Decision
Mr. X and Marine Institute
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-159168-Q3W7N6
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-159168-Q3W7N6
Published on
Whether the Marine Institute was justified in refusing access to environmental information relating to salmon mortalities coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information is held by or for it.
2 September 2025
1. On 25 February 2025, the appellant contacted the Marine Institute with the following AIE request:
1. “Were there any reports to the Marine Institute of high farmed salmon or cleaner fish mortalities on any Irish salmon farm installations between 1st January 2024 to the present day?
2. If the answer to the above question is yes, please answer the following questions. When and on what salmon farms did the mortalities occur? Please supply details.
3. How many mortalities occurred on each salmon farm? Please supply details.
4. How many farmed salmon were on each farm when the mortalities occurred? Please supply details.
5. What was the reason for the mortalities? Please supply details.
6. How and where were the mortalities disposed of? Please supply details.
7. As the Marine Institute / DAMF are the competent authority in relation to fish mortalities and as it is a condition of finfish licences, that any records held by the licence holder must be handed over to the competent authority if required to do so. GBASC expects the Marine Institute/DAMF to acquire the true relevant records on salmon mortalities from all salmon farm operators as part of our AIE request. If the organic certification bodies are able to acquire those records, then it should be no problem for the competent authority to require them from the salmon farmers.”
2. On 25 March 2025, the Marine Institute issued its original decision to the appellant, setting out responses to the appellant’s request as follows:
1. “Yes, high mortalities in farmed salmon were reported to the Marine Institute in the timeframe referred to in the request.
2. Mortalities in Atlantic salmon kept at an aquaculture establishment in Donegal Bay were reported to the Marine Institute in October 2024.
3. Mortality records are not held by the Marine Institute.
4. Standing stock records are not held by the Marine Institute.
5. The mortalities referred to in Point 1 were caused by exposure of the fish to zooplankton and phytoplankton in the bay in which they were kept.
6. The mortalities referred to in Point 1 were disposed of at Glenmore Generation Ltd., Ballybofey, Co. Donegal.
7. We have not identified a specific request which we can assist with, in Point 7”.
3. The appellant requested an internal review on 7 April 2025. Within his internal review request, the appellant set out that he was appealing the Marine Institute’s decision to not answer the questions asked in his AIE request, including the Marine Institute’s “refusal to supply [the appellant] with the full records of all farmed salmon mortalities on Irish salmon farms from the 1st January 2024 to the date of [his] AIE request”.
4. The MI issued its internal review decision on 6 May 2025.
5. The MI outlined steps which were taken in the internal review which included the following:
i. A review of the original request and original decision issued
ii. A search of the electronic databases and records
iii. Interviews with individual members of staff who may have dealt with such records
iv. Staff were consulted regarding the records sought to check for any in their possession
6. The MI’s internal review set out that the appellant’s original request “posed six specific questions (1 to 6), along with a seventh point which requested that MI obtain additional reports from industry”.
7. The MI noted that it was satisfied that each of the six questions was answered appropriately by the decision maker. MI further added that in none of the appellant’s questions were any records requested to be released, MI noted that the appellant asked for details and these were supplied.
8. The MI also made reference to the appellant’s contention that there was a refusal to supply him with records requested. The MI assumed that this referred to point 7 of the appellant’s request given that 1 to 6 were questions rather than requests for records. The MI clarified that “whilst the operator of an aquaculture establishment is legally obliged to keep and maintain certain records including mortality records and stock records, the Marine Institute is not legally obliged to ‘acquire’ those records to fulfil an AIE request”.
9. The MI’s internal review decision also set out the following:
“Operators record mortality within each epidemiological unit of their establishment in accordance with Article 186(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429. These records are retained by the operator and made available for inspection in accordance with Article 186(3) of the same Regulation. Official Veterinarians review these records during routine risk‐based inspections of aquaculture establishments. The Marine Institute does not hold these records. In addition, operators maintain records on the species, categories, and quantities of aquaculture animals present on their establishment, in accordance with Article 186(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429. These records are retained by the operator and made available for inspection in accordance with Article 186(3) of the same Regulation. Official Veterinarians review these records during routine risk‐based inspections of aquaculture establishments. The Marine Institute does not hold these records”.
10. The MI also referenced the appellant’s quoting of Principle 5 of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development (2015–2020). MI stated that these principles are taken seriously by the MI, and noted that the MI are fully committed to meeting both the letter and spirit of the Aquaculture Strategy.
11. The MI’s internal review decision did not explicitly state its position regarding a decision by the internal review decision maker. However, based on the information and comments provided in the internal review decision, it was the Investigator’s view that MI’s position was to affirm the original decision made.
12. The appellant submitted an appeal to this Office on 22 May 2025. Within his statement of appeal the appellant outlined that over the last five years he has asked the same questions in his AIE requests to the MI and that noted that the only difference in the requests was the change of the year date. The appellant added that he received a certain amount of records in all of his previous requests, and finds it strange that the MI are now saying that he only asked questions and did not ask for records as per their internal review decision.
