Cinneadh
Mr. X and Coillte
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-161964-L2L7F5
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-161964-L2L7F5
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
The Commissioner annulled Coillte’s decision to refuse the request under articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations and directed Coillte to release the environmental information concerned to the appellant.
26 November 2025
Context
1. The terms “windblow ” and “windthrow ” are synonymous terms (being a tree being uprooted by wind). According to a COFORD (the National Council for Forest Research and Development) 2018 newsletter article ‘ Understanding and managing windthrow ’: “Wind is the most significant abiotic factor causing damage to forests in Ireland. It results in the uprooting (windthrow/windblow) or breakage (windsnap) of trees leading to significant financial losses for forest owners .”
2. Coillte is a commercial semi-state company, responsible for managing a vast forest/land estate of 440,000 hectares (7% of total land mass in the country). The request in this case seeks data concerning the impact of Storms Darragh and Éowyn on the Coillte Estate. Storm Darragh brought widespread severe and damaging winds across Ireland on Friday 6 and early Saturday 7 December 2024. Storm Éowyn struck Ireland on the night of Thursday 23 and through the morning of Friday 24 January 2025. It brought the strongest winds ever recorded in Ireland with gusts up to 184 km/h breaking an 80-year-old record. It was the first time that the island of Ireland had red level wind warnings for all counties.
3. In a press release dated 22 April 2025, the Minister of State with responsibility for Forestry, Farm Safety and Horticulture, Michael Healy-Rae reported that over 26,000 hectares of forestry had suffered wind damage as a result of Storms Darragh and Éowyn based on a satellite imagery-based assessment completed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (“the Department”) and Coillte. The Minister stated: “Following the initial estimates issued by my Department in February, I can now confirm that final figures indicate that a total of 26,050 hectares of forests have been impacted. Of this area, 14,500 hectares are in the Coillte estate, and 11,550 hectares of private forest areas have suffered wind damage.” In May 2025, the Department published a Private Forest Wind Damage Assessment Spatial Database - https://opendata.agriculture.gov.ie/en_GB/dataset/private-forest-wind-damage-assessment-spatial-database-may-2025
4. On 16 May 2025, the appellant made a request to Coillte under the AIE Regulations, seeking the following information:
“A copy (in GIS format) of any map layers of Storm Damage / Windthrow / or similar relating to Storms Darragh and Eowyn for the Coillte estate .”
5. On 6 June 2025, Coillte notified the appellant that it would not be possible to make a decision on the above request within the required one-month timeframe and invoked an extension under article 7(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations, as follows:
“Members of the AIE Team have engaged with the relevant subject matter experts in relation to this Request. This engagement and the retrieval of any information that may exist / be relevant is currently underway but requires further input from the AIE Team and subject matter experts as well as all relevant external third parties. 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). I will notify you of my decision as soon as possible, but at the latest by 16 July 2025 .”
6. Coillte provided an original decision on 16 July 2025, wherein the decision-maker stated: “I have decided to refuse you access to a map of windblow harvest units across the Coillte estate pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) and Article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.” The appellant sought an internal review of this decision on 28 July 2025.
7. On 29 August 2025, Coillte issued its internal review decision. The decision of the internal reviewer was to affirm the original decision, stating as follows:
“In affirming the Initial Decision, I rely on the reasoning therein on the decision reached in respect of the information sought in the Request. The decision letter that issued to you, on 16 July 2025, should be read into my decision in that regard and I do not propose to repeat that reasoning herein. I have decided to affirm the Request on the basis of the comprehensive reasoning and deliberation of the public interest provided in the Initial Decision. The first decision maker also correctly refers to the case law of relevance, and I have had regard to this case law in coming to my conclusion .”
8. On 29 August 2025, the appellant brought an appeal to this Office based on Coillte’s refusal of his request. On 2 September 2025, Coillte was notified of the acceptance of same and provided with a copy of the appellant’s statement of appeal. As per this Office’s standard procedures, Coillte was requested to forward both a copy of the information which is the subject of the request and a final submission in support of its decision.
