Decision
Mr X and Forestry Appeals Committee
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-147252-M0K2N4
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-147252-M0K2N4
Published on
Whether the FAC’s decision under articles 4(1) and 7(3) of the AIE Regulations to give access to the information at issue in 827 decisions for the years 2020-2024 to the date of the appellant’s request by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website was justified.
20 November 2025
1. On 3 January 2024, the appellant wrote to the FAC stating, “[c]an you please explain why decisions of the FAC are not published in a format that permits for the searching and copying of text? In future can you please ensure that all published decisions of the FAC are in an appropriate format for examination and reproduction of the text content. If you do not publish them in this format I will be putting in AIE requests for them in a searchable and copiable format. To that end, please provide a copy of LS09-FL0188 in a format that permits for the searching and copying of text.”
2. The FAC responded stating “[w]hen you are on the website and have selected a decision. You need to save the decision letter to your system. Then when you open the decision letter from your system, it will then be in PDF and you can search through the letter and copy text. I have attached the PDF version of the decision letter for LS09 FL0188.” The appellant replied commenting “[t]hat is precisely what I have done and I am left with a PDF document which is not searchable and text cannot be copied other than as a screenshot [example provided].”
3. On 8 January 2024, the appellant submitted an AIE request to the FAC seeking access to “a searchable / copiable version of all decisions of the FAC”. He further commented “[t]o clarify; I am seeking a version of the decision in a format which can be searched and where text can be copied and not a scanned version where neither of these functions is possible.”
4. On 7 February 2024, the FAC issued its original decision, wherein it stated it was granting the appellant’s request. The FAC noted that the request concerned approximately 956 decisions, 827 of which are in pdf format available online (decisions from 2020 – 2024) and 129 of which are contained in two word documents identified (decisions from 2018 and 2019). The FAC explained that it started publishing decisions in January 2020 with a link containing a table of decisions for each week, noted that its website also makes available an excel spreadsheet with a list of all the decisions, and stated that the decisions and the excel spreadsheet can be found at: https://www.agriappeals.gov.ie/forestryappealscommittee/facdecisions/
5. In respect of decisions from 2018 and 2019, FAC provided the appellant with two word documents entitled “Redacted Decisions for 2019” and “Redacted Decisions for 2018”. The FAC explained that the reason these documents are called “Redacted Decisions for 2019” and “Redacted Decisions for 2018” is because the applicant and/or appellant personal information was removed when the information was collated. The FAC stated that the information sought had been provided in the format requested.
6. In respect of decisions from 2020 – 2024 the FAC referred to article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations, indicating that the information is being made available in a form/manner other than that requested as the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible and the manner in which it has been made available is reasonable. The FAC further commented: “The reason for not providing the 2020 to 2024 decisions in the format requested is that we don’t have the decision letters in word format and it would be unreasonable as it would be a disproportionate administrative burden to provide approximately 827 decisions in Word format which would involve reading, editing/redacting personal information, etc.”
7. On 8 February 2024, the appellant sought an internal review of the FAC’s decision. He stated:
“I wish to request an internal review of the decision not to release those decisions which are not in Word (or equivalent) format (note that non-scanned pdf's could be produced which would allow for copying)
The request has not been processed in accordance with the Regulations as the FAC has not demonstrated that the exception applies and has not carried out a public interest test.
In issuing a decision can you please indicate in what format the hearing decisions are created by the Committee and the process by which any redactions are made and the documents published on the FAC website.
They are clearly not produced in scanned format so why are they being issued to the public in a scanned format?
There is no reason why the published Hearing Decisions could not be created in a non-scanned PDF format. The FAC appears to be expecting the public to accept a second rate product compared to what is available to itself.”
8. On 6 March 2024, the FAC issued its internal review decision. The FAC noted that available word documents, which were unpublished, with the 2018 and 2019 decisions had been provided to the appellant. The FAC affirmed its decision regarding the 2020 – 2024 decisions under article 7(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the AIE Regulations, noting that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations provides:
“(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.
(b) 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.”
