Decision
Mr. X and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCEI-159217-F3V0L6
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCEI-159217-F3V0L6
Published on
Whether Coillte provided the appellant with all relevant information in accordance with article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations and whether Coillte established that it did not hold any further information in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
13 January 2026
1. On 24 February 2025, the appellant made a request to Coillte for the following:
“Under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations, in electronic format;
I wish to receive
1) A copy of Coillte’s Management Plan (and maps (ideally in GIS format)) which was prepared to deal with self-seeding conifers and habitat enhancement in the Slieve Bloom Mountains
2) Information related to actions undertaken in terms of implementing the Plan in 1).
3) Internal and external correspondence relating to 1) and 2)
Please interpret this request broadly.
Please provide a schedule of records with your decision.”
2. On the basis of article 7(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations, Coillte sought a two-month extension in order to deal with the request. It referred to the fact that it would have to contact to external and third parties in relation to the request.
3. On 24 April 2025, Coillte issued its original decision; the request was partially granted. Part 1 of the request was granted (Coillte’s management plan and associated maps). Two documents were provided under this heading. Part 2 of the request, (information on implementation of the plan) was refused on the basis of article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations; the decision-maker stated that, following searches carried out, it was established that no information in this category exists. In relation to Part 3 of the request, (external and internal correspondence on Parts 1 and 2 of the request) partial access was granted. A link was provided for publicly available information which consisted of external correspondence and supporting documentation for Felling Licence application LS08-FL0155.
4. On 24 April 2025, the appellant requested an internal review of the original decision. The internal review decision was issued on 23 May 2025, affirming the original decision. The decision-maker stated that reasonable searches had been carried out which established that no further information, other than the information already provided to the appellant, was held by Coillte. The decision-maker stated that the AIE team had communicated with Coillte’s Head of Recreation, who confirmed that the information requested does not exist. The decision-maker referred to the case of Mr F and Coillte (OCEI - Mr F and Coillte, Case number: OCE-144200-P5J0S4) wherein the OCEI stated that, in certain instances, “it is reasonable to rely on the knowledge of officers of a public authority, especially when they are specialists in a particular field or are denominated senior subject-matter experts, as in this case, if they consider that information relating to a request or an element of a request does not exist .”
5. The appellant appealed to my Office on 26 May 2025.
6. I have now completed my 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 by 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. The scope of this review is to determine whether Coillte was justified in failing to provide access to additional requested material under article 7(5) of the AIE regulations on the grounds that no further information relevant to the request is held by Coillte.
10. In his submissions dated 26 May 2025, the appellant stated, in relation to Part 1 of his request, that Coillte did not explain why it did not provide maps in GIS format. He said if Coillte hold the information in GIS format, this was the appropriate format in which to provide it as paper maps are not functionally equivalent.
11. In relation to this point, Coillte, in its submissions dated 11 July 2025, stated that it had fully complied with Part 1 of the Request by providing the Appellant access to the requested Management Plan and associated maps. It provided the information in a format that is accessible and reproducible, as required under Article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations. It maintained, therefore, that it adequately dealt with Part 1 of the request.
12. In relation to Part 2 of the request, the appellant said that it is not clear why the Recreation Manager (Head of Recreation) was contacted for information that might be relevant to his request. He said that any actions taken to implement the management plan referred to in Part 1 of his request were likely to have been undertaken by contract workers who would not be under the control of the Recreation Manager. He claimed that other Subject Matter Experts would have been appropriately placed to search for the relevant information. He said that, if works have been conducted, there should be a record of those works and referred to the fact the plan was developed in 2016. He said that Coillte did not address the fact that no felling licence has been submitted (“and is probably not required”) to address the trees outside the profile of Felling Licence application LS08-FL0155.
13. In response to this point, Coillte, in its submissions dated 11 July 2025, stated that the Subject Matter Experts to whom the request was assigned “are the Coillte personnel with extensive knowledge and involvement in the management of self-seeding conifers and habitat enhancement in the Slieve Bloom Mountains .” It reiterated its reliance on the Commissioner’s observations in the Decision of Mr F and Coillte (OCE-144200-P5J0S4) where the Commissioner indicated, that in certain instances, it is reasonable to rely on the knowledge of officers of a public authority, especially when they are specialists in a particular field. It stated that no works have been carried out as they are contingent on a felling licence being granted which is still pending.