9. On 23 September 2025, Coillte provided a submission to this Office, wherein it continued to rely on the reasoning and findings set out in both the original decision and its internal review decision. Coillte stated: “Together, these decisions outline the basis on which access to the requested information was refused, including the application of relevant exemptions under Articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c), and the consideration of Articles 10(3), 10(4), and 19(5), alongside the public interest test .” Coillte’s submission also outlined the following:
“Anticipated Availability of the Requested Information
Without prejudice to the First Instance Decision and the Decision, we wish to provide context regarding the anticipated availability of the information sought. While we do not seek to revisit or justify the decisions, we wish to inform the OCEI that the relevant data, namely, GIS map layers relating to storm damage and windthrow associated with Storms Darragh and Eowyn, will be made publicly accessible via Coillte’s public mapviewer by the end of Quarter 1, 2026. This proactive disclosure reflects Coillte’s commitment to transparency and public access to environmental information.
This timeline reflects Coillte’s current expectations, based on the progress of internal data processing and validation procedures. However, please note that this estimate is provisional and may be subject to change. The analysis of windblow across the forest estate is a complex and time-consuming process, relying on cloud-free satellite data that must be preprocessed and analysed using remote sensing workflows. It is also important to acknowledge that a degree of error exists within the dataset, due to factors such as image quality and the degree and extent of damage. Therefore, should unforeseen delays occur, Coillte reserves the right to withhold publication of the information beyond the indicated timeframe, in accordance with its obligations under the AIE Regulations and applicable internal policies.”
10. On 24 September 2025, this Office repeated its request for sight of the information which is the subject of the request. In response, Coillte stated: “There are no records relating to this Request .”
11. On 16 October 2025, the Investigator assigned to this appeal wrote to Coillte inviting final submissions in respect of this appeal. The Investigator’s correspondence outlined a number of points for clarification, including in relation to the information held by Coillte, the exceptions relied upon, and also affording further opportunity for comment on the arguments set out in the appellant’s statement of appeal/preliminary submission. Coillte forwarded a response to this Office on 31 October 2025, as follows:
“As outlined in our correspondence of 23 September 2025, Coillte does not intend to revisit or justify the original or internal review decisions. Our purpose in writing was to inform the OCEI that the information sought, being GIS map layers relating to storm damage and windthrow associated with Storms Darragh and Eowyn, will be made publicly accessible via Coillte’s public map viewer by the end of Q1 2026. This was offered in the spirit of informal resolution.
While we acknowledge the OCEI’s decision to continue its investigation, we respectfully submit that pursuing parallel processes may not be the most efficient use of resources, given that the requested information will be publicly available within a defined and relatively short timeframe.
For clarity, the requested information is not currently held by Coillte in the form or manner sought by the appellant. No GIS layer or relevant record is presently available, as the dataset remains under development. Mapping has been conducted using earth observation data and is now undergoing detailed accuracy assessment and sample-based field verification. This work is being carried out nationwide with the support of operational staff to ensure the reliability and quality of the windblow dataset.
This approach reflects Coillte’s ongoing commitment to proactive disclosure and transparency in environmental matters, consistent with the objectives of the AIE Regulations. The timeline for publication is driven solely by the need to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the dataset, not by any intent to withhold information. We respectfully invite the OCEI to consider whether continued investigation is proportionate in light of the imminent availability of the information and the absence of any refusal to disclose existing records. Should it assist, we are happy to provide periodic updates on the progress of the dataset’s development and anticipated publication timeline.”
12. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the Regulations on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to all submissions made by the parties. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered. 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’).
13. In addition to his appeal on the substantive issue of Coillte’s reliance on articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the Regulations, the appellant also takes issue with Coillte’s handling of his request from a procedural perspective, specifically in relation to its application of article 7(2)(b) of the AIE Regulations. In fact, on 18 June 2025, following Coillte’s correspondence dated 6 June 2025 (see paragraph 8. above), the appellant submitted a request for internal review. Coillte considered that the internal review request was premature and invalid, as the original decision had not yet issued.