9. The FAC reiterated its position that for the years 2020 – 2024 the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible at the following web address: www.agriappeals.gov.ie/forestryappealscommittee/facdecisions/ www.agriappeals.gov.ie/forestryappealscommittee/facdecisions/ and the alternative format is permitted under article 7(3)(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. It also reiterated its position that providing access through that web address is reasonable and is permitted under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations. The FAC submitted that in accordance with article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations, the original decision explained to do otherwise, the 2020 – 2024 decisions, which are not in word format would require the reading, editing/redacting, etc. of approximately 827 decisions, “a task which would be an unreasonable and disproportionate administrative burden.” The FAC reiterated that the provision of the information in the format requested, whether provided in word format or in a copiable/searchable pdf format (i.e. not scanned), “would entail a disproportionate administrative burden, as due to the large amount of decisions, a considerable amount of time and additional resources would be required to change the format.”
10. Separately, the FAC also referred to article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations, noting that it provides:
“[t]hese 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.”
11. The FAC stated that “without prejudice” to its findings described above, it also believed that the information sought is outside the scope of the AIE Regulations in accordance with article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations. The FAC noted that SI No. 418/2020 – Forestry Appeals Committee Regulations 2020 provides at Regulation 7(6), “The Forestry Appeals Committee shall publish on a website maintained by or on behalf of the committee, as may be decided by the committee, any or all of the following… (c) any decision of the Forestry Appeals Committee.” The FAC indicated that as the AIE Regulations do not apply to environmental information that is required to be made available to the public under another statutory regime and the decisions sought are made available pursuant to SI 418 of 2020, the information at issue is also outside the scope of the AIE Regulations.
12. On 11 March 2024, the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office.
13. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In doing so, I have had regard to the correspondence between the FAC and the appellant as outlined above and to correspondence between this Office and both the FAC and the appellant on the matter. 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. In his statement of appeal to this Office, regarding the 2018 and 2019 decisions and the two word documents provided he commented “the granted information is not a full copy of the information sought; but merely a synopsis - however it is in the format requested. I did not request a synopsis. The full hearing decisions contain much more detail than has been provided in the Word document synopsis. On this basis I do not consider that the FAC has granted my request.”
17. It is important to note that a review by this Office is limited in scope by the wording of an appellant’s original request or, where relevant, internal review request, and, while it can be narrowed further, it cannot be expanded. As outlined above, the appellant, in his internal review request, stated:
“I wish to request an internal review of the decision not to release those decisions which are not in Word (or equivalent) format (note that non-scanned pdf's could be produced which would allow for copying)
The request has not been processed in accordance with the Regulations as the FAC has not demonstrated that the exception applies and has not carried out a public interest test.
In issuing a decision can you please indicate in what format the hearing decisions are created by the Committee and the process by which any redactions are made and the documents published on the FAC website.
They are clearly not produced in scanned format so why are they being issued to the public in a scanned format?
There is no reason why the published Hearing Decisions could not be created in a non-scanned PDF format. The FAC appears to be expecting the public to accept a second rate product compared to what is available to itself.”
18. I acknowledge that in his original request the appellant sought access to “a searchable / copiable version of all decisions of the FAC”. However, the appellant made no specific reference in his internal review request to the word documents provided regarding the 2018 and 2019 decisions, rather he appeared to focus on the decisions given by way of the scanned pdf versions that are currently published, which date from 2020. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is reasonable to conclude that the appellant narrowed the scope at internal review to those decisions from 2020. The appellant did not dispute this in his most recent submissions to this Office.
19. In its internal review decision the FAC referred to articles 4(1) and 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. In its submissions to this Office, the FAC also explained that information is redacted from decisions published to its website under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations. The FAC stated: “[t]he personal information redacted is as follows: Name, address, email address of the applicant/appellant and signature of the FAC member who signs the letter.” During the course of this review, the appellant confirmed to this Office that “the address, email address of the applicant/appellant and signature of the FAC member who signs the letter” could be excluded from the scope of this review, however the name of the applicant/appellant and the FAC member who signs the letter remained in scope. I note that the names of the FAC members are printed in the published decisions.
