Decision
Mr. F. & Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-140357-L2B7R1
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-140357-L2B7R1
Published on
Whether the Department’s decision under article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations on the appellant’s request for environmental information was justified.
26 March 2026
1. By request dated 13 June 2023, the appellant sought the following information;
The iFORIS Forest Roads Database maintained by the Forest Service of DAFM as of 1-1-2022
(Attribute data to include Contract Number, Applicant Identifier, Location, Length (Harvest, Bellmouth, Upgrade), Status, Current Standing, Year of Approval, Grant Assisted, Date Form 2 Received, Date Form 2 Approved, Start Date, Completion Date, OS Map No.)
I request that the information is provided as soon as possible in GIS format (ERSI Shapefiles and Attribute Data).
2. The Department delivered its original decision on 15 June 2023 and refused the information sought on the basis of article 9 (1) (a), namely on the grounds of concern for public security. Article 9. (1)(a) permits a public authority to refuse to make available environmental information where disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect (a) international relations, national defence or public security.
3. The Department stated: “Considering the heightened security risks concerning data obtained and retained by Government organisations with a significant amount being personal data/information, the increase in Artificial Intelligence software, and the potential for cyber attacks that could significantly impact the core operations of forestry division and wider Department. I feel that it would be prudent and in the best interest of the public that access to this database remain restricted.” It also stated that it had carried out a public interest balancing test.
4. The appellant sought an internal review of the matter on 19 June 2023.
5. The Department delivered its internal review on 04 July 2023 and affirmed its original decision. The appellant appealed to this Office on 10 July 2023 and provided submissions in support of his appeal. He stated;
“I wish to appeal the decision of DAFM to refuse the request of AIE 23 364 on the basis of Article 9 (1) (a) of the AIE Regulations. My request is for information in GIS format. It does not request access to the database; it is requesting information from the database. My request is seeking a shapefile of the iFORIS Forest Road database. An earlier version of the requested information has been provided to me by DAFM without any security issues. This request was effectively to update my system with the latest information (which would now be out of date by 18 months). DAFM could easily make an extract from the database to include the requested attributes. It would be a very simple task for anyone competent in using GIS.
There is a case to be made that DAFM should make this information available in live format via a web-browser. DAFM has failed to justify the application of Article 9 (1) (a). Any public security issues that DAFM considers may arise are purely hypothetical. “There are substantial dangers associated with making the entire Forestry Division database public, along with all the sensitive information stored on it which includes names, addresses, PPSNs and amounts of money paid to applicants.” My request is not for the entire Forestry Division database to be made public. If a shapefile is provided I fail to see how there can be any compromise to security. DAFM is in control of what information is included in the released information. My request lists specific information that I wish to be included as attribute data and none of it is personal information or sensitive information. DAFM is at liberty to make a case for refusing any information that it considers to be personal information or information that would adversely affect international relations, national defence or public security. However DAFM also is obliged to apply Article 10 (5) to its decision but has failed to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that DAFM has not demonstrated that Article 9 (1) (a) applies the weighing of the public interest is generic and has not considered the specific merits of the release of the particular information sought.”
6. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the Department. 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’).
7. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced, but all relevant points have been considered.
8. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the role of this Office is to review the public authority's internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, the Commissioner will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
9. The Department, during the course of this investigation, amended its position and now accepts that the original decision maker, affirmed in the internal review, was incorrect in relying on article 9 (1) (a) of the AIE regulations when refusing the requested information. This position was set out in submissions to this Office in 2026. As the Department no longer seeks to rely on this provision, and accepts it was incorrectly applied, I do not consider it necessary to examine it in any level of detail, save to note this change of position has come a considerable length of time after the appeal was brought to this Office.
10. A review by this Office is considered to be de novo, which means that it is based on the circumstances and the law at the time of a decision. This approach has been endorsed by the decision of the High Court in M50 Skip Hire Recycling Limited v The Commissioner for Environmental Information [2020] IEHC 430. The Department states that the majority of the requested information is now publicly available on the FLV. It states that this information does not currently exist in the form or structure requested by the appellant. Accordingly, this decision concerns whether the Department’s decision under article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations on the appellant’s request for environmental information was justified.
11. In correspondence with this Office dated 27 January 2026, the Department stated that the requested information does not currently exist in the form or structure requested by the appellant but most of it is now available online.
12. While the Department has not explicitly sought to rely on article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations – I consider it relevant as it 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.
13. 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. In that regard, I note that the Department has stated that most of the information relevant to the appellant’s request is now available online via the Open Data Portal. I consider this to mean that the Department has identified relevant information held by it and determined that information should be properly released.