14. Article 7(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority “shall make a decision on a request…as soon as possible and, at the latest…not later than one month from the date on which such a request is received by the public authority concerned ”. Article 7(2)(b) of the Regulations provides that “where a public authority is unable, because of the volume or complexity of the environmental information requested, to make a decision within one month from the date on which such a request is received, it shall, as soon as possible and at the latest, before the expiry of that month –
(i) give notice in writing to the applicant of the reasons why it is not possible to do so, and
(ii) specify the date, not later than 2 months from the date on which the request was received, by which the response shall be made,
and make a decision on the request and, where appropriate, make the information available to the applicant by the specified date” (emphasis added).
15. On 21 July 2025, the appellant brought an appeal to this Office based on Coillte’s failure to issue a decision on his request for internal review. At that time, this Office reviewed the decision-making records and given Coillte’s reference to the request requiring “further input from the AIE Team and subject matter experts as well as all relevant external third parties ”, the Commissioner was satisfied that this indicated an element of complexity sufficient to engage article 7(2)(b). Given this, the appellant’s internal review request of 18 June 2025 was deemed to be not valid, no ‘deemed refusal ’ arose and accordingly, the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to accept that appeal.
16. With the above in mind, I am particularly cognisant of the appellant’s current argument that the decision issued by Coillte on 16 July 2025, “does not suggest that [his] request is either voluminous or complex, or that the issue of volume or complexity had any part in the assessment of [his] request”. However, on the whole I am satisfied that the information sought in this case was sufficiently complex to justify the application of the extension.
17. 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.
18. It is clear from the comments of the Court of Appeal in Redmond & Another v Commissioner for Environmental Information & Another [2020] IECA 83, at paragraph 51, that the nature of a review by this Office is inquisitorial, rather than adversarial in nature. The extent of the inquiry is determined by this Office and not by the parties to the appeal. A review by me is considered to be de novo, which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of the decision.
19. My review in this case is concerned with whether Coillte was justified in its refusal of the requested information under articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.
Position of Coillte
20. Coillte considers that article 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations provide grounds for refusal of the appellant’s request.
21. In respect of article 9(1)(a) of the AIE Regulations, Coillte’s arguments may be summarised as follows:
(i) It submits that the term “public security ” is defined in Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 (Recital 19) as follows, and that this definition has previously been adopted by the Commissioner when examining article 9(1)(a): “The concept of ‘public security ’, within the meaning of Article 52 TFEU and as interpreted by the Court of Justice, covers both the internal and external security of a Member State, as well as issues of public safety , in order, in particular, to facilitate the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. It presupposes the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society , such as a threat to the functioning of institutions and essential public services and the survival of the population”. (Emphasis added by Coillte)
(ii) It submits that the Commissioner’s decision in the matter of Right to Know CLG and the Environmental Protection Agency ( OCE-120518-X2W6N8 ) provided the following guidance in respect of article 9(1)(a): “48. As indicated above, the wording of article 9(1)(a) of the AIE Regulations makes it clear that there must be some adverse effect on public security in order for the exception to apply. There must be a clear link between disclosure of the specific information that it has withheld and any adverse effect . The risk of public security being undermined must be **reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical. A mere assertion of an expectation of harm is not sufficient.” (Emphasis added by Coillte)
(iii) It submits that the disclosure of any information that includes details of sites that are planned to be harvested in the near future, or indeed currently active, would foreseeably result in individuals visiting, encroaching or intruding upon, or potentially disrupting, such sites which would pose various levels of health and safety risks to harvesting operators, inspectors on-site and to themselves, particularly because machines are on-site and active harvesting is taking place. It submits that “the risk to life cannot be overlooked in such a scenario ”.
(iv) It submits that forestry work is a high-risk activity due to the fact it takes place in difficult and sometimes complicated outdoor environments. It submits that the work carried out on active sites often involves the use of large specialist machinery, which can only be operated by highly trained and appropriately qualified operatives and require large exclusions zones to protect other workers on site. Coillte submits that, for this reason, it is essential that the work is planned, managed and coordinated so that it is safe for all workers involved and for other persons including members of the public, who may be affected by the work activity.
(v) It submits that only trained, competent, and authorised personnel are permitted to enter on active sites and that members of the public are not permitted on any active site at any time in line with the Health & Safety Authority’s Code of Practice for Managing Safety and Health in Forestry Operations .
