Decision
Mr. A & Coillte
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-107718-J2P6T3 and OCE-128570-G2R5R1
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-107718-J2P6T3 and OCE-128570-G2R5R1
Published on
Whether Coillte can rely on article 4(1) as a basis for refusing the information and whether Coillte is justified in relying on article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE regulations
27 March 2026
1. These appeals relate to two requests for information submitted to Coillte by the same requester. As each request encompasses information relating to the same subject and the same exceptions are relied on by Coillte, it is considered appropriate to address both in one single decision.
2. On 18 March 2021, the appellant submitted a request to Coillte (Case reference OCE-107718-J2P6T3)seeking, “GIS data (shapefiles (.shp) and attribute data) for the 1864 felling licence applications submitted by Coillte to Forest Service circa 15th March 2021”. The appellant requested the information be “provided in a format suitable for incorporation in to a GIS system” .
3. On 14 April 2021, Coillte issued its decision stating;
“In accordance with Article 4(1) of the Regulations Coillte is refusing access to this information as, in accordance with Article 10 of the Forestry Regulations, the information is publicly available on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine website via the following link :-
4. On 15 April 2021, the appellant requested an internal review of Coillte’s decision.
5. On 14 May 2021, Coillte issued its internal review decision and in so doing varied the original decision. Coillte stated “… _as, under Article 10 of the Forestry Regulations, the information is required to be made available to the public for inspection or otherwise by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine”,
and would note that the Minister has in fact done so by means of the Forestry Licence Viewer on the” DAFM website”.
Coillte stated “as Article 4(1) provides that the AIE Regulations do not apply in these circumstances, there is no jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner for Environmental Information in any appeal to him under Article 12(3), to decide on any question relating to access to the information requested, if he agrees that Article 4(1) does indeed apply_.
6. On 28 May 2021, the appellant appealed to my Office.
7. On 18 July 2022, the appellant submitted a request to Coillte (Case reference OCE-128570-G2R5R1) seeking “Shapefiles (.shp) and attribute data for all felling licences submitted by Coillte to date in 2022. The attribute data sought is to include; Licence number, BAU, Forest Property, Harvest Block, FL Batch number, Area, Plan Year, Harvest Type, Status, Tree Clear, Windblow ”.
8. On 16 August 2022, Coillte issued its decision stating;
“I have decided that you should be granted access to the Shape File with attribute license number, available to view and download via the Coillte public viewer here. In the case of the remaining information - (BAU, Forest Property, Harvest Block, FL Batch number, Area, Plan Year, Harvest Type, Status, Tree Clear, Windblow), I have decided these should be refused under the AIE Regulations pursuant to Article 7(3)(a)(i)” .
9. On 18 August 2022, the appellant requested an internal review of Coillte’s decision.
10. On 16 September 2022, Coillte issued its internal review decision and in so doing affirmed the original decision.
11. On 7 October 2022, the appellant appealed to my Office.
12. On 21 October 2022, Coillte contacted this office and confirmed they had provided detailed submissions in a similar case, OCE-107718-J2P6T3.
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 the submissions made by the appellant and 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’).
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. The scope of this review firstly concerns whether Coillte can rely on article 4(1) to refuse the appellant’s request.
16. I note Coillte has sought to rely on both article 7(3)(a)(i) and 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE regulations. Article 7(3)(a) states;
“(a) Where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless—
(i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible, or
(ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable”.
In my view the use of ‘or’ in this exception implies a public authority should rely on either 7(3)(a)(i) or (ii), and not both. As Coillte have directed the appellant to this information in another form or manner than that requested, I will consider if it was reasonable for Coillte to do this under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE regulations.
Position of the parties
17. On 20 May 2022, Coillte advised this Office they were in the process of launching a Public Viewer through the ArcGIS platform, that would allow the public to download shapefiles. Coillte advised “Work is continuing on the Public Viewer to add additional datasets, such as felling licences for 2021, which will include the 1,864 felling licence applications to which [the appellant’s] request relates ”.
18. In a submission to this Office dated 9 August 2022, Coillte submits “All information sought by the appellant is easily accessible on the DAFM Felling License Viewer ”. Coillte outlined a standard list of attributes were created for felling licences including “Licence No; BAU; Forest Property; Harvest Block; FL Batch number; Area; Plan Year; Harvest Type; Status; Tree Clear; Windblow”. Coillte specified that the attribute data relevant to the appellants request was “Licence No; BAU; Forest Property; Harvest Block; FL Batch number; Area; Plan Year; Harvest Type; Status; Tree Clear; Windblow”.
19. Coillte stated they provide this “attribute data primarily in PDF format and partially in the shapefile, and the presentation of this attribute data is further customised by DAFM for use on the Forestry License Viewer ”.