14. In respect of Part 3 of the request, the appellant said that there is no evidence of any searches being carried out for this category. He stated there is no internal review decision relating to Part 3(b) of his request.
15. Coillte, in its submission dated 11 July 2025, said that, as Part 3(b) of the request related to “external correspondence relating to Part 1 of the Request ”, obligations in respect of this element of the request were satisfied by providing a link to all supporting documentation relating to the relevant Felling Licence application.
16. In relation to Part 2 of the request (Information related to actions undertaken in terms of implementing the plan referred to in Part 1 of the request), it said that the information does not exist and, therefore, is not held by Coillte within the meaning of article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. As outlined in the internal review decision, it said that the request was assigned to the appropriate subject matter expert, the Head of Recreation at Coillte Forest. This individual confirmed that no information relevant to the request exists. It said that this is because implementation of the Management Plan is contingent on the approval of a felling licence and application LS08-FL0155 remains under consideration by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Marine. No licence has issued yet and, as such, no actions have been undertaken and no records have been created.
17. With regard to Part 3 of the request (internal and external correspondence relating to Part 1 and Part 2 of the Request), it stated that the information sought does not exist. This conclusion was reached after the AIE Officer assigned the matter to the Head of Recreation and the BAU 3 team lead at Coillte Forest to search for information relevant to Part 1 of the request. Coillte said that keywords, such as “Slieve Bloom Management Plan ” and “Slieve Bloom MBT ” were used to search SharePoint Online and Microsoft Outlook, which it said are the primary systems used for storing and sharing such information. Coillte said that “following these searches and expert consultation, it was confirmed that no such information exists within Coillte ”. It said that, as previously established, no information falling within the scope of Part 2 exists; accordingly, it follows that no internal or external correspondence relating to Part 2 could exist either.
18. The investigator assigned to this case wrote to Coillte on 16 October 2025 asking, inter alia, whether the maps sought by the appellant were available in GIS format; whether the head of Recreation was the appropriate Subject Expert Matter having regard to comments made by the appellant, whether the external or third parties Coillte stated were necessary to contact had been contacted and whether, in respect of Part 3 of the request, searches for internal correspondence relating to Part 1 of the request had been carried out. No response was received from Coillte to these queries.
19. 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. In cases where a public authority has effectively refused a request under article 7(5), this Office must be satisfied that 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 must necessarily apply. It is not normally this Office’s function to search for environmental information.
21. 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 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.
22. It is widely accepted that the duty to give reasons arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and Directive but that it is 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. I acknowledge that Coillte has set out in its internal review and submissions to this Office, why it considers that adequate searches were carried out by it in relation to this request for environmental information.
23. On occasions where an investigator from this Office finds it necessary to ask for further clarifications or information from either party, to enable her/him to make a recommendation to myself – I would encourage cooperation from the relevant party/parties and urge them to provide a response within the timeframe stipulated. In circumstances where no response was received from Coillte in relation to queries raised by the investigator on 16 October 2025 to establish the reasonableness of searches carried out, it is not possible to affirm that all reasonable steps were taken by Coillte to identify and locate the requested information relevant to the appellant’s request. As referred to, amongst other issues, no clarification was provided as to whether the maps requested by the appellant are available in GIS format, whether the Head of Recreation was the appropriate person to consult having regard to that individual’s area of expertise and the subject matter of the request and whether appropriate searches were carried out in relation to Part 3 of the request.
24. In light of the foregoing, I am not satisfied on this occasion that Coillte took all reasonable steps to identify and locate the requested information relevant to the appellant’s request in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
25. Accordingly, it is my view that the most appropriate course of action to take in this case is to remit the matter to Coillte for a fresh decision-making process to enable it to undertake searches for any information it may hold that may be relevant to the request and, thereafter, to issue a fresh internal review decision to the appellant in response to his request.
26. Having regard to the above, I cannot find that Coillte has taken adequate steps to identify and locate all relevant environmental information held by it. As such, I am unable to find that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations can be relied upon by Coillte.
27. Accordingly, I annul Coillte’s decision in its entirety and direct it to consider the appellant’s request afresh and make a new internal review decision in accordance with the provisions of the AIE Regulations, and in particular the requirement to take adequate steps to identify and locate all environmental information held by it within the scope of the request.
28. 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