Clarification of Omission of Relevant Information
Nigel Gray made this Official Information request to National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Nigel Gray to read a recent response and update the status.
From: Nigel Gray
Dear National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited,
Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request clarification regarding NIWA’s recent response to my OIA concerning:
sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions from ships
oxidation of SO₂ into sulphuric acid aerosols (H₂SO₄)
aerosol processes
cloud‑condensation nuclei (CCN)
cloud microphysics and albedo modification
ship‑emission‑driven cloud formation or cloud brightening
In that response, NIWA stated that it holds no information on these topics.
However, NIWA‑associated scientific material clearly depicts these exact processes, including the SO₂ → H₂SO₄ → aerosol → CCN → cloud → albedo pathway. This material directly aligns with the subject matter of my request.
Accordingly, I request the following information:
1. Search Process and Scope
1.1 What search terms, databases, internal repositories, scientific programmes, or staff were consulted when preparing NIWA’s response to my previous OIA?
1.2 Did the search include NIWA’s atmospheric chemistry, aerosol research, cloud microphysics, or climate‑modelling workstreams?
1.3 If not, please provide the reason these areas were excluded.
2. Omission of Relevant Scientific Material
2.1 Why was NIWA‑associated scientific material depicting SO₂ emissions, oxidation chemistry, aerosol processes, CCN formation, cloud formation, and albedo effects not identified or included in the response?
2.2 Was this material considered “out of scope”? If so, please provide the criteria used to determine scope.
2.3 Was any relevant information held by NIWA but excluded due to interpretation, categorisation, or internal policy?
3. Accuracy of the Previous Response
3.1 Does NIWA stand by its statement that it holds no information on the topics listed above?
3.2 If the earlier response was incomplete or incorrect, what steps will NIWA take to correct the record?
3.3 Will NIWA be issuing an amended response?
4. Internal Guidance and Decision‑Making
4.1 Please provide any internal guidance, emails, notes, or decision records relating to how NIWA determined what information to include or exclude from the previous OIA response.
4.2 Please provide any internal discussion regarding whether NIWA‑associated scientific material was relevant to the request.
5. Future OIA Handling
5.1 What steps will NIWA take to ensure that future OIA responses accurately reflect the scientific information NIWA holds or contributes to?
5.2 Does NIWA intend to review its OIA search procedures in light of this discrepancy?
I request that this OIA be treated independently of the previous request, as it concerns NIWA’s internal decision‑making and the completeness of its earlier response.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Gray
From: Enquiries
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited
Thank you for your e-mail to Enquiries at NIWA. We have received your
query and will respond as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Enquiries
Enquiries
, , New Zealand
Earth Sciences New Zealand
[1]Earth Sciences New Zealand
The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited and the National
Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited joined to become the
New Zealand Institute for Earth Science Limited. We are known as Earth
Sciences New Zealand. For more information on the Earth Sciences
transition [2]click here.
Notice: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to copyright, and may not be used, published or redistributed
without the prior written consent of Earth Sciences New Zealand. If you
are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender and
delete the email and any attachments. Any opinion or views expressed in
this email are those of the individual sender and may not represent those
of Earth Sciences New Zealand.
For information about how we process data and monitor communications
please see our [3]privacy policy.
References
Visible links
1. https://earthsciences.nz/
2. https://niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/science-se...
3. https://niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/privacy-po...
From: Enquiries
Thank you for your e-mail to Enquiries at NIWA. We have received your
query and will respond as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Enquiries
Enquiries
, , New Zealand
Earth Sciences New Zealand
[1]Earth Sciences New Zealand
The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited and the National
Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited joined to become the
New Zealand Institute for Earth Science Limited. We are known as Earth
Sciences New Zealand. For more information on the Earth Sciences
transition [2]click here.
Notice: This email and any attachments may contain information which is
confidential and/or subject to copyright or legal privilege, and may not
be used, published or redistributed without the prior written consent of
Earth Sciences New Zealand. If you are not the intended recipient, please
immediately notify the sender and delete the email and any attachments.
Any opinion or views expressed in this email are those of the individual
sender and may not represent those of Earth Sciences New Zealand.
For information about how we process data and monitor communications
please see our [3]privacy policy.
References
Visible links
1. https://earthsciences.nz/
2. https://niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/science-se...
3. https://niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/privacy-po...
From: Sarah Fraser
Kia ora Nigel
This is to acknowledge receipt of your OIA request below.
We will respond as soon as possible and no later than 26 May 2026, being 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe.
Nāku, nā
Sarah
show quoted sections
From: Sarah Fraser
Kia ora Nigel
Thank you for your OIA request, which is refused as we have not received a request from you in relation
to "sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions from ships, oxidation of SO₂ into sulphuric acid aerosols (H₂SO₄),
aerosol processes, cloud‑condensation nuclei (CCN), cloud microphysics and albedo modification or
ship‑emission‑driven cloud formation or cloud brightening."
