Decision
Mr F. and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-154810-V9H1H7
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-154810-V9H1H7
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to the information sought on the basis of article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
5 September 2025
1. On 22 March 2024 the appellant made an AIE request for:
“1) Information on the monitoring of Pre-Harvest Natural Regeneration of conifers as defined in SOP-049.
2) Information on the removal of Pre-Harvest Natural Regeneration of conifers which has encroached onto adjacent land to the Coillte estate.
3) Information on agreements with the adjacent landowner and DAFM for removal carried out under Item 2.
As SOP-049 was only introduced in August 2023 my request covers information since this date. Please interpret this request broadly and provide a Schedule of Records with your decision”.
2. On 16 April 2024 Coillte issued a notification of an extension of one month with respect to the decision being issued, noting that it was relying on article 7(2)(b) which allows public authorities to delay their response to AIE requests by up to two months from the initial request, under specific circumstances, stating:
“Members of the AIE Team held preliminary discussions with two subject matter who confirmed that engagement is required with Operations Managers in each BAU in relation to this Request. This engagement and the retrieval of any information that may be relevant is currently underway but requires further input from the AIE Team and subject matter experts. Therefore, to allow Coillte sufficient time to carry out engagement, I am extending the timeframe for dealing with your request by two months from the date on which the request was received, as permitted by Article 7(2)(b)”.
3. On 22 May 2024 Coillte issued its original decision refusing access to the information, citing article 9(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations, stating:
“Article 9(2)(b) provides that a public authority may refuse a request where the request remains formulated in too general a manner, taking into account article 7(8).
As the decision maker assigned to your request, it is my opinion that your request, as currently worded, is formulated in too general a manner. The Request, as worded, is exceptionally broad in that you appear to be requesting records that may exist relating to information on Natural Regeneration for the entire Coillte estate which is 321 forests within six BAU’s (Business Area Unit) for a 10-month period. This would require engagement between members of the AIE Team and subject matter experts in every business area unit of the company to ascertain if information relevant to this Request exists.
As noted above, the Coillte estate is made up of 321 forests within six BAU’s. BAU staff who manage each of these 321 forests engage with external third parties in relation to forest operations on a routine basis. This engagement is held in several ways including on-site meetings, telephone calls and email correspondence to support and allow the efficient and effective management of the forest estate. Any records that may exist relating to the management of Natural Regeneration is within the scope of this Request as it is currently worded. Search and retrieval of such records would involve the AIE Team assigning this Request to every Operations Manager in each of the 6 BAU’s to confirm if information relevant to the Request exists. For example, and with reference to part 3 of your Request, each Operations Manager would have to check with every member of their team to determine if those staff members consulted with adjacent landowners in relation to the subject matter.
All associated records would have to be examined to assess whether it contains environmental information falling within the scope of your request. Those teams would also have to consider whether the records are appropriate for release. For example, if there are third parties involved, they would have to be consulted with prior to releasing such records. As currently worded, your request is exceptionally broad in that you appear to be requesting a record of every document, letter, email, held by Coillte that relates to the removal of natural regeneration from adjacent lands for a 10-month period for the entire estate”.
4. On 24 May 2024 the appellant submitted a request for an internal review of Coillte’s decision. In its internal review decision, issued on 24 June 2024, Coillte affirmed its position and stated that,“complying with this Request within the timeframe permitted by the AIE Regulations, would involve Coillte in disproportionate cost and effort and would obstruct and significantly interfere with the normal course of Coillte’s activities”.
5. On 27 June 2024 the appellant appealed to the OCEI and, a decision issued with respect to this appeal ‘Appeal C’ and others, on 29 August 2024, the appeal was remitted to Coillte for fresh internal decision making.
6. On 25 October 2024 Coillte issued correspondence with the appellant in which it requested that he refine the request, limiting it to a particular forest or forests in a specific county area. Outlining that it considered the wording of the request was ‘too general’ Coillte outlined the steps it would need to take to respond, noted in paragraph 3. The appellant responded on the same date outlining his contentions that article 9(2)(b) does not apply and therefore the request remained in its original phrasing.
7. Coillte issued its second initial decision on 19 November 2024 which refused access to the information requested on the basis of article 7(5), that is, Coillte’s position that it took all reasonable steps to locate information coming within the scope of the request but that it is not held by or for it.
8. In detailing the search efforts undertaken to identify the information, Coillte provided the following:
“Following receipt and initial review of this Request by the AIE Team, it was assigned to relevant subject matter experts for their attention. The AIE Team, in order to assist with the Request, also engaged with you in relation to a refinement of the request and we acknowledge receipt of your correspondence setting out your refusal to refine the request dated 25.10.24.