20. As noted, the FAC explained that information is redacted from decisions published to its website under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations, while acknowledging that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine publishes the names of applicants under section 7(4) of S.I. 418/2020 “On receipt of the notice referred to in paragraph (1) the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, publish notice of the appeal detailing the decision being appealed and the name of the appellant on a publicly available website.” I understand, the full names of the applicants / appellants to the FAC are published on the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine’s website where valid appeals are made. The Department’s website currently includes a list of valid FAC Appeals up to and including 07 October 2025. The Department systematically publishes this data.
21. In subsequent correspondence to this Office, having considered the matter further, in particular the fact that the names of applicants / appellants to the FAC are published to the Department’s website, the FAC stated that it was no longer of the view that article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations applies to the names, which it considers to be environmental information, and going forward it was no longer going to redact the names of the applicants / appellants on the decision letters published. It remained of the view that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations applied in respect of the decisions for the years 2020 – 2024.
22. Having regard to all of the above and given the de novo nature of a review by this Office, I am satisfied that the scope of this review concerns whether the FAC’s decision under articles 4(1) and 7(3) of the AIE Regulations to give access to the information at issue in 827 decisions for the years 2020 – 2024 to the date of the appellant’s request by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website was justified.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Adequate reasons must be given in respect of any reliance on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations in accordance with article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations The duty to give reasons, which arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and the AIE Directive, is recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (see, for example, Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and Balz & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2019] IESC 90).
26. In his recent submissions to this Office, the appellant raised a query related to previous cases on a different issue he had regarding the FAC, however I do not consider that query relevant to this matter which is concerned with articles 4(1) and 7(3) of the AIE Regulations.
27. The FAC in its internal review decision, stated that “without prejudice” to its findings regarding 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, it also believed that the information sought is outside the scope of the AIE Regulations in accordance with article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations.
28. The FAC noted that SI No. 418/2020 – Forestry Appeals Committee Regulations 2020 provides at Regulation 7(6), “The Forestry Appeals Committee shall publish on a website maintained by or on behalf of the committee, as may be decided by the committee, any or all of the following… (c) any decision of the Forestry Appeals Committee.” The FAC indicated that as the AIE Regulations do not apply to environmental information that is required to be made available to the public under another statutory regime and the decisions sought are made available pursuant to SI 418 of 2020, the information at issue is also outside the scope of the AIE Regulations.
29. Given that article 4(1) sets out the scope of the AIE Regulations, I will deal with that article first before proceeding to consider articles 7(3) or 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations, if necessary. Article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations provides:
(1) “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.
(2) Notwithstanding—
(a) section 38 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (No. 30 of 2000) and any regulations made thereunder,
(b) sections 10 and 31 of the Air Pollution Act 1987 (No. 6 of 1987) and any regulations made thereunder, and
(c) sections 6 and 89 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992(No. 7 of 1992) (as amended by the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 (No. 27 of 2003)) and any regulations made thereunder, environmental information held by, or on behalf of, a public authority shall be made available accordance with these Regulations.”
30. As indicated above, in relying on article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations, the FAC referred to SI No. 418/2020 – Forestry Appeals Committee Regulations 2020 . I note that Regulation 7 “Notification of appeal and information supplied” provides:
(1) “The Forestry Appeals Committee shall notify the Minister of each notice of appeal.
(2) The Minister shall, in relation to each notice of appeal, furnish the Forestry Appeals Committee with the following –
(a) a statement showing the extent to which the facts and contentions advanced by the appellant are admitted or disputed, and
(b) information, documents or items in the power or control of the Minister that is relevant to the appeal.
(3) Where the appeal is made by a person who is not the applicant or licensee under the enactment or statutory instrument set out in Schedule 2 of the Act, the Minister shall notify the applicant or licensee of the appeal and grounds of appeal.
(4) On receipt of the notice referred to in paragraph (1) the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, publish notice of the appeal detailing the decision being appealed and the name of the appellant on a publicly available website.
(5) The Forestry Appeals Committee shall, as soon as practicable after receiving a notice of appeal, give a copy to each other party to the appeal.
(6) The Forestry Appeals Committee shall publish on a website maintained by or on behalf of the committee, as may be decided by the committee, any or all of the following: (a) information and documents provided, for the purposes of an appeal, by a party to an appeal or by a person other than a party to an appeal; (b) a link to a website hosting documents relating to the decision subject of the appeal; (c) any decision of the Forestry Appeals Committee.”