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
Sarah Fraser
show quoted sections
From: Nigel Gray
Re: Refusal of OIA Request – Clarification of Omission of Relevant Information
From: Nigel Gray
Dear Sarah Fraser,
Thank you for your response of 4 May 2026.
I am writing to formally request that Earth Sciences New Zealand (formerly NIWA) reconsider its refusal of my OIA request dated 25 April 2026, on the grounds that the refusal is factually incorrect, procedurally defective, and non‑responsive to the actual questions asked.
1. Your refusal is based on an incorrect factual premise
Your letter states:
“We have not received a request from you in relation to sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions from ships, oxidation of SO₂ into sulphuric acid aerosols (H₂SO₄), aerosol processes, cloud‑condensation nuclei (CCN), cloud microphysics and albedo modification or ship‑emission‑driven cloud formation or cloud brightening.”
This statement is inconsistent with NIWA’s own records.
On 24 March 2026, NIWA (now Earth Sciences New Zealand) issued a formal OIA response to me addressing:
SOx emissions from ships
particulate matter contributions from shipping
atmospheric impacts of ship emissions
cloud formation and weather/climate effects
These topics fall squarely within the same subject matter as the list above.
NIWA acknowledged, processed, and responded to that request.
It is therefore incorrect to assert that NIWA “has not received a request” on these topics.
2. My 25 April request was not a new scientific request
My request sought clarification of NIWA’s search process, scope, internal decision‑making, and omission of relevant scientific material in its earlier response.
It was a process‑based OIA, not a request for scientific datasets or research outputs.
Your refusal does not address:
the search terms used
the repositories consulted
the staff or workstreams involved
the criteria for excluding material
the reasons NIWA‑associated scientific material was not identified
whether the earlier response was accurate
whether NIWA intends to correct the record
None of these questions were answered.
3. The refusal does not comply with the Official Information Act
Section 15 – Duty to consider the request
The response does not engage with the substance of the request.
Section 18(e) – Information not held
This section cannot apply, because the request sought:
internal emails
search logs
decision records
reasons for omission
internal guidance
These are all information that NIWA either holds or must confirm it does not hold.
Section 23 – Right to reasons for decisions
My request explicitly sought the reasons NIWA excluded relevant material.
No reasons were provided.
4. Request for reconsideration
Given the above, I request that NIWA:
Withdraw the refusal, as it is based on an incorrect premise.
Reconsider the request under section 15, addressing the actual questions asked.
Provide the internal search, scope, and decision‑making information relevant to NIWA’s earlier OIA response.
Confirm whether NIWA stands by the accuracy of its 24 March 2026 response.
Provide reasons for any decisions to exclude relevant NIWA‑associated scientific material.
If NIWA maintains its refusal, please treat this letter as a request for:
the specific statutory grounds relied upon, and
the reasons for the decision, under section 23 of the OIA.
5. Next steps
If the refusal is not withdrawn or reconsidered, I will seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman on the grounds that:
the refusal mischaracterises the request,
the agency failed to consider the request properly,
the refusal contradicts NIWA’s own correspondence, and
the response does not comply with sections 15, 18(e), or 23 of the OIA.
I look forward to your corrected response.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Gray
From: Sarah Fraser
Kia ora Nigel,
We refer to your email dated 25 April 2026 where you requested the
following information under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA):
Accordingly, I request the following information:
1. Search Process and Scope
1.1 What search terms, databases, internal repositories, scientific
programmes, or staff were consulted when preparing NIWA’s response to my
previous OIA?
1.2 Did the search include NIWA’s atmospheric chemistry, aerosol research,
cloud microphysics, or climate modelling workstreams?
1.3 If not, please provide the reason these areas were excluded.
2. Omission of Relevant Scientific Material
2.1 Why was NIWA associated scientific material depicting SO₂ emissions,
oxidation chemistry, aerosol processes, CCN formation, cloud formation,
and albedo effects not identified or included in the response?
2.2 Was this material considered “out of scope”? If so, please provide the
criteria used to determine scope.
2.3 Was any relevant information held by NIWA but excluded due to
interpretation, categorisation, or internal policy?
3. Accuracy of the Previous Response
3.1 Does NIWA stand by its statement that it holds no information on the
topics listed above?
3.2 If the earlier response was incomplete or incorrect, what steps will
NIWA take to correct the record?
3.3 Will NIWA be issuing an amended response?
4. Internal Guidance and Decision Making
4.1 Please provide any internal guidance, emails, notes, or decision
records relating to how NIWA determined what information to include or
exclude from the previous OIA response.
4.2 Please provide any internal discussion regarding whether NIWA
associated scientific material was relevant to the request.
5. Future OIA Handling
5.1 What steps will NIWA take to ensure that future OIA responses
accurately reflect the scientific information NIWA holds or contributes
to?
