Decision
Ms. X & Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (the Department)
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-150147-N8B4N2
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-150147-N8B4N2
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing access to the information requested on the basis that it was not held by or for the Department.
30 October 2025
1. On 18 April 2024, the appellant submitted an AIE request to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (the Department or DAFM), as follows:
“Please provide, by email, current information of the estimated quantity and estimated quality (i.e. Yield class) of what Coillte has in its stock in its 40-year cycle. The preferred format for the information is by way of an inventory, if this is possible. However, the preferred format is not obligatory.”
2. On 1 May 2024, the Department refused the request on the basis that “no records exist ”. It cited article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations and outlined details of the searches conducted to locate and retrieve the requested information.
3. The appellant requested an internal review of this decision, stating as follows:
“Shares in Coillte are held by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
At the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine held on 25 January 2023, Deputy Charlie McConalogue informed Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice that the same information that I have requested could be provided by DAFM. This is not a surprise noting that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is a shareholder in Coillte.
DAFM has access to the information requested via the Department's shareholding status in Coillte. This is no doubt why Deputy Charlie McConalogue said that the requested information could be provided by DAFM.
If the information requested can be provided by DAFM to a TD, then I argue that the same information can be provided by DAFM to me under the AIE Regulations.”
4. The Department issued its internal review decision on 30 May 2024, which annulled the original decision. The internal reviewer outlined details of further searches conducted and “granted” the appellant’s request on the basis of the following correspondence, which it outlined had issued from the Minister’s Private Secretary that same day (30 May 2024):
“Dear Deputy Fitzmaurice,
I refer to your recent correspondence addressed to Charlie McConalogue T.D., Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to information sought regarding inventory of the quantity and quality of what Coillte has in stock in its 40-year cycle. Coillte have advised the Department that the most recent data published on this is contained within the All Ireland Roundwood Production Forecast 2021-2040 which is available at: http://www.coford.ie/publications/reports/”
5. On 28 June 2024, the appellant brought an appeal to this Office. On 5 July 2024, the Department was provided with a copy of the appellant’s statement of appeal, and it was requested to forward a final submission explaining and justifying the basis for its decision.
6. In correspondence dated 21 July 2024 (updated version received 15 August 2024), the appellant emphasised the following points in support of her appeal:
• The appellant submitted, “DAFM alleges that the requested information has been provided under Internal review ” … [however], “The requested information has not been provided by DAFM .”
• The appellant submitted, “With regards to the information to which [she has] been directed by DAFM, the All Ireland Roundwood Production Forecast 2021-2040 report is not for the requested period of 2024 to circa 2064… [and this] report excludes all hardwood production”. The appellant also highlighted page 55 of the All Ireland Roundwood Production Forecast 2021-2040-Methodology report which refers to the Coillte Remsoft Forecast Model, and a model structure which lists inventory as an input.
• The appellant cited the judgment in Case C-339/00 Ireland v Commission of the European Communities dated 16 October 2003, and submitted that the European Court had stated, with regard to Coillte, that “the company is wholly owned and controlled by the State and that the State can therefore intervene”. The appellant argued that “This legal position has not changed since 2003 and the identical legal position applies in 2024 i.e. DAFM can intervene with regards to Coillte and environmental information held by Coillte.” The appellant submitted, “Shares in Coillte are held jointly by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. As a joint shareholder in Coillte, DAFM has the legal right to request information from Coillte.”
7. In correspondence received from the Department on 14 October 2025, it commented as follows on its decision making in this case.
• The Department submitted that the appellant’s request was originally refused under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations as the Department does not hold the information.
• The Department submitted that the information requested by the appellant was the same information as referenced at a Joint Oireachtas Committee discussion at which the Minister undertook to obtain information from Coillte to provide to Deputy Fitzmaurice. Following this, Coillte advised the Department that the latest relevant data was contained in the All Ireland Roundwood Production Forecast 2021-2040 report and this was communicated to the Deputy on 30 May 2024. It further submitted, “Following the appellant’s internal review request, and to assist, DAFM provided the appellant with the details provided by Coillte to the Minister .” (as contained in a copy of the communication issued to the Deputy above)
8. I am directed by the Commissioner for Environmental Information to carry out a review of this appeal. I have now completed this review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to the correspondence between the Department and the appellant as outlined above and to correspondence received by my Office from both the appellant and the Department on the matter. In addition, I have had regard to:
• the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (‘the Minister’s Guidance’);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based
• the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’); and
• The Aarhus Convention – An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
9. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
10. As outlined above, the appellant’s original request sought “current information of the estimated quantity and estimated quality (i.e. Yield class) of what Coillte has in its stock in its 40-year cycle ”. In her appeal to this Office, the appellant appears to expand on the description of information sought from the Department by noting that “the 40-year cycle will be for the period 2024 to circa 2064”.