31. During the course of this review, the Investigator noted to the FAC that, having considered the wording of Regulation 7(6) of SI No. 18/2020, particularly the “any or all” of (a) to (c) aspect of that provision, she did not consider it is sufficient to satisfy the engagement of article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations. In response, the FAC stated: “…reference to the Committee ‘shall publish’ (opposed to ‘may’) in section 7(6) together with the fact that the Committee is already effectively publishing the documents referred at item ‘c) any decision of the Forestry Appeals Committee’, can reasonably be regarded as ‘information that, under any statutory provisions apart from these Regulations, is required to be made available to the public, whether for inspection or otherwise’ and therefore the derogation of regulation 4(1) of the AIE Regulations would apply in this scenario.”
32. As indicated, article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations provides that the AIE 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. I am satisfied that article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations in using the phrase “is required” refers to a statutory provision mandating the information be made available to the public. Having considered the wording of Regulation 7(6) of SI No. 418/2020, while I note that it states that the FAC “shall publish” and it is practice that decisions are published, I agree with my investigator that it necessary to draw particular attention to the “any or all” of (a) to (c) aspect of that provision and I also do not consider that it is sufficient to satisfy the engagement of article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations in respect of the decisions at issue; there is no explicit requirement that decisions are published.
33. Accordingly, I find that article 4(1) of the AIE Regulations does not apply and the decisions at issue fall within the scope of the AIE Regulations.
34. 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 copiable/searchable versions of FAC decisions. I am satisfied that the appellant specified the form/manner of access desired in accordance with article 6(1)(e) of the AIE Regulations.
35. 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.
36. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations transposes part of Article 3(4) of the AIE Directive, which provides that where an applicant requests a public authority to make environmental information available in a specific form or format (including in the form of copies), the public authority shall make it so available unless (a) it is already publicly available in another form or format which is easily accessible by applicants or (b) it is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form or format, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form or format.
37. 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”.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. As noted, the FAC is no longer refusing access to the names of applicants / appellants under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations and going forward it is no longer going to redact the names of the applicants / appellants on the decision letters published, however the names of applicants/appellants remain redacted in the decision letters published for 2020 – 2024. The FAC acknowledged that the names of applicants/appellants are available on the Department’s website. It outlined that it remained of the view that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations applied in respect of the decisions for the years 2020 – 2024.
41. Therefore, having regard to the de novo nature of this review, the question I must consider is whether the FAC’s decision under article 7(3) to give access to the information at issue in the 827 decisions for the years 2020-2024 to the date of the appellant’s request other than in the form or manner requested (copiable/searchable) by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website was justified.
42. Some of the FAC’s correspondence to this Office pre-dated its position that article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations did not apply to the names of applicants/appellants and therefore there is reference to the redaction of such information in the summary of the FAC’s submissions that I have detailed below. There is also further information redacted from the decision letters published which the FAC considers to be personal information and is withheld under article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations: “address, email address of the applicant/appellant and signature of the FAC member who signs the letter.” The appellant confirmed to this Office that such information could be taken outside the scope of this review. While I have not made a determination on whether article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations applies to the information that falls outside scope, it is my initial view, given the type of information, that article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations would likely apply to some of the information concerned, having regard to article 10.
43. In response to the Investigator’s query seeking clarification as to whether the scanned pdf copies of the decisions available on the FAC website are the only copies/versions of the decisions available to the FAC and whether the FAC holds any other copies/versions of the decisions that as published on the FAC website, the FAC stated:
“We have PDF copies that haven’t been redacted but they contain personal information, names and addresses of appellants and applicants. They also contain the signature of the FAC member who signed the letter, this is also redacted prior to publishing on the website. We redact by printing the document, redacting and then scanning the document.”
