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
From: Nigel Gray
Nigel Gray
Wellington
29 May 2026
To:
Sarah Fraser
Earth Sciences New Zealand
Subject: Request for Correction and Clarification – OIA Response of 26 May 2026
Dear Ms Fraser,
Thank you for your response dated 26 May 2026.
After reviewing your reply, I must request clarification and correction on several points where the response does not address the substance of my 25 April 2026 OIA request, relies on incorrect factual premises, or does not comply with the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).
1. Incorrect factual premise regarding prior requests
Your response states that Earth Sciences NZ “has never done any work or research… in respect of ship emissions” and therefore holds no information relevant to my earlier request.
However, NIWA/Earth Sciences NZ’s own 24 March 2026 OIA response explicitly addressed:
“SOx emissions from ships,”
“particulate matter contributions from shipping,”
“atmospheric impacts of ship emissions,” and
“cloud formation and weather/climate effects.”
This demonstrates that Earth Sciences NZ did receive and respond to an OIA request on these topics.
Your 26 May response does not reconcile this contradiction.
I request that Earth Sciences NZ correct the record and confirm whether the statement in your 26 May response was made in error.
2. Failure to address the actual scope of my 25 April request
My 25 April request was a process‑based OIA, seeking information about:
search terms used
repositories consulted
staff/workstreams involved
criteria for excluding material
reasons relevant NIWA‑associated scientific material was not identified
internal decision‑making and guidance
Your response does not answer these questions. Instead, it re‑states scientific scope positions relating to my December 2025 request—matters I did not ask about.
Please provide a response that addresses the process‑based questions actually asked.
3. Section 18(e) cannot apply to process information
Your response appears to rely on the position that Earth Sciences NZ holds no scientific information on ship emissions.
However, my request sought internal process records, including:
internal emails
search logs
decision records
reasons for omission
internal guidance
These are either held or not held.
They cannot be refused on the basis that the scientific topic is considered out of scope.
Please confirm whether these internal records exist, and if so, provide them or specify the lawful grounds for withholding.
4. Inconsistent statements regarding information held
Your response acknowledges that:
“the particulate matter monitoring programme… had picked up contributions from shipping emissions at monitoring sites near ports.”
This contradicts the assertion that Earth Sciences NZ holds no information relevant to ship‑related atmospheric impacts.
Please clarify how this information was considered “not relevant” to the earlier OIA response, and provide the decision records that led to its exclusion.
5. Failure to provide reasons under section 23
My request explicitly sought the reasons for decisions to exclude relevant NIWA‑associated scientific material.
Your response does not provide these reasons.
Under section 23 of the OIA, I request:
the reasons for the decision to exclude NIWA‑associated scientific material from the 24 March response
the reasoning behind the conclusion that no further searches were required
the basis for determining that the scientific material I referenced could not be identified
6. Request for reconsideration
Given the issues above, I request that Earth Sciences NZ:
Withdraw or correct the inaccurate statements in the 26 May response.
Reconsider my 25 April request under section 15, addressing the actual questions asked.
Provide the internal search, scope, and decision‑making information relevant to the 24 March response.
Provide the reasons for excluding relevant NIWA‑associated scientific material.
Confirm whether Earth Sciences NZ stands by the accuracy of its 24 March 2026 response.
If Earth Sciences NZ maintains its position, please treat this letter as a request under section 23 for:
the specific statutory grounds relied upon, and
the reasons for each decision made.
7. Next steps
If the above matters are not addressed, 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 response contradicts Earth Sciences NZ’s own correspondence
the response does not comply with sections 15, 18(e), or 23 of the OIA
I look forward to your corrected and complete response.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Gray
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 29 June 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 noa, nā
Sarah Fraser
show quoted sections
From: Nigel Gray
4 June 2026
To:
Sarah Fraser
Earth Sciences New Zealand
Subject: Procedural Clarification Required – Response Received 4 June 2026
Dear Ms Fraser,
I request clarification of the procedural basis of your 26 May 2026 response. Each item below requires a direct confirmation or correction.
1. Classification of my 25 April request
1.1 Please confirm whether my 25 April request was processed as:
(a) a clarification of the 24 March response, or
(b) a new OIA request.
1.2 If (b), please confirm the statutory basis for treating a clarification as a new request.
2. Consideration of process‑based information
2.1 Please confirm whether Earth Sciences NZ located or considered any of the following categories when responding to my 25 April request:
internal emails
search logs
decision records
scope determinations
internal guidance
reasons for exclusion
2.2 If any category was excluded from scope, please confirm the reason.
3. Factual consistency
Your 26 May response states that Earth Sciences NZ “has never done any work or research… in respect of ship emissions.”