20. Coillte submits “the AIE Regulations do not require a public authority to engage in additional processing of information to reproduce information that is already publicly available in another form or manner. The information is publicly available and easily accessible, and it is reasonable that it would be accessed in the format in which it is published. In this regard, I would refer to the Commissioner’s recent decision in Mr H and the National Transport Authority (OCE-108458-R3F5Z4) wherein the Commissioner found that to direct the NTA to produce the information sought by the appellant would go beyond his jurisdiction under the AIE Regulations, and that the NTA was not obligated under the AIE Regulations to produce summary information as sought by the appellant ”.
21. In a further submission dated 14 October 2022 Coillte outlined;
“1. Coillte does not hold shapefiles containing all of the attribute data specified by the appellant. It only holds shapefiles containing a single attribute – viz., the felling licence application number.
2. Coillte does hold records in other forms containing the other attribute data that the appellant seeks.
3. Coillte has provided all the information that the appellant has requested to DAFM, and that information is all available to the public and easily accessible via the DAFM Viewer and/or via a combination of the DAFM Viewer and the Coillte Public Viewer, albeit not in the form of shapefiles.
4. The appellant accepts that all the information he seeks is available via the Viewers but asserts that he is entitled to insist on access being provided in the form of shapefiles that Coillte does not hold.
5. Coillte would have to seek to create new shapefiles now, in response to the appellant’s request, in order to fulfil the terms of the request.”
22. Coillte set out “the matters the subject of this appeal remain wider than whether the information that is available to the public via the Viewers contains all of the information relevant to the appellant’s request in a form or manner that is easily accessible within the meaning of Article 7(3)(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. The appeal still includes the extent to which Article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations applies to this appellant’s request” .
23. The appellant submits there is “no definitive statutory basis for the release of the records requested. Therefore the argument for the application of 4 (1) to this case is not valid”. The appellant maintains he is “not asking Coillte to prepare a new set of information. I am asking it to extract a set of information from an existing body of information held in a geo-spatial format and for that information to be provided to me in GIS format” .
24. In light of the particular circumstances of this case, I decided that it would be appropriate to issue a draft decision to the parties and to invite their submissions on any additional point of fact, error of fact or error of law with reference to same. On 12 March 2026, a draft decision was provided to the parties. Coillte opted not to provide further submissions to this Office. The appellant put forth a number of points including the following observations:
• “I therefore submit that there is, at minimum, an error in the factual basis underpinning the draft decision and potentially, an error of law insofar as the conclusion on reasonableness has been reached without first establishing, by evidence, the form in which the information in fact existed and was held.”
• “reasonableness” cannot be divorced from practical utility and timeliness. A conclusion that an alternative manner of access was “reasonable” should not be reached without first establishing what information actually existed, in what format it existed, and whether it could in fact have been made available in a form that allowed timely and effective public participation.
I note the appellants concerns, however the function of this Office is to determine on the basis of the material available, whether the public authority’s decision is justified having regard to the provision of the regulations. The AIE regulations do not require the Commissioner to obtain and examine datasets in every case. The Commissioner is entitled to rely on submissions from public authorities as to how the information is held, in assessing whether access in another form or manner is reasonable within the meaning of article 7(3)(a)(ii).
Article 4(1)
25. Article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations states:
“These Regulations apply to environmental information other than, subject to sub-article (2), information that, under any statutory provision apart from these Regulations, is required to be made available to the public, whether for inspection or otherwise” .
26. Coillte maintain the information requested is required to be made publicly available under statutory provisions.
Regulation 10 of the Forestry Regulations 2017 provides as follows:
“(1) Where the Minister receives an application under [Regulation 3 for a felling licence], he or she shall, before making a decision on the matter, publish a notice of the application in a manner determined by the Minister .
(2) A notice under paragraph (1) shall state —
(a) the reference number of the application,
(b) the location, townland and county to which the application relates,
(c) the nature and extent of the proposed development,
(d) the nature of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision,
(e) that any person may make a submission or observation to the Minister within 30
days from the date of the notice or whatever longer timeframe appears on the
notice,
(f) where and when the application and documents may be viewed,
(g) any other details of public participation, and
(h) any other information that the Minister considers relevant.
(3) The Minister may make available for inspection to the public free of charge, or for purchase at a fee not exceeding the reasonable cost of doing so, the application, a map of the proposed development and any other information or documentation relevant to the application that the Minister has in his or her possession other than personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 where the data subject does not consent to the release of his or her personal data .”
27. Coillte maintain the information requested “is information that is required to be made available to the public under statutory provisions (being those in the forestry legislation above) other than the AIE Regulations”. Coillte state “it is not a matter of discretion for the Minister to make that information available under Regulation 10(3) – it is a statutory requirement. The manner in which the Minister has chosen to make that information available is by means of the DAFM Viewer ”.