(vi) It submits that “releasing any information that identifies areas within the Coillte estate that may be active would result in incidents of unauthorised attendance on active sites and accordingly the risk to public security, by way of risk to human life and health, will be compromised as the multiple hazards posed by active harvesting will foreseeably pose a real threat and a serious incident is likely to occur.”
22. In respect of article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations, Coillte’s arguments may be summarised as follows:
(i) It submits that “the information sought would identify areas where windblown material remains on site awaiting either licence approval before being removed or removal as part of scheduled works over the coming months ”. It submits that “this windblown material holds significant commercial value and the identification of exactly where it is located would have a significantly adverse impact on legitimate economic interest of Coillte as it may lead to unauthorized activity, including but not limited to, illegal removal of this material by third parties seeking to make financial gain ”.
(ii) It further states: “Coillte also relies on the Irish law of confidence which has developed under the Common Law, and under which information that is confidential by agreement, inherently confidential in nature, or pursuant to an equitable duty of confidence, is protected at law. Further, section 33 of the Forestry Act 1988 can be seen as an express provision of Irish national law providing for the protection of any commercial and/or industrially confidential information, such as the Members Agreement, in this instance .”
23. Coillte submits that it has considered article 10 of the AIE Regulations. It submits that it has considered whether redactions to the information or granting partial access would be possible to avoid the potential adverse effects identified. However, “having regard to the nature of the records and the risk associated with their release ”, Coillte submits that it is necessary to refuse access to the request in its entirety. It submits: “Coillte is tasked with enacting an operational response on a site-by-site basis to damage caused by recent storms across its estate. This process is currently underway and due to the dynamic nature of the response required, the number and location of active sites changes on a weekly basis. Therefore, as the information is subject to continuous updates, at any stage it contains information that relates to active sites .”
24. Coillte submits that in accordance with articular 10(3) of the Regulations, it has considered and weighed the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal, as follows:
(i) In favour of granting access:
- It notes that he public interest in members of the public having access, to the greatest extent possible, to environmental information to which they are entitled under the AIE Regulations, so that the aims and objectives of the Regulations, the underlying Directive and the Aarhus Convention might be furthered.
(ii) In favour of refusing access:
- It notes that the release of environmental information under the AIE Regulations is deemed to be release to the world at large, as the AIE Regulations place no restrictions on the subsequent uses to which the information may be put.
- It notes that there is considerable information available to the public concerning forestry operations.
- It notes that Coillte is subject to regulation by the Department and that regulation is underpinned, amongst other things, by environmental and sustainability/appropriate silvicultural principles. Coillte considers that, “while the aims of the AIE legislation include information-access and informed participation in decision-making and so on, and while it is generally in the public interest to make available environmental information that will facilitate this, it is also the case that, particularly in a regulatory context where there are ongoing processes, and where the regulatory system is itself designed to protect the environment and to enforce environment-facing laws, there are significant countervailing public interest considerations that can serve to lead to the reasonable conclusion – as is [its] conclusion in this case - that the public interest in release, or release at this point, of the information sought would not serve the public interest as well as non-disclosure would.”
25. Coillte submits that “the public interest would be best served by the refusal of the records sought .”
26. In relation to Coillte’s reliance on article 9(1)(a) of the AIE Regulations, the appellant submits that it’s arguments in this regard are effectively dismissed by the Commissioner’s decision in the matter of Mr. X and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine ( OCE-122539-B1T8K3 ) dated 11 August 2025. He submits that, “Coillte has not demonstrated any adverse effect that would result from the release of the information in relation to National Security”.
27. In relation to article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations, the appellant submits that, “Coillte has not demonstrated any adverse effect in relation to commercial confidentiality ”. He further submits: “It is a bit rich of Coillte to claim commercial confidentiality in circumstances where Coillte produced equivalent mapping of windthrow for the Private Forestry estate on behalf of DAFM and this information has been actively disseminated to the public. The argument could be made that in refusing to release this information Coillte is seeking to gain a competitive advantage over private forest operators regarding the extent of damage to their own estate .”
28. The appellant submits that in the aftermath of Storms Darragh and Éowyn, the Department issued a tutorial that explained how forest owners could identify and map windthrown areas of forests using the Copernicus browser. He argues that areas of windthrow are not hidden from the public.
