On Monday, rector Hester Bijl announced during the University Council meeting that the Board wants to ‘send a strong signal’ towards companies in the fossil sector that do not adhere to the Paris climate targets. However, the Board is leaving the door slightly ajar for these companies.
 
The goal of the Paris agreement is to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius. EU member states have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030.
 
In principle, the university only wishes to cooperate with fossil companies that meet the Paris targets, said Bijl in a discussion with the Council on a Board statement on the fossil issue that will be published soon. ‘And in principle, not with companies that do not meet them.’
 
But there is a ‘but’. ‘In extreme cases, we think it would be wise to assess at the project,’ Bijl explained. ‘If the partner does meet the requirements and the project does not, we will put a stop to it.’ This also works the other way round. If a company does not meet the Paris targets, ‘but the project is crucial for the energy transition, then cooperation is possible’.

EXCEPTIONAL CASES

Bijl stated ‘that such a project is only possible if it cannot be realised in cooperation with another company that does meet the Paris requirements.’ These would be ‘exceptional’ cases.
 
The Board did have to establish policies for cooperation with the fossil industry. The university’s statement was drawn up in response to the debate that took place in Leiden on 27 September on the possible termination of partnerships with the fossil industry. In late November, action group End Fossil occupied two classrooms in Lipsius in an attempt to urge the Board to sever ties with the fossil industry altogether.

The Council asked the rector how the university will assess whether companies meet the Paris targets. Solving that issue is ‘not at all trivial’, Bijl responded. ‘There are a few organisations doing assessments, but not so much on research collaborations.’ At the European level, efforts are also being made to develop a method, universities in the Netherlands are working on it. ‘We have to really delve into it together and develop criteria.’
 
There will be an admissions committee that will apply these criteria, Bijl explained. ‘We still need to work out the details regarding the assessment committee.’ The Council and the Board felt it ‘would not be a good idea to make any premature statements on how that committee will operate’ at this point.

Max van Haastrecht of staff party PhDoc was critical of the exception rule for projects. ‘How will those projects be assessed? Does this mean that in practice, we’ll be assessing at the project level after all? Do the university’s ongoing projects fall under that rule, for example?’
 
In part, Bijl replied. The university would do away with sponsorship of a lecture series by Saudi state oil company Aramco or research on quantum computers in partnership with the French company TotalEnergies. ‘Collaboration is only an option if there is a demonstrable contribution to the energy transition, for example, research on hydrogen that requires fossil industry data could potentially be allowed.’

PROJECT LEVEL

Timothy de Zeeuws of staff party LAG: ‘To what extent is this just a veiled way of assessing at the project level? In the end, we’d still have to assess each and every project: otherwise, how could we identify which projects do comply?’
 
Bijl had a different view. ‘The bottom line is that we make our researchers aware of what we do and do not want, so that they only submit projects that are in line with the university’s values. We choose to assess at the partner level ‘unless’, and we need to thoroughly explain what that ‘unless’ entails. Researchers must thoroughly explain why they think a project can go ahead.’
 
The rector thought it was a bad idea that certain research that would be of value to the transition ‘might soon be impossible’. ‘It will affect our research palette. Not every proposal for exception will be approved. The plan is to impose strict conditions on exceptions in order to prevent greenwashing.’
 
A majority of the Council agrees with the Board’s plans and therefore, a positive advice was issued on the policy.