Decision
Organisation X & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-138541-S5K2H0
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-138541-S5K2H0
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing the appellant’s request on the basis that no environmental information within the scope of that request is held by or for it
27 November 2025
1. On 18 March 2023, the appellant submitted the following AIE request to Coillte: “Under the AIE Regulations we wish to request a list of NIS's which were in the process of completion during February 2023 and remained incomplete by the end of the month ”.
2. The appellant received an acknowledgement of their AIE request on 22 March 2023 and they were informed that they would have a response by 19 April 2023.
3. However, no response issued from Coillte within the statutory timeframe, and on 20 April 2023, the appellant requested an internal review on the basis of a deemed refusal of his request.
4. Coillte issued its delayed internal review decision on 19 May 2023, wherein it stated that “no records may be granted in satisfaction of [the appellant’s] request in this instance ”. Coillte noted that the creation of such a list as requested by the appellant would “would constitute a disproportionate and unreasonable use of resources in this instance ”. Coillte also made reference to article 9(2)(c) which sets out that a public authority may refuse to make available environmental information where the request concerns material in the course of completion, or unfinished documents or data. Coillte set out its position that it considered any relevant documents as requested by the appellant to be documents “in the course of completion ” for the purpose of article 9(2)(c).
5. The appellant submitted an appeal to this Office on 21 May 2023.
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:
• 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’).
7. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
8. A review by this Office is considered to be de novo, which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law at the time of this decision.
9. During the course of the investigation Coillte provided further submissions in which it sought to clarify the scope of the appeal in this case. In its submission of 12 June 2023, Coillte clarified its position that the only basis on which the request was refused was because a ‘list’ as sought by the appellant does not exist. Coillte further noted its view that fulfilling this request would require creation of a record which Coillte is not obliged to do under the Regulations. Accordingly, Coillte noted that the internal review decision maker inadvertently omitted to reference article 7(5) in her decision, and that his was to be taken as Coillte’s basis for refusal.
10. Coillte also clarified that the internal reviewer’s reference to article 9(2)(c) was for the context of explaining to the appellant that if the request were to be refined to instead seek a copy of the NIS’s in the process of completion, then in that event it would fall to be refused on the basis of article 9(2)(c).
11. Accordingly, the Investigator was satisfied that the scope of this appeal is confined to Coillte’s refusal on the basis of article 7(5) that no relevant information exists.
12. This Office’s approach to dealing with cases where a public authority has refused a request under article 7(5) is to examine whether adequate steps were taken to identity 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.
13. 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 my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the AIE 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.
14. During the course of this investigation, the Investigator liaised with the parties in an attempt to reach an informal settlement. Although Coillte had previously noted that article 7(5) was to be taken as the basis for Coillte’s refusal, following subsequent discussion it transpired that Coillte’s updated position was that Coillte was now able to provide a list of NIS’s that were in the process of completion during February 2023. Coillte noted that this was only possible because Coillte could infer, following a review of NIS’s that were submitted to the Department of Agriculture in March 2023, that this would be a representative list of NIS's which were in the process of completion during February 2023.
15. This Office provided the appellant with a list of four felling licences identified by Coillte. The appellant argued that more information should exist, and also noted their view that in providing some information that Coillte was evading having the basis for its refusal of this information in the first instance assessed, which was that that no information exists under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
16. In order to determine if all information held by Coillte for the appellant’s request had been considered, this Office wrote to Coillte on 19 March 2024 to confirm the actual searches carried out which located the records identified.
17. Coillte’s response of 23 April 2024 outlined that the four records provided were sourced from the resource tactical planning team. Coillte noted that discussions were held with members of that team and also highlighted that keyword searches were carried out across a number of databases of the tactical planning team. The keywords/search terms used by Coillte included ‘Forest Code’, ‘Felling Licence Batch Number’ and Felling Licence Reference numbers’.
18. Coillte explained that in order to determine if records relevant to the request exist, detailed discussions were held with the Subject Matter Expert (SME) which in this case is the Tactical Planning Lead. Coillte submitted that following these detailed enquiries and discussions, that Coillte was satisfied that reasonable and adequate steps had been taken to confirm that all information held by Coillte for the appellant’s request has been considered.