14. In cases involving article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, this Office may consider whether the 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. The Department stated it has “at significant cost and development effort”, made the FLV spatial data available via the Open Data Portal as of May/June of 2025. A named spatial data expert advised that most of the information requested in the original request is available from the Open Data Portal (links provided) and other information is available on the FLV with the use of contract numbers. The appellant, for his part, does not seem to be disputing the availability of the information he has requested as published on the Open Data Portal.
15. The Department advised that a named subject matter expert, who is a grade 2 Forestry Inspector in Foresty Operational Support unit and the Department’s lead in forestry mapping and geographic information systems had been contacted in relation to the information sought. The named Forestry Inspector confirmed that the Department would need to create a new record(s) to provide the information requested stating “this is a bespoke data request which will require interaction with our system developers to extract the data in the form requested with the associated fields of information included.”
16. The Department stated that public authorities are not required to extract and manipulate raw data to create a new dataset or reconfigure data to generate a custom output, but that it is the duty under the AIE Regulations to provide access to existing records, not create new data. The Department also stated that, in order to provide the requested information, the subject matter expert would need to raise a JIRA with specific requirements and interact with the Department’s system developers in regard to constructing the relevant SQL query. Depending on the forestry program / road scheme, some of the data may or may not be available for specific years. The Subject Matter Expert would need to review the outputs generated by the developers to ensure they are in the form requested and this may take several iterations in terms of interactions with the developers to ensure all the requested data is present (or not) and if not, to determine why the requested data is not available etc. The Department stated this interaction will likely take some time given the ongoing work and system development scheduled at the moment, and to reiterate, would constitute the creation of a new record.
17. In this context, I am satisfied that the decision of the Department to effectively rely on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations was reasonable in the circumstances and therefore justified under the AIE Regulations.
18. Finally, it is necessary for me to address the Department’s reliance on article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations in this case. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision of the Regulations when a request is refused on the grounds that a public authority does not hold the information sought, as follows:
“7(5) where a request is made to a public authority and the information requested is not held by or for the authority concerned, that authority shall inform the applicant as soon as possible that the information is not held by or for it.”
19. In cases where refusal is based on article 7(5) of the Regulations, the reasons for the conclusion that no relevant information is held by or for the public authority should be provided to the appellant. In the Department’s submissions, there appears to be some confusion between its reliance on article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, and article 7(3). I have set out above why I consider article 7(3) to be most relevant to the points made by the Department.
20. However, I do note that the Department states while “most” of the information requested by the appellant is now available on the Open Data Portal, this indicates a portion of the request is being refused on the basis that it is not held by the Department. I have taken considerable note of the subject matter expert’s comments in this regard. He stated that some of the“information requested would not be available at all for pre-2022 schemes, e.g. Bellmouth” . This was put to the appellant who did not appear to question that further information exists or should exist in relation to his request. Accordingly, I am satisfied that all information relevant to the appellant’s request has been identified by the Department.
21. I note the appellant’s comments that the fact the Department now actively disseminates this information clearly demonstrates that his request could have been met at the time and that the basis for refusal was not justified. He stated that the time period between when he made his request and the Department’s subsequent active dissemination of the dataset is considerable and he argued that he has been severely compromised in his access to environmental information by the Departments conduct in dealing with the request. He further stated such a failure cannot be remedied by the subsequent release of the iFORIS Forest Road database and that in his view, the only reasonable outcome of this appeal is that the Departments decision on his request be annulled.
22. 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. A draft decision was provided to the parties on 10 March 2026.
23. The Department did not return any further submissions. The appellant responded to the draft decision on 16 March 2026 and opined that the draft was inconsistent and unsound. He also stated that he has been significantly prejudiced in his access to environmental information by the Department’s conduct. I have had regard to these points.
24. The purpose of the AIE Regulations and regime is to enable members of the public to know and understand what is happening in the environment around them through timely and easy access to environmental information. This assists the public to participate in environmental decision-making in an informed manner. Delays at any stage of the AIE request process, or inappropriate refusal to release information, are unacceptable and can jeopardise the ability of requesters to participate in environmental decision making.
25. Notwithstanding the above, this Office acknowledges and welcomes the steps taken by the Department regarding the proactive dissemination of environmental information – making the FLV spatial data available via the Open Data Portal as of May/June of 2025. This Office expects that such steps will provide greater public access to environmental information and consequently eliminates the need for the public to obtain this type of information via an AIE request. I continue to encourage the Department to be proactive in dissemination of frequently requested material through its open data portal or any other mean available in an effort to reduces requests and subsequent appeals.
26. For the reasons set out above, I consider that a direction to affirm the Department’s current position is the most appropriate course of action to take in these circumstances.
27. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby affirm the Department’s decision under article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations on the appellant’s request for environmental information.
28. 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