Subsequently, a member of the AIE Team engaged with subject matter experts on the contents and requirements of SOP-049, specifically with regard to pre-harvest natural regeneration. It was confirmed to the AIE team at that stage, that no records exist relating to point 1 of the Request. Also, in relation to points 2 and 3, having carried out necessary searches to retrieve any information that may exist, subject matter experts confirmed that no records were held. Please note the following –
1. Information on the monitoring of Pre-Harvest Natural Regeneration of conifers as defined in SOP-049.
No records exist. It was confirmed during discussions between a member of the AIE Team, BAU Estates Team staff and Ecology staff that monitoring of pre-harvest natural regeneration is not a requirement that is set out in SOP-049. Any natural regeneration will be removed during next scheduled harvesting operations. Therefore, records relating to the monitoring of pre-harvest natural regenerated do not exist.
2. Information on the removal of Pre-Harvest Natural Regeneration of conifers which has encroached onto adjacent land to the Coillte estate.
3. Information on agreements with the adjacent landowner and DAFM for removal carried out under Item 2.
As stated above, no information relating to Points 2 and 3 of the Request exist. A member of the AIE Team held discussions with BAU staff in both harvesting and estates teams as well as members of the Ecology team to determine if records exist. This involved key word searches by these staff of Sharepoint Online and Microsoft Outlook as these would be the systems used to generate and share information on this subject. Examples of key words used were ‘preharvest nat regen’, ‘pre-harvest natural regeneration’, ‘pre-harvest monitoring’, ‘pre-harvest SOP-049’. I am satisfied on the basis of engagement with the staff detailed above that a reasonable search was conducted.”
9. On 20 November 2024 the appellant submitted an internal review request, stating:
“Why did Coillte seek a refinement of this request if no records exist? Surely you carried out some preliminary checks to determine that information existed before seeking a refinement. When detailing search information, I contend that a public authority should indicate the following;
1. The parties identified to undertake searches
2. The reason why these parties were selected
3. What data sources were identified to be searched and why
4. Any data sources excluded from the searches and why
5. What search terms were used and why
6. What date range was applied
7. Whether searches were for full or partial matches
8. Whether searches of emails were just for the Subject Bar or included the message body
9. Whether searches of documents were just for the Title or included the body of the document
10. The number of results that the searches produced
11. How the results were filtered to identify information falling within the scope of the request.
This decision does not meet all of the above tests and therefore has not demonstrated that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify the requested information. Your letter of refinement indicated - "Search and retrieval of such records would involve the AIE Team assigning this Request to every Operations Manager in each of the 6 BAU’s to confirm if information relevant to the Request exists." but it appears that you have not done this. I do not consider that Coillte have made a genuine attempt to identify records falling within the scope of my request and Article 7(5) has not been demonstrated to be the correct response.”
10. Following correspondence from this Office, the appellant and Coillte with respect to the status of the appeal, Coillte issued an effective position on 18 December 2024. This position affirmed the previous decision issued on 19 November, relying on article 7(5) of the Regulations stating:
“The subject matter experts from the following units: Harvesting, Estates and Ecology were consulted in relation to the Request. Searches were carried out, by computer, using the following key word searches by these staff on Sharepoint Online and Microsoft Outlook as these would be the systems used to generate and share information on this subject: ‘pre-harvest nat regen’, ‘pre-harvest natural regeneration’, ‘pre-harvest monitoring’, ‘pre-harvest SOP-049,’ ‘pre-harvest natural regeneration on adjacent lands’ and ‘agreements with adjacent landowners.’
The BAU staff in both harvesting and estates teams as well as members of the Ecology team were consulted to determine if records exist. The basis on which Coillte has concluded that it does not hold any information, within the scope of the Request, is because it is not a requirement that is set out in SOP-049. Without prejudice to my decision, Coillte issued a request to refine following engagement with the relevant SMEs and based on the wording of the AIE it was understood the Request encompassed the provision of documents relating to monitoring of pre-harvest natural regeneration. Subsequently it was confirmed, to the AIE team, by the SMEs that monitoring of pre-harvest natural regeneration is not a requirement that is set out in SOP-049, which was outlined to you in part 1 of the Initial Decision of 19 November 2024”.
11. The appellant appealed to this Office on 19 December 2024.
12. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and Coillte. 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’).
13. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role 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, I will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
14. Pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the scope of this review is to investigate whether Coillte has conducted adequate searches in order to locate all records which may come within scope of the original AIE request.
15. It is the position of the appellant that Coillte have misinterpreted the request, that it erred in seeking to refine it and, that it has failed to demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify information falling within the scope of the request.
16. With respect to the interpretation of the request, the appellant states in submissions to this Office that:
“I do not consider that Coillte have correctly interpreted my request.
SOP-049 states;
‘1. Scope
This document describes a procedure for identifying, recording, controlling, and monitoring natural regeneration of conifers in environmental setbacks on the Coillte estate. For the purpose of this procedure document, natural regeneration refers to non-native conifer species that has naturally established within the environmental setbacks (i.e. water, open & unplanted habitat and archaeology setbacks only).