Your 24 March response addressed SOx emissions, particulate matter from shipping, atmospheric impacts, and cloud effects.
3.1 Please confirm whether both statements are intended to be simultaneously accurate.
3.2 If so, please confirm the reasoning that reconciles them.
3.3 If not, please confirm which statement is incorrect.
4. Particulate matter programme
Your 26 May response states that the particulate matter programme “picked up contributions from shipping emissions.”
4.1 Please confirm whether this information was considered during preparation of the 24 March response.
4.2 If it was excluded, please confirm the decision record or reasoning for exclusion.
5. Section 23 reasons
My 25 April request invoked section 23.
5.1 Please confirm whether Earth Sciences NZ holds reasons for:
determining the scope of the 24 March search
excluding NIWA‑associated scientific material
concluding that no further searches were required
5.2 If such reasons are held, please provide them.
5.3 If no reasons are held, please confirm this explicitly.
6. Timeframe applied
6.1 Please confirm whether the 20‑working‑day timeframe applied to my 25 April request was based on treating it as a new OIA.
6.2 If so, please confirm the statutory basis for doing so.
These clarifications are required to determine whether the response complies with sections 15, 18(e), and 23 of the OIA.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Gray
From: Official Information Act
RE OIA request Redacted.pdf 20 May 2026.pdf
149K
Download
View as HTML
Re OIA request.pdf JT Redacted.pdf
170K
Download
View as HTML
Nigel Gray OIA response 1.pdf
346K
Download
View as HTML
RE Official Information request Clarification of Omission of Relevant Information.html
23K
Download
Dear Mr Gray
We refer to your email below and respond to each of your requests for
information as follows.
Our responses are premised on the fact that when we responded to your
original request of 27 November 2025, we saw no requirement to undertake
any comprehensive search of Earth Sciences NZ (ESNZ) systems. We note
that in your 7 November 2025 request you asked for the following
information:
Specifically, I request:
1. Any monitoring systems, datasets, or responsibilities NIWA has
regarding atmospheric emissions, plumes, or cloud formation from ships
entering New Zealand’s territorial waters (within 12 nautical miles).
2. Any monitoring systems, datasets, or responsibilities NIWA has
regarding atmospheric emissions, plumes, or cloud formation from ships
operating in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (12–200 nautical
miles).
3. Any reports, datasets, or scientific studies held by NIWA relating to
ship emissions, plumes, or cloud formation observed in New Zealand waters.
4. Any research projects, modelling, or atmospheric studies conducted by
NIWA that consider the impact of ship emissions or plumes on cloud
formation and weather in New Zealand.
5. Any correspondence between NIWA and other agencies (e.g. Ministry for
the Environment, EPA, Maritime NZ) relating to ship emissions, plumes, or
cloud formation.
We interpreted your 27 November 2025 request as a request for information
from ESNZ work programmes where the direct objective of those work
programmes was to investigate ship emissions and we responded accordingly
(see 24 March response from ESNZ attached). ESNZ has never undertaken any
work with the objective of investigating ship emissions so we were
confident we would not hold any information directly relevant to your
request.
However, as specified in our responses of 24 March and 26 May 2026 (see
attached), ESNZ has undertaken a small number of broader monitoring
programmes where the investigation of ship emissions was not the direct
objective but where there was some potential for the incidental/indirect
collection of data relating to ship emissions. We were able to approach
the scientists leading those monitoring programmes directly. Those
scientists reviewed your request and provided us with all relevant data
collected by those monitoring programmes relating to ship emissions. We
were comfortable that the information we collected from these monitoring
programmes was the only information held by ESNZ that could potentially be
relevant to your request.
We continue to hold the view that our interpretation of your request and
strategy for responding was reasonable. Our approach avoided the need to
spend significant staff time and resources to undertake a comprehensive
search for information we knew we would not find. We note that under
section 18 (f)of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) ESNZ is able to
refuse requests where the information requested cannot be made available
without substantial collation or research. As an alternative to refusing a
request, ESNZ may also charge for the supply of official information under
this Act under section 15(1A) of the OIA.
Refusing or charging to compile information is a last resort for ESNZ. We
will always look for the most pragmatic way to ensure we can fully respond
to a request for information which does not involve imposing charges on
the requestor.
Finally, regardless of whether or not we have interpreted your 27 November
2025 request for information correctly, we are confident we have
provided you with all the information ESNZ holds that is potentially
relevant to your request. ESNZ holds no further information.
