Decision
Ms W and Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-145149-K7K4V5
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-145149-K7K4V5
Published on
Whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to information relating to the appellant’s request on the basis that no further relevant environmental information is held by or for it
19 March 2024
1. On 9 March 2023, the appellant received information from Coillte which referenced numbering of landscape units. On 10 March 2023, the appellant made a fresh AIE request arising from this information from Coillte on the landscape layer within the information provided in response to that request.
2. On 4 April 2023, Coillte issued a decision in which it refused the request under article 7(5) of the Regulations. The appellant requested an internal review on 5 April 2023. On 5 May 2023, Coillte issued its internal review in which it affirmed the original decision.
3. On 10 March 2023, the appellant appealed to this office (reference no. OCE-139077-G4C2M6).
4. On 4 August 2023, in Various Appellants and Coillte, considering this decision with a number of appeals, this Office annulled Coillte’s decision, and directed the public authority to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of each of the requests.
5. On 3 October 2023, Coillte processed the remitted AIE request. On 1 November 2023, Coillte issued a decision, again refusing the request under article 7(5) of the Regulations. The appellant requested an internal review of this decision on 30 November 2023. On 22 December 2023, Coillte issued its internal review in which it affirmed the decision of 1 November 2023.
6. The appellant appealed that decision to this Office on 9 January 2024 and provided submissions on 4 February 2024. Coillte provided submissions on 23 February 2024, with a further clarification on 19 March 2024.
7. 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 the 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. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
9. 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. As set out above, the decision at issue here is the second internal review decision issued by Coillte on this request.
10. This review is concerned firstly with whether Coillte was justified in refusing access to information requested by the appellant on the basis that the information did not exist, in other words, that it was not held by or for it, in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations; and secondly, given its assertion that no information other than that already furnished to the appellant was held by Coillte, whether the searches for information carried out by Coillte were sufficiently thorough such as to confirm that the information it released to the appellant was all the information it held that was relevant to his request.
11. This case concerns a request for information related to the landscape layer of Coillte’s forestry data system. This landscape layer numbered various lands held by Coillte with numbers from 1 to 31. The legend associated with this map shaded the landscape units variously from red to blue.
12. The appellant made an AIE request to Coillte seeking all information held by it on the design of the administrative mechanism, behind the landscape layer, under which numbers were allocated to certain lands managed by Coillte. The AIE request had six distinct questions on the design, procedures and operation of the landscape layer.
13. Articles 7(1) and 7(5) of the AIE Regulations require public authorities to make available to requesters any environmental information relevant to their requests and, should they not hold such information, to inform requesters of this fact as soon as possible. Where public authorities assert that requested information does not exist or is not held by them, a prerequisite to show compliance with these articles is that they carry out, and demonstrate they have carried out, adequate searches for the requested information.
14. In the first internal review, Coillte affirmed the refusal on the basis that the decision maker had taken all practical and reasonable steps available and possible to identify and locate records relevant to the request and referred the appellant to the details of these steps as provided in the original decision.
15. In the second internal review, Coillte affirmed the refusal on the basis that the requested information did not exist. The response detailed meetings with subject matter experts within Coillte held on 13 December 2023, namely the strategic planning lead and the resource manager, both of whom were identified as subject matter experts who deal with this type of information in Coillte. They were asked whether the information typically existed or was held by Coillte, and to carry out appropriate keyword and file searches, if such information is held by Coillte.
16. The explanation provided in the decision for the use of the numbers 1 to 31 is that they are not applied with a consideration of any landscape criteria considered in their design, but are used for landscape identification purposes only. Numbering is used by Coillte to subdivide and identify different units within a wider property on a particular map.
17. The application of particular numbers is not done on a consistent basis throughout the entire portfolio of land managed by Coillte, but rather, is applied on an ad hoc basis for each map in question, with idiosyncratic meanings to the various numbers from one map to another.
18. Therefore, the information the appellant is seeking would not exist, as the numbering system is not used in the manner envisaged in her AIE Request. I am satisfied with the explanation provided by Coillte regarding the numbering system.
19. Having reviewed the internal review decision, I am satisfied that Coillte have provided adequate detail regarding the steps taken and enquiries made in responding to the appellant’s request. I am pleased to see that Coillte have provided significant additional reasoning to the appellant in this decision in comparison to its previous decision on this request.
20. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I 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.
Julie O’Leary
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information