28. Coillte have outlined the attribute data relevant to the appellants request is “Licence No; BAU; Forest Property; Harvest Block; FL Batch number; Area; Plan Year; Harvest Type; Status; Tree Clear; Windblow”.
29. Coillte note “that the appellant has in this appeal questioned whether the provisions of Article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations are indeed satisfied in this case, insofar as he claims that, whilst the information he requests is available on the Viewers, the Forestry Regulations do not contain a statutory “requirement” to make that information available (whether for inspection or otherwise). He points in this regard to the use of the word “may” in Regulation 10(3) of those Regulations” .
Coillte maintain “the Minister must, where (inter alia) a felling licence application is received under Regulation 3, and before making a decision on the matter, publish a notice of the application under Regulation 10(1), giving certain particulars” .
30. Coillte submits “By providing notice to the public of tree-felling licence applications, including the applications concerned (containing the prescribed particulars and attributes), together with associated maps, information and documentation, via the Forestry Licence Viewer, the Minister has determined that this is the means by which the DAFM should comply with and implement the requirements of Regulations 10(2) and (3) of the Forestry Regulations 2017” .
31. What I need to consider is if the information requested by the appellant has been published under a statutory requirement. The appellant had requested “GIS data (shapefiles (.shp) and attribute data) for the 1864 felling licence applications submitted by Coillte to Forest Service circa 15th March 2021” and “Shapefiles (.shp) and attribute data for all felling licences submitted by Coillte to date in 2022 ”. In particular, it is necessary for me to consider whether a statutory obligation to publish information relating to felling licence applications is equivalent to a statutory obligation to publish that information in the form requested by the appellant.
32. In my view article 4(1) needs to be interpreted narrowly. A public authority seeking to rely on this provision must clearly identify the statutory provision relied upon and demonstrate that the precise information requested is required by that provision to be made public.
33. Regulation 10(1) of the Forestry Regulations 2017 requires the Minister to publish a notice of a felling licence application and must include a reference number, a location, nature and extent of developments, and nature of decision or a draft decision where available. This provision clearly imposes a mandatory obligation to publish notice information.
34. Regulation 10(3) provides the Minister may make available for inspection the application, a map of proposed development and any other information or documentation relevant to the application. The use of the word ‘may’ indicates a degree of discretion rather than a mandatory statutory obligation. A discretionary power to publish information cannot be equated with a statutory requirement. While regulation 10 establishes a mandatory obligation to publish notice details, it does not require the publication of all information associated with an application.
35. In my view article 4(1) can only apply where the specific information requested is required to be made publicly available under a statutory provision. The appellant had specifically requested GIS data and the statutory provisions relied upon by Coillte do not require the publication of GIS shapefiles but rather the publication of notices and permit the publication of applications and maps. Additionally regulation 10(1) of the Forestry Regulations 2017 does not mandate the publication of all the attribute data requested by the appellant.
36. Accordingly, I find that article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations does not apply and the decision at issue fall within the scope of the AIE Regulations. As I have found that article 4(1) is not applicable, I will next consider Coillte’s reliance on the exception under article 7(3)(a)(ii).
Article 7(3)(a)(ii)
37. Article 6(1)(e) of the AIE Regulations provides that if an applicant desires access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, the request shall specify the form or manner of access desired. The appellant in this case clearly requested access to “GIS data (shapefiles (.shp) and attribute data) ”, in a format suitable for use in a GIS system. I am satisfied that the appellant specified the form/manner of access desired in accordance with article 6(1)(e) of the AIE Regulations.
38. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations provides a public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to the AIE Regulations, make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless (i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible or (ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable. Article 7(3)(b) provides that where a public authority decides to make available environmental information other than in the form or manner specified in the request, the reason therefore shall be given by the public authority in writing.
39. Article 3(4) of the AIE Directive goes on to state “[f]or the purposes of this paragraph, public authorities shall make all reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for them in forms or formats that are readily reproducible and accessible by computer telecommunications or by other electronic means ”. This wording, which is reflective of Article 5(3) of the Aarhus Convention, was not transposed by article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. However, I do note that article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations states that a public authority shall “make all reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for it in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible by information technology or by other electronic means ”.
40. It is important to note that it is not within my powers to examine the implementation of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations by public authorities generally. However, a public authority’s implementation of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations may impact its ability to rely on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. In cases involving article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations this Office may consider whether the particular information requested is the kind of environmental information that one would expect to be maintained in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible electronically. Greater implementation of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations by a public authority, may increase the likelihood that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations can be relied upon or that information can be obtained by members of the public without the need to submit an AIE Request. It is also of note that, while a public authority can only engage article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations where it has been determined that the information should properly be released under the AIE Regulations, the AIE Regulations are just one access regime and there is nothing in the AIE Regulations which precludes a public authority from providing access to information outside the regime, even if access would be denied as a result of one of the exemptions in the AIE Regulations.