44. The Investigator noted to the FAC that it appears that in certain cases copiable/searchable pdf copies/versions of the decisions are published on the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine’s Forestry Licence Viewer (e.g. CN88764, FAC decision letter on the FLV). In response to her query as to whether the FAC provides these decisions to the Department, the FAC stated:
“We provide PDF versions to the Forestry Division of the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine’s to inform them of the FAC’s decision on the appeal. I don’t know why they don’t redact the personal information, the FAC functions independently of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.”
45. The Investigator asked the FAC whether the decisions are drafted in word prior to signature and whether the FAC has access to the copies of the decisions as drafted either in word and/or pdf. She also asked that, if it did not have access, to provide details of the FAC’s procedures and retention policies (noting that that in the original decision the FAC stated “we don’t have the decision letters in word format”). In response, the FAC stated:
“The FAC provides admin with the final version of the decision letter in PDF format. This is the only copy of the decision letter retained.”
46. The Investigator noted that the FAC had stated that the reading, editing/redacting, etc. of approximately 827 decisions would be required. She asked the FAC to provide further details regarding what information would need to be edited/redacted; identify what information in the decisions is not published to the FAC website; and to explain why the FAC considers this task (i.e. the editing/redacting) to be “a task which would be an unreasonable and disproportionate administrative burden.” In response, the FAC stated:
“We redact personal information as per the AIE regulations 8(a)(i) and we would only have access to PDF versions, it would not be possible to release the PDF document without redaction, it is because of the redaction (printing of decision letter, redaction of personal information and scanning of the document) that makes the letters unsearchable. I am not sure how we could release the PDF documents in another format other than the format they are currently available because of having to redact information.”
47. The Investigator noted that the FAC had also stated that whether provided in word format or in a copiable/searchable pdf format (i.e. not scanned), this “would entail a disproportionate administrative burden, as due to the large amount of decisions, a considerable amount of time and additional resources would be required to change the format.” She asked the FAC (a) to provide an estimate of the amount of time and staff resources that would be required to provide unredacted versions of the decisions in word format or in a copiable/searchable pdf format (i.e. not scanned), indicating the steps involved; and (b) to provide an estimate of the amount of time and staff resources that would be required to provide redacted versions of the decisions in word format or in a copiable/searchable pdf format (i.e. not scanned), indicating the steps involved. In response, the FAC stated:
“We redact personal information as per the AIE regulations 8(a)(i) and we would only have access to PDF versions, it would not be possible to release the PDF document without redaction, it is because of the redaction that makes the letters unsearchable.
There are three members of the administration team. The team process appeals, all correspondence and communications for the FAC. The team schedules and host hearings for the FAC. The team is also responsible for finance, AIE’s and FOIs, along with all other administrative tasks associated with the running of the office and supporting the FAC. It would take approximately 42 weeks to complete if all 827 letters had to be redacted again. I am estimating that the team would be able to process 20 of the letters per week. I am unsure as how the letters could be redacted and then be available in a searchable format.
I have also had regard to Regulation 5 (1) of the AIE Regulations… The information at issue in this case is already published information and is easily accessible through the website, can be downloaded, can be printed etc.”
48. The FAC also clarified that it was not aware if all decisions of the FAC for 2020 to 2024 are published in copiable/searchable pdf copies/versions on the FLV, reiterating “the FAC would provide a copy of every decision to DAFM but I would not be able to say what happens the letter then as the FAC functions independently of DAFM.”
49. I am satisfied that the FAC has proposed to provide access to the information at issue in the 827 decisions for the years 2020 – 2024 to the date of the appellant’s request other than in the form requested (searchable/copiable), by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website under article 7(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Regulations. I must consider whether the FAC’s decision was justified under either part of article 7(3) or whether it is appropriate to direct the FAC to provide the appellant with copiable/searchable pdf copies of the decisions held by it for the years 2020-2024 to the date of the appellant’s request, with the inclusion of the name of the applicant/appellant (to which the FAC states it is no longer refusing access, however remains redacted from the decisions currently published) and the redaction of information that falls outside the scope of this review - the address and email address of the applicants/appellants and the signature of the FAC member who signs the letter (as noted, while I have not made a determination on whether article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations applies to the information that falls outside scope, it is my initial view, given the type of information, that article 8(a)(i) of the AIE Regulations would likely apply to some of the information concerned, having regard to article 10.)