19. In earlier submissions in this case, Coillte had stated that Coillte ecologists carry out Appropriate Assessments. The appellant contended this statement and set out their understanding that is the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture who carries out Appropriate Assessments, and that Coillte produces a Natura Impact Statement in order to assist the Department in that process.
20. In response, Coillte set it out its position that the appellant’s understanding of the process is incorrect, explaining that Coillte carries out appropriate assessment screening on all sites to determine the environmental sensitivities of each site. Coillte explained that based on the appropriate assessment pre-screening an NIS may or not be required. Coillte also noted that the Department carry out appropriate assessment determination, which may or may not concur with what Coillte has produced. Following this, the Department may come back to Coillte with a formal document titled “Request for Information ” and seek further information on the site. Coillte noted that all of this information is uploaded to the Department’s Forest Licence Viewer.
21. The appellant had also pointed out that although the four licence applications provided by Coillte were allocated to ecologists in February 2023, that this does not exclude the fact that there may have been other applications that were allocated to ecologists for the completion of an NIS before that date that remained uncompleted in February 2023. Therefore, it was the appellant’s position that the four licences may not represent the full extent of the records that they were looking for in their request.
22. Coillte responded by outlining that following the submission of a felling licence application in October 2022, that Coillte commenced the Appropriate Assessment screening process, which included the completion of a pre-screening report and associated NIS report, as required. Coillte noted that this whole process was completed in February 2023 just before a new felling license application batch was submitted in March of 2023. Further, Coillte explained that the number of NIS produced weekly significantly reduced as Coillte neared completion of the outstanding AA screening reports for the October 2022 Felling Licence Batch. Coillte set out that the four NIS reports that were submitted in March 2023 were the last of the October 2022 felling license batch. Therefore, it is Coillte’s position that it can be inferred that the 4 NIS reports that were submitted in March were in the course of completion during the month of February 2023.
23. The appellant was provided with a summary of Coillte’s response as set out above and provided further submissions. At that time the appellant disputed Coillte’s searches and within its submission referenced a list of NIS which were submitted in April 2023, which, in their view, could conceivably have been in progress during February 2023.
24. In August 2025, Coillte informed this Office that the NISs that were in progress during February 2023 have since been completed and are now publicly available on the FLV. Coillte added that the relevant NISs can be accessed using the felling licence reference numbers which had been previously provided. Coillte also noted that the 4 felling licence numbers which had been identified previously can be used to access the relevant NIS’s on the FLV.
25. Coillte also noted a procedural change which came into effect in 2025, however noted that it does not impact the information at issue in this case. Coillte added that “All NISs relating to licence applications submitted prior to this change (i.e. up to the end of 2024) have been completed and are publicly available via DAFM’s Forest Licence Viewer ”.
26. The Investigator shared Coillte’s response with the appellant for any comments they wished to make. In response, the appellant didn’t appear to be disputing any further information that should have been provided to them however they were unhappy with how their request was processed by Coillte. The appellant noted that “providing the information now does not mean that the AIE request has been satisfied in accordance with the [AIE] Regulations ”.
27. Having considered this case and reviewed all the relevant information above, I am satisfied that Coillte has now provided all relevant information held by it in relation to the appellant’s request and has provided adequate detail regarding the steps taken and enquiries made in respect of relevant information identified.
28. However, since Coillte’s internal review refused the appellant’s request on the basis that no information existed, which also followed a deemed refusal of the original request, I wish to highlight the importance of meaningful engagement in the earlier stages of the review process. While I welcome Coillte’s engagement with the Investigator in the later stages of this appeal, at that stage the appellant had paid a fee to this Office to have their appeal considered. I would encourage Coillte to review its procedures for searching for environmental information and take account of the requirement under article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations for it to make all reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for it in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible.
29. As outlined above, a review by my Office is considered to be de novo, which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law at the time of my decision. This approach has been endorsed by the decision of the High Court in M50 Skip Hire Recycling Limited v the Commissioner for Environmental Information [ 2020 IEHC 430 ].
30. Having considered Coillte’s decisions and in light of the provision being relied upon, and the fact that a review by this Office is de novo, I will affirm Coillte’s decision in this instance on the basis that I am satisfied all relevant information has now been identified by Coillte and this has been furnished to the appellant. In addition, I note that all information relevant to this request is also now publicly available on the FLV.
31. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm Coillte’s decision.
32. 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