over fossil fuel donations and will now accept large sums from the industry in “exceptional circumstances,” in a move described as “absurd” by a senior figure.

The University has said it will not take cash from companies which aren’t aligned with Net Zero 2050 targets, but has set out a number of “exceptional circumstances” under which it would take donations from fossil fuel bodies.

These state that Cambridge will consider donations from fossil fuel companies if they are multi-million pounds in value, and cannot be obtained elsewhere.

Donations must also align with the University’s “overall academic and institutional aims,” it has said.

Earlier this year, Cambridge was accused of “sidelining ethics” after it took a £20 million donation from Majid Jafar, owner of the Middle East’s largest oil company.

Cambridge had previously placed a ban on accepting any money from the fossil fuel industry, marking the first time a UK university had taken such a step, according to student group Cambridge Climate Justice (CCJ). But, the University will now accept some fossil fuel donations in “exceptional circumstances”.

UK-based oil and gas companies BP and Shell have jointly donated more than £19.7 million to the University since 2019, according to the Financial Times.

The temporary ban came following a report by UN climate champion Nigel Topping, which found that Cambridge’s associations with the fossil fuel industry posed “high reputational risk”.

Jason Scott-Warren, a member of University Council, the body which made the decision on Monday, told Varsity: “This absurd decision reflects the fundamentally unethical nature of the University, which doesn’t begin to get the climate emergency and which remains densely intertwined with the fossil fuel industry.”

Multiple council members voted against the new policy, Varsity understands.

This new policy will replace existing advice for CBELA, the University’s body for considering donations, by which fossil fuel companies were ranked red, amber, or green according to their alignment with the Paris Agreement, Varsity understands.

Scott-Warren told Varsity that the Topping Report “praised” this old system. “But,” he said, “Topping also told CBELA that it should have put the likes of BP and Shell in the red zone, as wholly unsuitable research funders, rather than in the ambiguous amber category, which allowed the dirty money to flow.”

“Faced with [Topping’s] unpalatable advice,” Scott-Warren continued, “the Council decided to ditch the RAG scale altogether, and to come up with these new proposals, which make the size of a donation the decisive factor.”

Scott-Warren believes that this new policy renders Cambridge more open to fossil fuel cash than before the temporary ban, saying: “The new policy leaves the door open for multi-million pound donations and collaborations from fossil fuel majors.”

Announcing the new policy, Cambridge admitted that it “is aware” that some students and staff want a “blanket ban” on fossil fuel cash. But, the University said that this could “cause tension in relation to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and “give rise to questions” regarding charity law.

The University also said that it would “not restrict” non-funded collaborations between its scientists and fossil fuel companies.

Sam Hutton, chair of the SU’s Ethical Affairs campaign, told Varsity: “It’s encouraging to have clear transparent guidelines rather than the previously obtuse and subjective “red, amber, green” system.”

“CBELA now needs to ensure that the decisions they make under this new system truly are in line with a just transition to a fossil fuel free economy.”

“Fossil fuel companies do not invest in climate-related initiatives for no reason. These companies intend to use Cambridge and the research it provides to give them moral license to continue to pollute, and CBELA needs to stop them,” Hutton added.

Earlier this year, vice-chancellor Prentice backed a proposal to introduce a sixth pro-vice-chancellor role to lead Cambridge’s sustainability strategy. When these plans were voted down by academics, a source close to the matter told Varsity: “This was plan A, and I don’t think there’s a plan B.”

A spokesperson for the University of Cambridge told Varsity: “The University will not accept research or philanthropic funding from a fossil fuel company whose business model is not aligned with the target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No fossil fuel company is currently understood to have a business model that aligns with Net Zero 2050 targets.”