50. Having considered the FAC’s submissions detailed above, the Investigator wrote to the FAC querying the steps that would be required to provide the appellant with the information sought in the form or manner requested.
51. In response, the FAC outlined the following details to support its on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, explaining the steps from receipt of the decision letter by the administration team to publishing it on the FAC website:
• The administration team provides administrative support to the FAC. There are currently three people who work full time on the FAC administration team.
• The administration team receive the FAC decision via email in either pdf or scanned pdf form. The administration team receive a decision letter for the appellant(s) and a decision letter for the applicant. The FAC is not able to say for certain that all decision letters received since 2020 were in pdf; some may have been in scanned pdf (i.e. the FAC member may have printed the letter, signed their signature and scanned it and then sent the decision to the administration team for circulation to the parties).
• The administration team does not have access to the word version of the decision letter – the only copies it has are the pdf or scanned pdf versions.
• The administration team then circulates the decision to the parties of the appeal, the appellant(s), the applicant and the Forestry Division of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
• The administration team then redacts the personal information from the decision letters – the name and address of the applicant/appellant and the signature of the FAC member. This is done by printing the letter and using correction fluid or black marker to remove personal the personal information, then scanning the decision letter. The administration team does not have access to redaction software (e.g. Nitro).
• The administration team prepares a table for the FAC website e.g. Agriculture Appeals Office - Week Ending 16/05/2025 https://www.agriappeals.gov.ie/forestryappealscommittee/facdecisions/2025/weekending16052025/. The table and the redacted scanned pdf are sent to the web team for publication.
• Once the redacted scanned pdf is published, the administrative team updates the excel spreadsheet on the website that displays - the FAC reference, Licence reference, the hectares/meters of the site, the scheme, townland, County, date of the Department decision, the date of FAC decision and what the FAC decision was. The redacted scanned pdf decision is hyperlinked to the licence reference. Members of the public can filter all decisions since 2020 using this. This spreadsheet can be accessed on the Agriculture Appeals Office website.
52. During the course of this review, the Investigator provided the appellant with a summary of the FAC’s submissions. In response, the appellant included the following comments:
• “The FAC administration is stating that it does not have access to the Word version of the decisions but those decisions are provided by the FAC. How has the FAC administration determined that the PDF's provided by the Members are the only versions retained?”
• “Those decisions are created by the Members of the FAC responsible for producing the decision and it must be considered that those versions are held either directly by the FAC or for the FAC by the Members of the FAC. Why would a Member of the FAC delete the original document which contains the decision? What is the retention procedure for such documents? Note that the FAC does not appear to have any formal written procedures.”
• “Has the FAC administration contacted the Members concerned to seek the original version of the decision in Word format prior to it being submitted to the FAC Administration?”
• “The administration and the Members are both parts of the FAC. The Administration team are trying to imply a disconnect between the two where no such disconnect exists. They are both part of the same public authority.”
53. While I acknowledge the appellant’s contentions and note his frustration, it is outside the remit of this Office to adjudicate on how public authorities carry out their functions generally, including with respect to their environmental information management practices. I have no role in assessing how public authorities collect, maintain and disseminate environmental information. My role concerns reviewing appeals of requests for access to environmental information within the scope of the request, which is held by or for the relevant public authority and no more than that. I note the appellant’s view that the FAC members may have word versions of the decisions, however the FAC stated to this Office that the FAC (I understand this to be the members) “provides admin with the final version of the decision letter in PDF format. This is the only copy of the decision letter retained”. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt that the general policy is that only the final version of the decision letter in PDF format is retained, either by the administration team or the FAC members themselves. I also consider that in order to establish otherwise, it would be necessary for the FAC members and administration team to carry out searches for word versions of 827 decisions and to ensure that any documents located are in fact the finalised versions of such decisions. The appellant also submitted that “there are currently four members of the FAC administration team”. I note the FAC in its recent submissions stated “there are currently three people who work full time on the FAC administration team” and I note that this is reflected on the Agriculture Appeals Office Organisation Chart (*Correct as of June 2025) available on the FAC website. It is clear that there are three staff members in Forestry Appeals Administration and a fourth staff member that is responsible for both Agri Appeals and FAC Administration.