29. The appellant submits that in new individual felling licence applications, Coillte highlights areas of windthrow. He submits that Coillte has sought to upgrade thinning licences to clear-fell licences on foot of windthrow. He argues that each such notification identifies the area of windthrow, and that this information is released by the Department.
30. The appellant submits that Coillte's approach to this request is “inconsistent ”, in that it is refusing to release information at the broad estate level when they are submitting that information at the micro level in documentation to the Department as part of the forestry licensing process. He submits that the adverse effect arguments put forward by Coillte are “purely speculative ”.
31. The appellant notes that over half of the 26,000+ha of windthrow from Storms Darragh and Éowyn, was on the Coillte estate (per published Department estimates). He argues that it “will be some operation for even a tiny fraction of this to be illegally removed for financial gain given the complexities involved in dealing with forests in general and windblown sites in particular ”. He also submits that it is “excessively speculative that any such illegal removal could be attributed to the release of the information requested when windthrow sites are fairly obvious features in the landscape and can be identified from the ground or by browsers which provide satellite imagery ”.
32. The appellant submits, without prejudice to his contention that Coillte has failed to demonstrate a basis for refusal under the Regulations, he argues that it has also failed to fully and correctly apply article 10 of the AIE Regulations to the decision and particularly that “Coillte have failed to consider the enormous public interest created by the two winter storms ”.
33. The appellant argues that the public were seriously impacted by the windthrow on the Coillte estate and release of the requested information would allow members of the public to be able to identify windblown Coillte forests in their area. He also submits that windthrow creates serious environmental impacts to soil and water, biodiversity and hydrology and social impacts including safety, landscape and amenity and social disruption. He submits that Identifying where this windthrow is concentrated is important for targeted environmental assessment and that information should not be kept secret from the public at large.
34. The appellant submits that he produces appeals against forestry licences for individuals and groups and in those appeals he is unable to provide mapping to the Forestry Appeals Committee to demonstrate the effect of windthrow in an area. He submits that in the absence of the requested information he can only do this for the private forest estate. The appellant argues that “Coillte's deliberate and intentional withholding of this information is compromising access to justice because appellants do not have access to accurate information across the whole forest estate regarding the environmental and social context of forestry licences”.
35. The AIE regime derives, originally, from the Aarhus Convention, which places duties on public authorities in relation to providing access to environmental information. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to these Regulations, make available to the applicant any environmental information, the subject of the request, held by, or for, the public authority. This provision transposes Article 3(1) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on Article 4(1) of the Aarhus Convention.
36. Articles 8 and 9 of the AIE Regulations provide certain grounds for refusal of information. Both articles must be read alongside article 10 of the AIE Regulations. Article 10(1) provides that notwithstanding articles 8 and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations, a request for environmental information shall not be refused where the request relates to information on emissions into the environment. Article 10(3) requires a public authority to consider each request on an individual basis and weigh the public interest served by disclosure against the interest served by refusal. Article 10(4) provides that the grounds for refusal of a request shall be interpreted on a restrictive basis having regard to the public interest served by disclosure. Article 10(5) provides that nothing in articles 8 or 9 shall authorise a public authority not to make available environmental information which, although held with information to which article 8 or 9 relates, may be separated from such information.
37. When relying on articles 8 or 9 of the AIE Regulations a public authority must demonstrate a clear link between disclosure of the specific information that it has withheld and any adverse effect. It must set out the reasons why it considers that the disclosure of the information at issue could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exceptions relied upon, as set out by the CJEU at paragraph 69 of Land Baden-Wurttemberg v DR, Case C-619/19. This sets a high threshold as the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical. A mere assertion of an expectation of harm is not sufficient.
38. Article 9(1)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides a discretionary ground for refusal of information by a public authority where disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect international relations, national defence, or public security. This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(b) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on Article 4(4)(b) of the Aarhus Convention.
