Decision
Mr. X & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-152715-W5G8B3
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-152715-W5G8B3
Published on
Whether Coillte had taken sufficient steps to identify and locate all relevant environmental information within the scope of the appellant’s request in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
22 January 2026
1. On 9 August 2024, the appellant submitted a request to Coillte seeking access to the following information:
“Ministerial Order / Direction issued by the NPWS to Coillte on 26th May 2022 (NPWS Ref No: R00012),
A. Information on the Restoration actions in year 1, to 30th June 2022
B. Information on the Restoration actions in year 2, to 30th June 2023
C. Information on the Restoration actions in year 3, to 30th June 2024 as detailed in the Direction.
Information to include, but not restricted to, any direction issued by the NPWS and any Reports submitted by Coillte.”
2. On 6 September 2024, Coillte issued its decision granting access to one report, which fell within the scope of the appellant’s request.
3. On the same day, the appellant requested an internal review of this decision, as he was not satisfied that all information falling within the scope of his request had been provided. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that Coillte had not indicated what searches it undertook, when considering his request.
4. On 4 October 2024, Coillte affirmed its original decision to grant access to one report, which was relevant to the scope of the appellant’s request.
5. The appellant brought an appeal to this Office on 10 October 2024, as he contended that pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, Coillte had failed to demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify the requested information.
6. 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:
a. 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);
b. Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
c. 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
d. The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (‘the Aarhus Guide’).
7. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
8. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review Coillte’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require Coillte to make available environmental information to the appellant.
9. Pursuant to article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the scope of this review is to investigate whether Coillte has taken all reasonable steps to identify the requested information.
Article 7(5)
10. 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”.
11. 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.
12. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows a public authority to refuse a request if it does not hold the requested information. For a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, among other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested.
13. The appellant contends that Coillte has failed to demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken to identify the requested information. In particular he states that “only one record has been provided by Coillte when in fact Coillte was required to submit updates to the NPWS on three occasions.”
14. As set out above, Coillte identified one record relevant to the appellant’s request. Coillte stated in submission to this Office that this document was obtained after discussions between the AIE staff member and the Subject Matter Expert (SME), Coillte’s Director of Regulatory Affairs, who confirmed that the document is the only document held that falls within the scope of the request. Coillte set out that the Director of Regulatory Affairs oversees and co-ordinates Coillte’ Forest’s regulatory interactions to include the process surrounding the Ministerial Direction. It stated that this SME directed the report, identified as being relevant to the request, to be issued to NPWS. Coillte states that the first instance decision maker also consulted with SME’s, Coillte’s Head of Ecology and Coillte’s Bioforest Ecology Lead, who are managing the actual restoration works. Coillte also confirmed that its Bioforest Ecology Lead sent the report by email to NPWS, and that all three SMEs identified carried out searches following consultation with the first instance decision maker and reported that the only record relevant to the request was the Report which has been provided. Coillte explained that the reason that further information does not exist is that verbal updates only were provided by Coillte to the NPWS by telephone. Therefore, further information is not held by or for Coillte within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations.
15. Coillte specifically addressed the appellant’s assertion when requesting an internal review that “only one record has been provided by Coillte when in fact Coillte was required to submit updates to the NPWS on three occasions”. It stated that if NPWS deem there to be a non-compliance with the Direction, there is recourse set out therein. It states “[t]he Appellant is seeking to use the AIE Regulations to interrogate Coillte on the actions it has taken on foot of the Direction. It is not a function of the AIE Regulations to determine Coillte’s compliance or otherwise with the Direction .”
16. I note that Coillte consulted with its Subject Matter Experts, Head of Ecology and Bioforest Ecology Lead, who manage the actual restoration works. Having undertaken its searches, I am satisfied that Coillte identified one record relevant to the request, which it provided to the appellant. I am satisfied with the explanation provided by the relevant SMEs as to why no further information exists in relation to this request.
17. While it is the appellant’s view that this information should exist, as Coillte was required to submit updates to the NPWS on three occasions, it is outside the remit of this Office to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally, including with respect to their environmental information management practices. I have no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain and disseminate environmental information. My role concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of the request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority and no more than that.
18. In light of the above, I affirm Coillte’s decision that it has taken reasonable and adequate steps to identify all information held by or for it within the scope of the appellant’s request, pursuant to article
7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
19. I note the appellant has queried why there was no cover letter provided with the Report that was provided to the NPWS. Coillte maintains this is beyond the scope of the request. Examining the wording of the request I agree that any covering letter that may have accompanied the Report is outside the scope of this request. For the reasons outlined above, I have set out why I am satisfied Coillte has conducted reasonable searches in relation to this request. It is open to the appellant to make a new request in relation to the aforementioned cover letter if he wishes to do so.
20. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I hereby, affirm the decision of Coillte.
21. 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.
Gemma Farrell
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information