13. 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 all submissions made. 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’).
14. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
15. 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.
16. This review concerns whether the MI was justified in refusing access to environmental information relating to salmon mortalities coming within the scope of the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information is held by or for it.
17. The MI provided a submission to this Office on 11 June 2025. The MI’s submission set out that it acknowledges that the information sought constitutes environmental information under article 3 of the AIE Regulations.
18. The MI submitted that it provided all the information it holds regarding the AIE request submitted by the appellant. The MI outlined that one mortality event was notified to the MI during the timeframe specified in the AIE request, and this was included in its original decision. The MI submitted that “this was received as a general notification of elevated mortality, and no details of losses arising from the event were included. In addition, the Marine Institute does not hold detailed information on the number of fish held at approved aquaculture establishments throughout the year, and only records information related to the number of fish at a given establishment on the day of its scheduled risk-based surveillance inspection, which is undertaken annually for marine salmon sites. Therefore, we do not hold the requested information regarding the number of farmed salmon at the establishment during the period of elevated mortality in October 2024”.
19. The MI further outlined that “operators of approved aquaculture establishments are required to maintain records, including those relating to mortality and other disease problems at those establishments to comply with Article 186 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 ‘the Animal Health Law’. These are operational records which are reviewed during routine risk-based surveillance inspections by official veterinarians acting on behalf of the Competent Authority. These operational records are inspected for compliance purposes in-situ, and are not transferred to, or held by the Marine Institute”.
20. In addition, the MI explained it that has held specific details of losses from mortality events at approved establishments in the past, and that it was on this basis that the MI was previously able to provide those details to the appellant in prior requests.
21. The MI submitted that prior to the commencement of the 2024 inspection programme, that the MI altered its approach “in strict compliance with Article 18 of the Animal Health Law which deals specifically with the notification of disease within EU Member States”. The MI submitted, therefore, that it does not hold the same specific details of losses arising from mortality events from 2024, and also going forward, that it held for past years. The MI noted that this should explain to the appellant why the MI cannot provide him with the same details as it did in previous AIE requests.
22. The MI’s submission went on to also set out some context to their above reasoning which included the following:
“For context, Article 18, Paragraph 1, point (c) requires operators to “notify a veterinarian of abnormal mortalities and other signs of serious disease or significant decreased production rates with an undetermined cause, for further investigation, including sampling for laboratory examination when the situation so requires”. In the context of the animal health law, this includes an operator’s retained private veterinary practitioner and the results of any such investigations which may arise are reviewed during their risk-based surveillance inspection.
Article 18, Paragraph 2 allows Member States to decide whether or not those notifications provided for in Paragraph 1, point (c) are directed to the Competent Authority. As such, operators are therefore not required to notify incidences of elevated mortality or decreased production rates to the Marine Institute unless the investigations referred to above show an undetermined cause, or those investigations detect the presence or suspicion of a disease listed in Regulation (EU) 2016/429 ‘the animal health law’, or a disease for which Ireland has national measures approved under Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/260”.
23. Regarding searches and record checks that were carried out, the MI’s submission set out that searches were undertaken during both the original decision and internal review. This included a review of Fish Health Unit databases and correspondence, consultations with staff, and circulation of internal queries. The MI submitted that “no additional records were found, due primarily to the new approach initiated prior to the 2024 inspection programme”.
24. The MI submitted that it is only now notified of mortalities that fit the criteria of Article 19, Paragraph 2 of the Animal Health Law, as set out above. The MI also reiterated that it only received one notification during the period specified and noted that details of this notification were supplied to the appellant in MI’s original decision.
25. In addition, the MI added that “while the Marine Institute fully supports the principles of transparency and accountability, including those stated in the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development (2015–2020), it must operate within the legal framework provided. The Institute continues to share environmental data and findings within its remit openly, including disease surveillance and reporting outcomes”.
26. On review of the MI’s submission, it was the Investigator’s view that it would be beneficial to share the MI’s submission with the appellant. The MI were agreeable to this, and the appellant was provided with the MI’s submission and an opportunity to provide a response. No response was received from the appellant within the allowed timeframe.
27. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations requires public authorities to make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request. It is the relevant provision to consider where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information is “held by or for” the public authority concerned. 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.
28. Article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations defines "environmental information held by a public authority" as “environmental information in the possession of a public authority that has been produced or received by that authority". I consider that adequate searches have been carried out for the purposes of locating any further information held by the MI in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations. I consider the conclusion that the MI does not hold any further information relevant to the request to be reasonable in light of the searches carried out and the fact that the MI has clarified that it does not hold any further records, largely due to the change in inspection approach prior to the 2024 inspection, along with the legal reason for this new approach.
29. In addition, I accept the MI’s reasoning that any records on fish mortalities and stock levels are legally maintained by operators and not the MI, and that these are reviewed by veterinarians as required.
30. Accordingly, having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the Marine Institute’s decision.
31. 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