54. The appellant noted his view that the FAC’s decision under article 7(3) is not reasonable “because it cannot be assured that all of the requested information is available in a searchable/ copiable format on the DAFM website. That would be to base the decision on an assumption. Not all decisions are published - a fact alluded to by the FAC itself.” It is important to reiterate that is review concerns the FAC’s decision to give access to the information at issue in 827 decisions for the years 2020 – 2024 to the date of the appellant’s request by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website was justified. I have not verified that each and every scanned decision on the FAC’s website corresponds to a name contained on the list maintained by the Department, however given that Regulation 6(7) of SI No. 418/2020 – Forestry Appeals Committee Regulations 2020 requires the Minister, as soon as practicable, to publish notice of the appeal detailing the decision being appealed and the name of the appellant on a publicly available website, I have no reason to doubt that the decisions published on the FAC website correspond to names on the Department’s website.
55. The appellant stated “[i]t is fundamental to my request that the information is copiable/searchable. In the absence of this the information is already available and there would be no need for my request at all. Having searchable/copiable decisions allows for searches by keywords. It allows for analysis of the decision. Absent this capacity my request is neutered.” The AIE Regulations make it clear that the default position is that an appellant is entitled to be provided with information in the form or manner requested. It is only possible to depart from that default position where the requirements of article 7(3)(a)(i) or 7(3)(a)(ii) are satisfied. In light of the FAC’s submissions I consider it appropriate to consider article 7(3)(a)(ii) before considering article 7(3)(a)(i), if necessary. Accordingly, I will consider if it is reasonable for the FAC to provide access to the information at issue in 827 decisions for the years 2020 – 2024 to the date of the appellant’s request by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website .
56. 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.
57. As a starting point, I note that the decisions in question are currently freely available on the FAC website in scanned PDF form. The decision are published regularly and are organised by date. As of today, the website is up-to-date to week ending 14/11/2025. The decisions can be downloaded by the viewer. I also note that there are a number of free software programmes or websites available online that would allow a member of the public to make a PDF searchable for free.
58. Based on this, I consider it reasonable to state that the FAC are proactively publishing decisions of the Forestry Appeals Committee. The decisions are freely accessible by information technology and are accurate up-to-date. The decisions can be downloaded and could be easily copied or emailed by members of the public.
59. Having considered the FAC’s submissions in full, I am satisfied that the FAC has adequately set out its reasons why it is reasonable to provide the appellant with access to the information sought in a form or manner other than specified in the request. I acknowledge that the FAC does not have access to software (e.g. Nitro), which would allow it to more efficiently redact the pdf documents, reducing the administrative burden described, and would support the pdfs being searchable/copiable. While I would encourage those responsible to make this software available to the FAC administration team, that is a matter of resources and is outside the jurisdiction of this Office. I note that the FAC would be required to examine the 827 decisions at issue and while it is no longer refusing access to the names of applicants / appellants, it would still be required to redact the information that falls outside the scope of this review. I note the small size of the FAC organisation. It is important to state that this case is only concerned with the factual circumstances and information at issue. Any decision made in this case does not create a precedent; each case is considered on its own merits.
60. While I acknowledge that the FAC website does not have features in relation to searching and copying that are available on, for example, this Office’s website, I consider that on the whole, it is reasonable to expect the appellant to access the information sought via the FAC website. I am satisfied both that the information is already available to the public in a form or manner other than that sought by the appellant that is easily accessible, and that access in this form or manner would be reasonable. As noted above, my jurisdiction relates solely to the internal review decision in this appeal. I would however encourage the FAC to consider how it can continue to optimise and improve the manner in which it makes its decisions available on its website going forward.
61. In conclusion, I find that the FAC’s decision under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations to give access to the information at issue in 827 decisions for the years 2020-2024 to the date of the appellant’s request by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website was justified.
62. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby vary the FAC’s decision. While I annul its decision under article 4(1), I affirm its decision under article 7(3)(a)(ii) of the AIE Regulations to give access to the information at issue in 827 decisions for the years 2020-2024 to the date of the appellant’s request by way of scanned pdfs on the FAC website and names available on the Department’s website.
63. 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