Decision
Ms. W. & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-149397-K0T6J8
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-149397-K0T6J8
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.
15 April 2026
1. On 1 March 2024 the appellant made an AIE request for the following information:
“This AIE request relates to the Bio Class area of 50.91 hectares located at Glencar, Co. Leitrim, which is classified by Coillte as 'Habitat freshwater, Riparian Zone, Forest, Over Mature Stand, Oceanic site, OWS. Please provide, by email, information held by and or for Coillte in relation to the area of 50.91 hectares located at Glencar, Co, Leitrim classified as 'Habitat freshwater, Riparian Zone, Forest, Over Mature Stand, Oceanic site, OWS'. Requested information to include, inter alia, but not be limited to information relating to :
a) Survey report/notes
b) Instruction to ecologists in relation to the 50.91 hectares or any part thereof.
c) Ecologist report/surveys
d) Inspection reports/notes
e) Current habitat group 1
f) Target habitat group 1
g) Current habitat type 1
h) Target habitat type 1
i) Changing the current BioClass rating 3 to a potential BioClass rating of 2 .
j) Location plan of the relevant 50.91 hectares
k) Location plan of the OWS (Old Woodland Site) or sites within the 50.91 hectares” .
2. On 29 of March 2024 Coillte notified the appellant of its intention to invoke article 7(2)(b) to extend the deadline by which the original decision was due, stating that “Members of the AIE Team held discussions with staff from Coillte’s Ecology Team who confirmed that engagement is required with other business areas 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 1 of May 2024 Coillte issued its original decision which refused access to the information requested on the basis of article 7(5), detailing the search efforts it had undertaken with respect to same.
4. On 28 May 2024 the appellant requested an internal review decision, which was issued by Coillte on 28 of June 2024. The internal review decision varied the original decision, noting that it was releasing information with respect to parts (j) and (k) of the request, relying on article 7(3)(a)(ii) to release the information in an alternative form than requested, stating:
“The BioClass layer can be found on the Coillte’s publicly available map viewer at the following link: https://coillte.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7b05ec6a44a14bd8b523ea1fcb 78b4e9 A map showing the Glencar biodiversity area can now be viewed online and the various attributes associated with the BioClass layer, which I have determined meets your requests under parts j) and k) of the Request .”
5. Coillte reiterated its position and the searches it undertook with respect all other information falling under the scope of the request, relying on article 7(5) as per the original decision.
6. The appellant appealed to my Office on 28 May 2024, on the basis of her belief that Coillte did not release all of the information coming within the scope of the request.
7. I have been directed by the Commissioner to undertake 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’).
8. In accordance with article 12 (5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it.
9. 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 held by it in relation to the appellant’s request.
10. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision of the Regulations when a request is refused on the grounds that a public authority does not hold the information sought, as follows:
“7(5) 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. In cases where refusal is based on article 7(5) of the Regulations, the reasons for the conclusion that no relevant information is held by or for the public authority should be provided to the appellant. The requirement under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations for a public authority to clearly set out the actions it has taken in response to a request is not only necessary for this Office in its considerations but also gives confidence to the appellant that suitable search procedures were conducted in response to their request.
12. The duty to give reasons for the refusal of requests arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and Directive but is also recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (see, for example, Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and Balz & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2019] IESC 90). Both of these judgments, in the same way as the AIE Regulations, make it clear that where a requester has all or part of a request refused, they are entitled to be provided with clear reasons for that refusal. This duty arises so that the requester can take a view as to whether they consider refusal justified, or whether they wish to exercise their entitlement to have the refusal reviewed, whether at internal review stage or through an appeal to this Office.
13. What will be considered reasonable with respect to searches undertaken by a public authority will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that this 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.
14. 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.
15. Coillte provided the following to outline the searches it undertook with respect to the information requested at both original decision and internal review decision stage, stating in the latter:
“In this instance, in order to determine if any material records relevant to the Request, the first decision maker communicated and held detailed discussions with the BioForest Ecology Lead on 20 March 2024 and 18 April 2024. The BioForest Ecology Lead co-ordinates the management of biodiversity areas .
As part of this internal review, I communicated with the BioForest Ecology Lead on 19 June 2024 to confirm if information in relation to the Request exists in Coillte. It was confirmed during this engagement that this type of information would be searched for on the; cloud-based storage, Office 365/emails, Coillte’s Map Viewer and by reference to direct telephone conversations/meetings with key staff/manager from the relevant business division and on occasion formal meeting minutes would be drafted. The BioForest Ecology Lead confirmed keyword searches had been carried out for the first instance decision on Coillte’s cloud-based storage, Office 365/emails, and team-based storage using the following search terms: “Glencar biodiversity area”, “Bio Class rating”, “Glencar BioClass survey notes”, “Glencar BioClass Ecology Reports” and “Glencar inspection notes ”.
Following these keyword searches, the BioForest Ecology Lead, as the relevant Subject Matter Expert, was satisfied to confirm to me that no material or records exist relevant to the Request .
Following these detailed enquiries and discussions with the relevant subject matter expert, I am satisfied to having taken reasonable and adequate steps to identify and retrieve information within the scope of the request, I confirm that information in relation to parts a) to i) inclusive of the Request does not exist in Coillte. I have noted that the Decision provided you with a clear rationale and context as to why Coillte has concluded that no such information exists, which is because Coillte have not yet prepared a management plan for this BioClass area ”.
16. Coillte noted in its submission to this Office that it relies for its full effect and meaning on the contents of the Internal Review decision.
17. In her submission to this Office the appellant refers to a Coillte BioClass brochure dated September 2018 which details its approach to recording and reporting biodiversity areas on the Coillte estate. The appellant draws attention to content within the brochure which states that “At present BioClass assessment is being applied across all biodiversity areas by freelance ecologists ”. It is the appellant’s contention that as the brochure confirms Coillte’s work with respect to undertaking assessments in all its biodiversity areas in 2018, that it must hold such information with respect to the area at issue, some 6 years later.
18. The brochure in question, which can be understood as educational/information sharing in nature, outlines the approach of Coillte to biodiversity. It notes that approx. 96,000 hectares of Coillte land is designated as SAC, SPA, NHA or pNHA but it does not refer to specific sites in its estate.
19. I note that 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.
20. With the above in mind, I emphasise that an appellant’s belief that information ought to be held by a public authority, pursuant to previous statements of intention concerning activities or objectives with respect to its work, is not a consideration which is relevant to assessing obligations under article 7(5). The role of this Office is to consider whether the public authority has adequately demonstrated that is has undertaken reasonable searches for all information coming under the scope of a request.
21. In this case I find that the searches undertaken by Coillte and noted at paragraph 15 are persuasive in allowing me to fairly conclude that it has taken all reasonable steps to identify the information sought. Search information provided identifies details of SME’s consulted, relevant location of information/data storage regarding the information and details the types of digital and hardcopy materials searched and, the search terms used to carry out this exercise. In my view, these searches are both appropriate and reasonable when considering the nature of the information being sought. I also note as relevant, Coillte’s contention that it has not yet prepared a plan for the Bioclass area in question.
22. It is important to note that the Commissioner does 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 authorises explanation of why a record does not exist.
23. Having considered the details of the searches provided by Coillte , and the explanations provided regarding the search terms used, the location of such searches and the personnel consulted as part of the search, I am satisfied that Coillte has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold further environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly it was justified in refusing access to the information sought under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations on the grounds that it is not held by Coillte.
24. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm Coillte’s internal review decision.
25. 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
Senior Investigator
Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information