11. In my view, a reasonable interpretation of the appellant’s request is that she sought a copy of information obtained by the Department from Coillte in response to a request concerning “an inventory of the quantity and quality of what Coillte has in stock in its 40-year cycle ”, as discussed at a meeting of the Dáil Éireann Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine held on 25 January 2023 (see page 24 of the Official Committee Report ). It is not within my remit to comment on the adequacy of the information sought by the Department or proffered by Coillte to the Department in this regard.
12. Further, I note the appellant’s arguments concerning the Department’s shareholding in Coillte, i.e., she is of the view that the Department has the legal right to request (any) environmental information from Coillte. However, the Commissioner’s remit is limited to review of the decisions of public authorities under the AIE Regulations. It is not my function to consider whether a public authority ought to hold information or may have a particular legal right to obtain information, but whether, as a matter of fact, a public authority held the information requested at the relevant time.
Scope of Review
13. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of the Commissioner is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate, in the circumstances of an appeal, the Commissioner will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
14. Despite the Department indicating that it had “granted ” the appellant’s request at internal review stage, it did, in fact, affirm its original decision under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. As such, this review is solely concerned with whether the Department was justified in refusing access to the information requested on the basis that the information was not held by or for it.
15. Public authorities are only required by the AIE Regulations to make available environmental information, which is held by, or for, the public authority (see article 7(1) and 7(5)). I will consider separately whether the requested information was held by or for the Department.
Was the information held by the Department?
16. Article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that environmental information held by a public authority means information in the possession of a public authority, that has been produced or received by that authority. It is clear to me from this definition that the relevant date in determining whether information was held is the date the AIE request was received.
17. My approach to dealing with cases where a public authority has refused a request under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is that I must be satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, I consider that a standard of reasonableness must necessarily apply.
18. From a review of the Department’s decision-making records on this request, I note that it provided details to the appellant of the searches conducted. The appellant has not commented on the veracity of same and I am of the view, in the circumstances of this case, that the Department sufficiently demonstrated that reasonable and appropriate searches had been carried out to identify and retrieve environmental information relevant to the request.
19. The Department has provided the appellant with the information sourced by it from Coillte for the purpose of responding to Deputy Fitzmaurice, which essentially directed the Deputy to a publicly available report. There is no evidence before me that further information exists. As such, I am satisfied that at the time of the request no further information was held by the Department.
Was the information held for the Department?
20. Article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that environmental information held for a public authority means environmental information that is physically held by a natural or legal person on behalf of that authority. Both the Aarhus Guide and the preparatory documents for the AIE Directive, available here , provide assistance in interpreting the term “on behalf of ”. These sources indicate that the purpose of the provision is to ensure that public authorities cannot avoid their obligations under the AIE Directive by simply outsourcing the storage of that information to a third party.
21. As outlined above, the thrust of the appellant’s position is that, as a joint shareholder in Coillte, the Department has the legal right to request (any) environmental information from Coillte. The appellant cites the European Court judgment in Case C-339/00 Ireland v Commission of the European Communities. In that case, the court determined that Coillte is not a private-law legal person for the purposes of Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation No 2080/92, which concerns aid for income losses from afforestation on agricultural land. The court ruled that because Coillte was wholly owned and controlled by the state, it did not qualify as a private-law entity for the purposes of receiving this specific type of aid. In my view, this ruling has no import to the matter at hand. It is clear to me that both the Department and Coillte are “public authorities ”, independent of each other, for the purpose of the article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations.
22. I also note that under Section 31(3) of the Forestry Act 1988, “[Coillte] shall, if so required by the Minister, furnish to him such information as he may require in respect of any balance sheet, account or report of the company or in relation to the policy and operations of the company other than day-to-day operations .” However, while the Department may indeed be able to access certain information from Coillte on request, that does not, in my view, equate to environmental information being held for the Department, within the meaning of article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations.
23. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I affirm the Department’s decision under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations on the basis that the information is not held by or for it.
24. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
______________________
Julie O’Leary
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information