Please see our specific responses to each of your requests for information
below.
1. Incorrect factual premise regarding prior requests
Your response states that Earth Sciences NZ “has never done any work or
research… in respect of ship emissions” and therefore holds no information
relevant to my earlier request.
However, NIWA/Earth Sciences NZ’s own 24 March 2026 OIA response
explicitly addressed:
“SOx emissions from ships,”
“particulate matter contributions from shipping,”
“atmospheric impacts of ship emissions,” and
“cloud formation and weather/climate effects.”
This demonstrates that Earth Sciences NZ did receive and respond to an OIA
request on these topics.
Your 26 May response does not reconcile this contradiction.
I request that Earth Sciences NZ correct the record and confirm whether
the statement in your 26 May response was made in error.
Our 26 May response was not made in error. Our 26 May response stated:
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…we were comfortable that we did not hold any
information directly relevant to your request.
ESNZ continues to hold the view that it holds no information that is
directly relevant to your request. In both its 24 March 2026 and 26 May
2026 responses, ESNZ responded that it did hold data incidentally related
to request and we provided you with all of that information with a few
exceptions. In both our 24 March and 26 May responses, we 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. Those reports were withheld on the basis they were
confidential to the relevant clients.
2. Failure to address the actual scope of my 25 April request
My 25 April request was a process‑based OIA, seeking information about:
search terms used
As explained above, there were no search terms because we saw no
requirement to undertake any comprehensive search of Earth Sciences NZ
(ESNZ) systems. We were able to direct the scientists involved in
monitoring programmes where there was the potential for the incidental
collection of data relevant to ship emissions to retrieve the relevant
information from their work files.
Search terms have not been provided on the basis that information does not
exist (s18(e) OIA).
repositories consulted
As explained above, all scientists leading programmes that may have been
incidentally related to your request were consulted. Those scientists
reviewed your request and provided the relevant information from their
work files. There was no requirement to consult any other repositories.
Repositories have not been provided on the basis that information does not
exist (s18(e) OIA).
staff/workstreams involved
As noted in our 26 May response:
Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher (Chief Scientist Changing Atmosphere) from the
NIWA business unit of Earth Sciences NZ.
Dr Perry Davy (Lead Scientist-Air Particulates Laboratory) from the GNS
business unit of Earth Sciences NZ.
Dr Jocelyn Turnbull (Principal Scientist – Carbon Cycle and Environmental
Processes and Modelling) who leads the Carbon Watch-Urban programme in the
GNS business unit.
criteria for excluding material
ESNZ noted in its 24 March and 26 May responses in respect of the
information it did provide, that we had decided to withhold a limited
number of reports under sections 9(2)(i) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA on the
basis those reports were confidential to the relevant clients.
reasons relevant NIWA‑associated scientific material was not identified
We have provided you with all the information held by Earth Sciences
NZ that we are able to provide (including information from both the NIWA
and GNS business units of ESNZ). In our 26 May response, we noted your
question: 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?
We responded to that question as follows:
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.
For the reasons we have already explained, we do not believe we hold any
further material related to ship emissions. However, your question
suggests you have identified scientific material from the NIWA business
unit of ESNZ associated with the processes you have quoted. If that is the
case, please provide ESNZ with further detail on that material and we will
try to locate it and determine whether it falls within the scope of your
request.
internal decision‑making and guidance
We have set out above how internal decisions were made in respect of your
request. Otherwise, we hold no further internal decision-making or
guidance information.
Internal decision-making and guidance information has not been provided on
the basis it does not exist (see s18(e) OIA).
Your response does not answer these questions. Instead, it re‑states
scientific scope positions relating to my December 2025 request—matters I
did not ask about.
Please provide a response that addresses the process‑based questions
actually asked.
3. Section 18(e) cannot apply to process information
Your response appears to rely on the position that Earth Sciences NZ holds
no scientific information on ship emissions.
However, my request sought internal process records, including:
internal emails
We unintentionally omitted providing all relevant internal emails as an
attachment to our 26 May response. We have attached those emails now for
your reference.
search logs
As explained above, there are no search logs because we saw no requirement
to undertake any comprehensive search of Earth Sciences NZ (ESNZ) systems.
Search logs have not been provided on the basis they do not exist (see
s18(e) OIA).
decision records
There are no decision logs aside from the internal emails attached.