39. The Minister’s Guidance, in considering “International relations, national defence or public security ” states: “Requests for environmental information affecting international relations or national defence may be refused; this would include any restricted information or documents received from other States or international organisations. Information damaging to public security may also be withheld, e.g. information about explosives or firearms storage or manufacture .” (paragraph 12.3)
40. Coillte considers that the “public security ” limb of this exception is relevant in this case. The term “public security ” is not defined in the AIE Regulations or the AIE Directive. However, as noted by Coillte, this Office is cognisant of the definition of “public security ” noted in Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 (Recital 19). Coillte also notes that when relying on article 9(1)(a) of the AIE Regulations a public authority must demonstrate a clear link between disclosure of the specific information that it has withheld and any adverse effect.
41. As outlined above, Coillte’s position is that “releasing any information that identifies areas within the Coillte estate that may be active would result in incidents of unauthorised attendance on active sites and accordingly the risk to public security, by way of risk to human life and health, will be compromised as the multiple hazards posed by active harvesting will foreseeably pose a real threat and a serious incident is likely to occur .”
42. As noted by the appellant, the Commissioner’s recent decision in OCE-122539-B1T8K3 , considered the application of article 9(1)(a) of the AIE Regulations in respect of information regarding active harvesting sites. While I am not bound by a previous decision of this Office, the decision in OCE-122539-B1T8K3 does provide helpful guidance as to how this issue should be considered (see paragraphs 105. – 117. of this decision). In summary the Commissioner’s view is that the arguments put forward by Coillte relate to ‘private security ’, as opposed to ‘public security ’ within the meaning of article 9(1)(a). As highlighted by the appellant, there is clear inconsistency in Coillte refusing to release information at the broad estate level when information identifying individual areas of windthrow is publicly available at the micro level as part of the forestry licensing process. For this reason and bearing in mind the criteria set out by the Court of Justice at paragraph 69 of its decision in Land Baden Württemberg, I am not satisfied that a reasonably foreseeable risk of an adverse impact on public security has been established such that article 9(1)(a) might be said to apply to the disclosure of windblow harvest units’ data for the Coillte estate.
43. Article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations provides that a public authority may refuse to make available environmental information where disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect commercial or industrial confidentiality, where such confidentiality is provided for in national or European law to protect a legitimate economic interest. This provision seeks to transpose Article 4(2)(d) of the AIE Directive, which, in turn, is based on Article 4(4)(d) of the Aarhus Convention.
44. The Minister’s Guidance, in considering article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations, states: “The fact that a person or company asks for information to be treated as confidential does not of itself establish it as such for the purpose of the Regulations, and the public authority must satisfy itself that real and substantial commercial interests are threatened. In addition, the fact that the release of information (for example, in relation to a pollution incident) might damage the reputation of a company is not of itself adequate reason for withholding it .” (paragraph 12.4)
45. When relying on article 9(1)(c), a public authority must show that the information at issue is commercial or industrial in nature; that the commercial or industrial information has an element of confidentiality; that the confidentiality of that commercial or industrial information is provided for in law to protect a legitimate economic interest; and that the economic interest, would be adversely affected by disclosure of the information at issue. As outlined above, the public authority must demonstrate a clear link between disclosure of the information that has actually been withheld and any adverse effect. The adverse effect on its legitimate economic interest must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical. A mere assertion of an expectation of harm is not sufficient.
46. There are several issues with the manner in which Coillte sought to rely on article 9(1)(c) in this case. Coillte states in its decision-making: “The information sought would identify areas where windblown material remains on site awaiting either licence approval before being removed or removal as part of scheduled works over the coming months. This windblown material holds significant commercial value and the identification of exactly where it is located would have a significantly adverse impact on legitimate economic interest of Coillte as it may lead to unauthorized activity, including but not limited to, illegal removal of this material by third parties seeking to make financial gain .” Firstly, rather than being an adverse effect on the commercial or industrial confidentiality claimed, it seems to me that Coillte is describing a potential negative consequence for its own ability to secure windblown materials and any consequential loss in commercial revenue. This overlaps with matters of ‘private security ’, as raised and dismissed with reference to Coillte’s application of article 9(1)(a) the AIE Regulations above. Further, I am cognisant, as highlighted by the appellant, that similar data in respect of private forestry owners was published in May 2025, notwithstanding any potential adverse effects including theft/damage to windblown materials.