2. Purpose
The purpose of this document is to specify a standard procedure for managing natural regeneration in environmental setbacks.’
The SOP is limited to regeneration within the environmental setbacks of the Coillte estate. My request is clearly beyond this scope.
SOP-049 provides a definition for Pre-harvest Natural Regeneration;
“3.3 Pre-harvest Natural Regeneration:
Long established natural regeneration which has developed to a point at which requires chainsaw/harvest processor clearance. Typically, this regeneration is closer in age class to adjacent forest which is planned for thinning/clearfell interventions. This may comprise of stems with recoverable timber products. This will be removed during the next scheduled harvest operations.
Natural Regen which has encroached onto adjacent land will only be removed in agreement with the adjacent landowner and DAFM.”
The definition was not in place until the SOP was created hence the timeframe for my request.
My request is not tied to the Scope of SOP-049. The Operating Procedure merely provides the definition for ‘‘Pre-harvest Natural Regeneration” which is stated in my request”.
My request is seeking information on the monitoring and removal of trees which meet the definition of “Pre-harvest Natural Regeneration” outside of the Coillte estate. This should make it clear to Coillte that my request goes beyond the scope of SOP-049”.
17. With respect to searches undertaken by Coillte to identify the information, the appellant states:
“The nature of the searches is not clear in terms of exact or partial matches; Subject Bar or body of email, etc as detailed in my request for an internal review.
There is no detail given as to what the searches actually revealed and how that information was filtered to determine that no information relating to my request was found”.
18. This Office invited submissions from Coillte with respect to the appeal, Coillte have stated that it does not wish to make further submissions and instead relies on the full effect of its original decision dated 19 November 2024, outlined in paragraph 7 and 8.
19. In this case the appellant contends that Coillte should hold further information relevant to his request. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider, where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. It provides as follows:
“Where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it”.
20. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that the Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the regulations:
(i) an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
(ii) an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
(iii) details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
(iv) a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
(v) details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
(vi) the basis on which the public authority has concluded that it does not hold any information within the scope of the appellant’s request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf.
21. This Office’s approach to dealing with this type of case is to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness is applied. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case.
22. I acknowledge that the process of undertaking searches with respect to the information requested was not immediately straightforward in this case. That is, Coillte have stated that after engaging in preliminary conversations with SME’s upon receipt of the request, it understood that the search required engagement with the operations managers in each of its business area units (BAU), covering the entire Coillte estate (321 forests) in order to identify if the information was held for/by it, which led to it corresponding with the appellant to encourage a refinement of the request.
23. The refinement request was not accepted by the appellant who contended that 9(2)(b) did not apply and in its next decision, Coillte noted that after engagement with SMEs in the BAU estates team and the ecology team, it was confirmed that monitoring of pre-harvest natural regeneration is not a requirement of SOP-049 and that therefore no records exist with respect to part 1 of the request. This confirmation alongside searches on Sharepoint online and Microsoft Outlook, the systems it states it uses to generate and share information on this area, confirmed its position.
24. I note the appellant’s queries regrading Coillte’s initial attempt to refine the request in circumstances whereby it then contended no records exist, however I accept in this specific case, that this appears to be as a result of Coillte acting on inaccurate information following preliminary discussions with respect to information which it reasonably believed may be held by it. While a public authority should make every effort to ensure this does not happen, I accept Coillte’s explanation and consider that this may happen from time to time when a public authority is processing AIE requests.
25. The appellant contends that Coillte has misinterpreted the request with respect to its scope, stating“The SOP is limited to regeneration within the environmental setbacks of the Coillte estate. My request is clearly beyond this scope” . I fail to see evidence that the scope of the SOP which specifies regeneration in ‘environmental setbacks’ has limited the search and identification of information within scope of this appeal. Coillte have detailed its search process, which involved consulting with the BAU estate’s, harvesting and ecology teams and carrying out digital searches of where it identified the records would be held if they existed, outlined above in paragraphs 8 and 10, three of the search terms used were general to regeneration, just one specified the SOP, none included the term ‘environmental setback’.
26. Further, parts 2 and 3 of the request are not phrased in the context of the SOP, therefore it cannot be contended that the searches undertaken to identify information relating to them was limited by its scope.
27. With respect to the searches undertaken, the steps described by Coillte, noted in paragraphs 8 and 10, are in my view sufficient in this case. The request is seeking a specific category of environmental information which, if it was held by or for Coillte would, in my view, have been identified using the steps outlined.
26. It is important to note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7(5) of the Regulations, the question we must consider is whether the body has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. The AIE Regulations does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies.
27. It is also important to note that we do not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a public authorities body's explanation of why a record does not exist. The test in article 7(5) is whether the body has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record sought.
Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm Coillte’s decision.
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