Decision logs have not been provided on the basis that information does
not exist (see s18(e) OIA).
reasons for omission
ESNZ responded in its 24 March and 26 May responses in respect of the
information it did provide, that we had decided to withhold a limited
number of reports under sections 9(2)(i) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA on the
basis those reports were confidential to the relevant clients.
ESNZ has not withheld any other information.
internal guidance
We have set out above how internal decisions were made in respect of your
request. Otherwise, we hold no further internal decision-making or
guidance information.
Internal decision-making and guidance information has not been provided on
the basis it does not exist (see s18(e) OIA).
These are either held or not held.
They cannot be refused on the basis that the scientific topic is
considered out of scope.
Please confirm whether these internal records exist, and if so, provide
them or specify the lawful grounds for withholding.
4. Inconsistent statements regarding information held
Your response acknowledges that:
“the particulate matter monitoring programme… had picked up contributions
from shipping emissions at monitoring sites near ports.”
This contradicts the assertion that Earth Sciences NZ holds no information
relevant to ship‑related atmospheric impacts.
Please clarify how this information was considered “not relevant” to the
earlier OIA response, and provide the decision records that led to its
exclusion.
This information was never excluded. We provided you with links to
relevant publications/information in our 24 March 2026 response noting our
decision to withhold a limited number of reports under sections 9(2)(i)
and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA because the reports were confidential to
clients.
5. Failure to provide reasons under section 23
My request explicitly sought the reasons for decisions to exclude relevant
NIWA associated scientific material.
Your response does not provide these reasons.
Under section 23 of the OIA, I request:
the reasons for the decision to exclude NIWA associated scientific
material from the 24 March response
We have provided you with all the information held by Earth Sciences
NZ that we are able to provide (including information from both the NIWA
and GNS business units of ESNZ). In our 26 May response, we noted your
question: 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?
We responded to that question as follows:
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.
For the reasons we have already explained, we do not believe we hold any
further material related to ship emissions. However, your question
suggests you have identified scientific material from the NIWA business
unit of ESNZ associated with the processes you have quoted. If that is the
case, please provide ESNZ with further detail on that material and we will
try to locate it and determine whether it falls within the scope of your
request.
the reasoning behind the conclusion that no further searches were required
Our search strategy and the rationale for not conducting further searched
is explained above.
the basis for determining that the scientific material I referenced could
not be identified
We have provided you with all the information held by Earth Sciences
NZ that we are able to provide (including information from both the NIWA
and GNS business units of ESNZ). In our 26 May response, we noted your
question: 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?
We responded to that question as follows:
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.
For the reasons we have already explained, we do not believe we hold any
further material related to ship emissions. However, your question
suggests you have identified scientific material from the NIWA business
unit of ESNZ associated with the processes you have quoted. If that is the
case, please provide ESNZ with further detail on that material and we will
try to locate it and determine whether it falls within the scope of your
request.
6. Request for reconsideration
Given the issues above, I request that Earth Sciences NZ:
Withdraw or correct the inaccurate statements in the 26 May response.
As noted above, we have not made any inaccurate statements.
Reconsider my 25 April request under section 15, addressing the actual
questions asked.
Please see our responses above.
Provide the internal search, scope, and decision‑making information
relevant to the 24 March response.
Please see our responses above.
Provide the reasons for excluding relevant NIWA‑associated scientific
material.
Please see our responses above.
Confirm whether Earth Sciences NZ stands by the accuracy of its 24 March
2026 response.
Confirmed. Earth Sciences NZ stands by the accuracy of its 24 March 2026
response.
If Earth Sciences NZ maintains its position, please treat this letter as a
request under section 23 for:
the specific statutory grounds relied upon, and
Please see our responses above for statutory grounds relied upon.
the reasons for each decision made.
Please see our responses above.
We trust that we have addressed your concerns. Subject to your response to
your response in relation to your question on NIWA associated scientific
material, we have no further information that we can provide.
We understand you have approached Maritime NZ as the regulator for
maritime environmental standards under the Marine Protection Rules (which
give effect to the regulations in MARPOL Annex VI). Maritime NZ may be in
a better position to assist you with your information requests.
As we have mentioned in our correspondence to date, 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.
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Fraser
show quoted sections
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #34542 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Official Information Act
[7]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 [8]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 [9]privacy policy.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[FOI #34542 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
5. mailto:[FOI #34542 email]
6. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
7. https://earthsciences.nz/
8. https://niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/science-se...
9. https://niwa.co.nz/about-niwa/privacy-po...
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
FOI#33023 Supplemental
To National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited by Nigel Gray
Monitoring of Ship Emissions/Plumes
To National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited by Nigel Gray