47. Secondly, even if such an outcome could be described as an adverse effect on the purported commercial or industrial confidentiality of the information at issue, Coillte has not satisfactorily identified the relevant national or Community law which provides a basis for the confidentiality of the information sought. Coillte’s decision-making in this regard states, in its entirety: “Coillte also relies on the Irish law of confidence which has developed under the Common Law, and under which information that is confidential by agreement, inherently confidential in nature, or pursuant to an equitable duty of confidence, is protected at law. Further, section 33 of the Forestry Act 1988 can be seen as an express provision of Irish national law providing for the protection of any commercial and/or industrially confidential information, such as the Members Agreement, in this instance .” (emphasis added) This statement clearly does not even relate to the information sought in this case.
48. On the above basis, and while I have not reviewed the precise information held by Coillte, I am not satisfied that the release of windblow harvest units’ data would adversely affect the legitimate economic interests of Coillte. Due to this, I find that article 9(1)(c) does not apply to the withheld information.
49. In circumstances where I have found that the exceptions cited by Coillte are not engaged, the question of considering the public interest test at article 10 of the AIE Regulations does not arise. I will therefore turn to the matter of making available the environmental information to the appellant.
50. The Aarhus Convention requires public authorities to make information available within a specific time limit. Under Article 4(2) of the Convention:
“The environmental information referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be made available as soon as possible and at the latest within one month after the request has been submitted, unless the volume and the complexity of the information justify an extension of this period up to two months after the request. The applicant shall be informed of any extension and of the reasons justifying it .” (Emphasis added)
51. The Aarhus Guide (p.82) states that:
“Proper administration of the time limits in the Convention is critical to the proper functioning of the regime. Time frames are often linked with the time frames of other processes. For example, a delay in receiving information in response to an information request may affect the ability of members of the public concerned to participate in decision-making processes under article 6. Such a situation was brought before the Compliance Committee in ACCC/C/2008/24 (Spain). In that case, information was provided four months after a request for information related to pending land use decisions. In the intervening time, authorities decided to approve a modification of the land use plan. Thus, the delay in providing information impinged on the ability of the public to participate in the planning decision. The Compliance Committee did not find a violation of the Convention with respect to this information request because the Convention was not in force with respect to the Party concerned at the time of the request, but a later information request in the same case was found to have been improperly handled when it was not fulfilled until seven months after the request was made. The Compliance Committee clarified that at the end of the two-month maximum period for complying with information requests, the only option for the public authority is to provide the information or refuse the request in whole or in part on the basis of article 4, paragraphs 3 and 4 .” (Emphasis added)
52. As noted above, the Investigator wrote to Coillte on 16 October 2025. As part of this correspondence, she noted that Coillte had sought to apply articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) as grounds to refuse release of information, while also stating to this Office: “There are no records relating to this Request .” The investigator asked Coillte to confirm whether it currently holds the requested information in the form or manner sought by the appellant and, if so, to confirm suitable arrangements for making this information available for the purpose of this review. In response, Coillte stated as follows:
“For clarity, the requested information is not currently held by Coillte in the form or manner sought by the appellant. No GIS layer or relevant record is presently available, as the dataset remains under development. Mapping has been conducted using earth observation data and is now undergoing detailed accuracy assessment and sample-based field verification. This work is being carried out nationwide with the support of operational staff to ensure the reliability and quality of the windblow dataset .” (Emphasis added)
53. In the above statement Coillte submits that “the requested information is not currently held by Coillte in the form or manner sought by the appellant ”. However, it has not indicated in what “form or manner ” the information can be said to exist, and it has not engaged in any meaningful way with this Office for the purposes of this review. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations requires a public authority to provide information in the form or manner requested by an appellant unless the exceptions provided for in that article apply. If Coillte wished to treat this request in that way, it could have sought to rely on article 7(3)(a)(ii) and explained why access to the information sought in a different form or manner could be considered reasonable. In any event, I am reminded that what the appellant sought in his request was “a copy (in GIS format) of any map layers of Storm Damage / Windthrow / or similar relating to Storms Darragh and Eowyn for the Coillte estate .” (Emphasis added)
According to ESRI Ireland, “a geographic information system (GIS) is a system that creates, manages, analyses and maps all types of data. GIS connects data to a map, integrating location data (where things are) with all types of descriptive information (what things are like there) .” It is clear to me from the above statement that relevant mapping has been completed, and a dataset does exist, with said data currently undergoing validation by Coillte. Coillte has not argued or established that it does not hold the information sought, or that it cannot release the information sought to the appellant in the form or manner requested, and it would have been open to Coillte to make these submissions under article 7(3) or article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations.
54. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to direct release of the information sought, in the form or manner sought, with the following factors being of particular significance.
(i) First, Coillte has been subject to a significant increase in recent years in requests under the AIE Regulations, as evidenced by a review of the National AIE Statistics , from the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. I consider therefore, that it is very familiar with the requirement of article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations and that article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations 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 my view, it is significant that Coillte did not seek to invoke article 7(5) at any stage in this decision-making or appeal process.
(ii) Second, Coillte’s submissions to this Office make numerous references to a relevant “dataset ”, and data which will be made publicly accessible via Coillte’s public mapviewer in 2026. In this regard, it is important to note that there is simply no exemption in the AIE Regulations for data that a public authority considers to be unreliable or of poor quality.
(iii) Third, Coillte specifically considered the application of exemptions under the AIE Regulations to withhold relevant information, as well as the requirements of article 10 including the public interest balancing test and whether partial release of information was possible under article 10(5).
(iv) Lastly, Coillte extended the timeframe for responding to the appellant’s request under article 7(2) of the AIE Regulations to the maximum period allowable, for reasons including “retrieval of any information that may exist / be relevant ”. The outcome of this exercise was “to refuse [the appellant] access to a map of windblow harvest units across the Coillte estate ”. As above, Coillte clearly did identify information relevant to the appellant’s request, as article 7(5) was not invoked; instead, the information identified was refused by pursuant to article 9(1)(a) and article 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations.
55. It must be remembered that the purpose of the AIE Regulations and regime is to enable members of the public to have timely and straightforward access to environmental information – to understand what is happening in the environment around them and to assist those who want to participate in environmental decision-making to do so in an informed manner. The appellant has provided clear reasons as to why he is seeking the environmental information concerned, noting that identifying where the windthrow from Storms Darragh and Éowyn is concentrated is important for targeted environmental assessment. He has advanced reasons for why this information can assist his participation in statutory appeals concerning the granting of forestry licences relating to the Coillte estate, in the same way as the Private Forestry estate.
56. The Aarhus Guide specifically refers to “as soon as possible ” as the “base standard ” for releasing environmental information. Article 7(2) transposes Article 3(2) of the AIE Directive, which in turn is based on Article 4(2) of the Aarhus Convention as outlined above. Timely and straightforward access to environmental information is a fundamental principle of the AIE regime. Delays at any stage of the AIE request process, or inappropriate refusal to release information, jeopardise the ability of requesters to participate in environmental decision-making.
57. As outlined above, Coillte informed this Office, “in the spirit of informal resolution ” that the information sought will be made publicly accessible via Coillte’s public map viewer by the end of Q1 2026. While the Commissioner is always open to resolve appeals on an informal basis where possible, in this case, the timeliness requirement in access to information cannot be overlooked. I recognise that Coillte wishes to ensure the reliability and quality of the windblow dataset, however I consider that any concerns regarding the data quality of the environmental information could be easily addressed by adding an appropriate caveat to allow for disclosure of the information. For example, I note that there is a disclaimer contained with the Private Forest Wind Damage Assessment Spatial Database published by the Department. Furthermore, Coillte’s statutory obligations under the AIE regime remain and so do the regulatory functions of this Office.
58. In summary, it is my view that Coillte undoubtedly holds information relating to the appellant’s request. I also consider that in the circumstances of this appeal, a direction to release the information is appropriate and in keeping with the aims of the Aarhus regime.
59. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, on behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, I hereby annul Coillte’s decision to refuse the request under articles 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the AIE Regulations. In the circumstances of this case, I also direct Coillte to release the environmental information concerned to the appellant.
60. 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