41. I wish to highlight that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations can only be considered where a public authority has identified relevant information held by or for it, determined that information should properly be released (i.e. that no exemption provision in article 8 or 9 of the AIE Regulations (subject to article 10) applies), and has then decided to give access to that information other than in the form or manner requested.
42. Article 7(3)(a)(ii) allows a public authority to provide access in another form or manner where it would be reasonable to do so.
43. The reasonableness requirement in article 7(3)(a)(ii) must be interpreted teleologically in line with the purpose of the Directive (see National Asset Management Agency v Commissioner for Environmental Information [2015] IESC 51, paragraph 10). As article 7(3)(b) makes clear, it is for the public authority in question to provide reasons as to the basis on which it considers the provision of information in an alternative form or manner to be justified. Articles 3(5) and 7 of the AIE Directive also make it clear that arrangements must be in place to ensure the public are adequately supported in seeking access to information and that public authorities take steps to ensure that access can be effectively exercised. In my view the reasonableness test must be applied in a manner consistent with the goal of facilitating access rather than restricting it.
44. Coillte submits it does not hold the requested information in the specific form requested and argues “the information that the appellant is seeking, being a standalone shapefile with the specific attributes he has outlined, is not a layer that is extant and readily available and would in fact require to be custom built now by Coillte. As such, it is not information that Coillte currently holds, and Coillte is not under an obligation to prepare new sets of data for a particular requester ”.
45. The appellant maintains “Coillte has not demonstrated that the extraction of the information in to a single shapefile which includes the requested information would be unreasonable. Coillte has not indicated how long it would take to generate such a file ”. The issue which I need to consider is not whether Coillte must create new information but rather whether it is reasonable within the meaning of article 7(3)(a)(ii), for Coillte to provide access to the requested information in another form or manner. I note Coillte’s position “it does not hold shapefiles containing all of the information requested by the appellant, it is not required to attempt to create new shapefiles capturing that information so that it might provide those to the appellant ”.
46. Coillte have confirmed the attribute data sought by the appellant is “Licence No; BAU; Forest Property; Harvest Block; FL Batch number; Area; Plan Year; Harvest Type; Status; Tree Clear; Windblow”. Coillte maintain the information requested is publicly available on two viewers, DAFM forestry licence viewer and the Coillte viewer . Coillte note the majority of this information “is viewable in PDF format rather than downloadable as shapefiles ”. It should be noted access to the Coillte viewer requires the creation of a free ArcGIS account and the acceptance of Coillte’s terms and conditions prior to viewing the map details.
47. The appellant expressed concerns over the terms and conditions which states;
“We do not guarantee that the Web Viewer, or any content on it, will always be available or be uninterrupted. Coillte may suspend or withdraw or restrict the availability of all or part of the Viewer for business or operational reasons ”. A review by this Office 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 this decision. The Web Viewer is currently available and the terms and conditions as they are do not prohibit access to the information.
48. Coillte submits “it is not in the public interest to routinely provide publicly available information in another form or manner to serve the demands of any one person, and particularly where doing so would involve significant cost and time for the public authority in question ”. While I do not consider the administrative burden alone as a reason for refusing the request it is a relevant factor in assessing what is reasonable under article 7(3)(a)(ii), particularly where the requested information is not held by the public authority in the format requested.
49. It is important to note that neither the Directive or the Aarhus Convention require public authorities to create new environmental information in order to satisfy a request for information in a particular format. The obligation is to provide access to environmental information that is held by a public authority. The purpose of the provision of article 3(4) of the directive is to facilitate practical access to environmental information where that information already exists or where providing it in the requested format can be reasonably achieved. The provision cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on public authorities to generate new environmental information or to create new datasets or GIS layers where these do not already exist.
50. I consider it is reasonable in the circumstance for Coillte to provide access to the information requested via the publicly available viewers rather than in the shapefile format requested by the appellant. I am satisfied that access in another form or manner is reasonable within the meaning of article 7(3)(a)(ii). I have had regard to the facts that the underlying environmental information is publicly available, Coillte does not hold the requested standalone shapefiles containing all the requested attributes and the provision of the information in the requested format would require Coillte to create these shapefiles. While the form the information is provided in may not suit the appellants needs for inclusion in a GIS system, the information is publicly available, and I would not view it as reasonable to expect Coillte to provide each of the attribute data to the appellant in shapefile form when they do hot hold the information in this form.
51. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby vary Coillte’s decision. While I annul its decision under article 4(1), and article 7(3)(a)(i), I affirm its decision under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations to give access to the information at issue by directing the appellant to the Department’s ’s forestry licence viewer and Coillte’s viewer.
52. 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