5.2 Does NIWA intend to review its OIA search procedures in light of this
discrepancy?
Our response to your 25 April 2026 request for information is set out
below. Please note that our response is on behalf of the New Zealand
Institute for Earth Science Limited (Earth Sciences New Zealand). On 1
July 2025, NIWA and GNS Science merged to become Earth Sciences New
Zealand. The responses below reflect this in that they refer to work and
processes conducted by both NIWA and GNS prior to the merger.
In providing this response, we refer to our 24 March 2026 response to your
9 December 2025 request for the following information:
1. Any monitoring systems, datasets, or responsibilities NIWA holds
regarding ship emissions regulated under Annex VI (SOx, NOx, PM, VOCs) in
New Zealand’s territorial waters (within 12 nautical miles) and Exclusive
Economic Zone (12–200 nautical miles).
2. Any reports, datasets, or scientific assessments that consider the
potential impacts of ship emissions on atmospheric conditions, cloud
formation, or weather/climate in New Zealand.
3. Any correspondence between NIWA and other agencies (Ministry for the
Environment, EPA, Maritime NZ) between 1 January 2022 and 1 December 2025
that references Annex VI compliance and potential weather or climate
impacts of ship emissions.
Search Process and Scope
In response to your questions 1.1 to 1.3 above, Earth Sciences NZ has
never done any work or research or had any monitoring, implementation or
enforcement responsibilities in respect of ship emissions or, as you have
specifically requested, ship emissions regulated under Annex VI of Marpol
(Sox, Nox, PM, VOCs). Earth Sciences NZ has also done no work or performed
any scientific assessments that directly consider the potential impacts of
ship emissions on atmospheric conditions, cloud formation, or
weather/climate in New Zealand. On that basis, on reviewing your 9
December 2025 OIA request, we were comfortable that we did not hold any
information directly relevant to your request. However, to ensure there
were no work or scientific programmes that were indirectly relevant we
consulted with Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher (Chief Scientist - Changing
Atmosphere) from the NIWA business unit of Earth Sciences NZ. We also
consulted with Dr Perry Davy (Lead Scientist-Air Particulates Laboratory)
from the GNS business unit of Earth Sciences NZ and Dr Jocelyn Turnbull
(Principal Scientist – Carbon Cycle and Environmental Processes and
Modelling) who leads the Carbon Watch-Urban programme in the GNS business
unit. We directed your questions to those staff members because they work
on the only science programmes at Earth Sciences NZ that are potentially
relevant to your request, and were best placed to identify whether Earth
Sciences NZ held any information within the scope of your request. We
considered whether further searches were required and concluded that
consulting with the relevant subject matter experts was sufficient to
identify any information held in scope.
Our consultation with the Chief Scientist - Changing Atmosphere from the
NIWA business unit revealed no relevant information held by the NIWA
business unit within the scope of your request. However, our consultation
with the Lead Scientist - Air Particulates Laboratory in the GNS business
unit revealed that its particulate matter monitoring programme (which, to
be clear, is not directed at monitoring ship emissions), had picked up
contributions from shipping emissions at monitoring sites near ports in
New Zealand.
We provided you with links to relevant publications from that programme in
our 24 March 2026 response and we also noted our decision to withhold some
reports on airborne particulate matter prepared under commercial contracts
for clients under sections 9(2)(i) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA on the basis
they were confidential to the relevant clients. We note the withheld
reports are not directly related to ship emissions and contain information
very similar to the publications that we provided in our 24 March 2026
response.
Omission of Relevant Scientific Material
In response to questions 2.1 and 2.3 above, we are unable to identify the
specific material you are referring to based on the description provided.
If you are able to provide further detail (e.g., authors, title,
publication date, or links), we can consider whether that material is in
fact held by Earth Sciences NZ and falls within the scope of your original
request.
Accuracy of the Previous Response
In response to your questions 3.1 to 3.3, Earth Sciences NZ stands by its
original 24 March 2026 response. We will not be issuing an amended
response.
Internal Guidance and Decision Making
In response to your questions 4.1 and 4.2, we have attached the relevant
documentation. We have considered whether any information should be
withheld under the OIA and applied any necessary redactions accordingly.
Future OIA Handling
In response to your questions 5.1 to 5.2, for the reasons set out above,
Earth Sciences NZ considers that its processes in respect of your request
were appropriate and consistent with its obligations under the OIA. We do
not intend to take any further steps or review its OIA procedures as a
direct result of our interactions with you. However, as with all processes
and procedures at Earth Sciences NZ, we will continue to identify
opportunities and areas for improvement as part of our standard practice.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this response. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
Sarah Fraser
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Monitoring of Ship Emissions/Plumes
To National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited by Nigel Gray
FOI#33023 Supplemental
To National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited by Nigel Gray