Cinneadh
Ms. X and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-155023-N3J6M8
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara um Fhaisnéis Comhshaoil
Cásuimhir: OCE-155023-N3J6M8
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Department has established that it did not hold further information coming within the scope of the appellant’s request, in accordance with article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations
30 April 2026
1. On 06 November 2024, the appellant submitted a request to the Department seeking access to the following:
“1. information on the dates of all meetings (including both face-to-face and virtual meetings) held in September 2024 between DAFM and Coillte. Information to include, inter alia, the dates of all:
a) Routine weekly meetings held between DAFM with Coillte
b) Meetings attended by the Minister of State (DAFM) with Coillte
2. Please provide information on all attendees (both DAFM and Coillte attendees) to all September 2024 meetings between DAFM and Coillte.
3. Please provide, by email, a copy of the agendas and minutes (both handwritten and otherwise) for all September 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request.
4. Please provide by email, all information received by DAFM from Coillte in relation to all September 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request, whether received by DAFM prior to the scheduled meeting with Coillte or received by DAFM during the scheduled meeting with Coillte.
5. Please provide by email, all information received by Coillte from DAFM in relation to all September 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request, whether received by Coillte prior to the scheduled meeting with DAFM or received by Coillte during the scheduled meeting with DAFM.
6. Please provide copies of all informal notes / informal records etc, (handwritten information to be included) in relation to all September 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request,, whether written/created during or after either the meetings and where the informal records etc relate to all, or any part, of the topics covered in any September 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request.
7. Please provide copies of all post meeting reports /updates etc. circulated within DAFM, from DAFM to Coillte and from Coillte to DAFM (e.g. emails, telephone notes/call, WhatsApp messages etc) regarding any topics covered at any September 2024 meetings covered by this AIE request.”
2. On 5 December 2024, the Department issued its decision, and part granted the request providing the appellant with 1 record. The Department provided the appellant with the dates of meetings in September and a list of attendees. The Department confirmed“There are no agenda or minutes taken by either party for the routine fortnightly meetings between DAFM and Coillte” , and provided the appellant with an agenda for a meeting that took place at Slieve Bloom on 26th September 2024. The Department confirmed they had no information in relation to item 4,5, and 6 of the request. No reference was made to item 7.
3. On 6 December 2024, the appellant sought an internal review of the Department’s decision.
4. On 2 January 2025, the Department issued its internal review decision and in doing so affirmed the original decision.
5. On 6 January 2025, the appellant appealed to my Office.
6. 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 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.
9. Following the appeal to this Office three additional records were identified by the Department and provided to the appellant. The Department had applied redactions to these records under article 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(a) of the AIE regulations. The appellant has confirmed she is not seeking this redacted information. Therefore, the scope of this review is to determine whether the Department was justified in refusing access to the requested material under article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations on the grounds that no further information relevant to the request is held by the Department.
10. Article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations is the relevant provision to consider, where the question arises as to whether the requested environmental information or any further environmental information is held by or for the public authority concerned. It provides as follows;
“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”.
11. This Office’s approach to dealing with this type of case is to assess whether adequate steps have been taken to identify and locate relevant environmental information, having regard to the particular circumstances. In determining whether the steps taken are adequate in the circumstances, a standard of reasonableness is applied. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case.
12. What will be considered reasonable will vary from case to case, but as a general guide, I set out below the type of information that my Office would generally expect to be set out in a decision where a public authority is relying on article 7(5) of the regulations:
(i) an outline of exactly which areas/units etc. of the organisation were searched for the information;
(ii) an explanation of how searches were carried out (i.e. manually, by computer, by name, by key words). Keywords should be recorded and provided in the decision as appropriate;
(iii) details of the individuals consulted in connection with the search;
(iv) a description of the searches carried out to cover the possibility of misfiled/misplaced records;
(v) details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of information requested in this case;
(vi) the basis on which the public authority has concluded that it does not hold any information within the scope of the appellant’s request and that no such information is held by any other person or body on its behalf.
13. Article 7(5) of the AIE regulations allows public authority to refuse a request if it does not hold the requested information. In order for a public authority to successfully rely on this provision, it must, among other things, provide evidence that it carried out adequate searches for the environmental information requested.
14. The Department detailed the searches undertaken in the internal review dated 2 January 2025, stating:
“I contacted attendees of the routine fortnightly meetings between DAFM and Coillte, Forestry Inspector […] and Forestry Inspector […].
- I contacted Assistant Principal […] and Higher Executive Officer […]from the Department’s Coillte Governance section.
- I contacted Senior Inspectors, […] and […] and Director of Forestry,[…].
- The Minster of State’s Office was also contacted in relation to this request.”
15. The appellant submits the Department failed to conduct adequate searches and spent less than an hour conducting searches.
16. The appellant has been provided with information which specifically addresses points 1 to 3 of the request. The Department has confirmed;
a. “Routine fortnightly meetings took place between DAFM and Coillte on 2nd and 16th September 2024.
b. There were no meetings between the Minister of State and Coillte in September 2024 and therefore there are no records available. This was confirmed by the Minister of State’s office.
c. A Field Trip took place at Slieve Bloom for Coillte and DAFM staff on 26th September 2024”.
The appellant was provided with a list of attendees at these meetings and the Department confirmed“There are no agenda or minutes taken by either party for the routine fortnightly meetings” . The appellant was provided with an agenda for the Field Trip to Slieve Bloom.
17. Following the appeal to this Office the Department identified three additional records which were provided to the appellant. The Department clarified the meeting which was schedule for the 02 September 2024 was cancelled. The Department submits the routine fortnightly licencing meetings between DAFM and Coillte are held online with the same attendees, that being two forestry Inspectors. The Department have confirmed both Inpectors have conducted searches of their emails and outlook calendars using the key words ‘meeting’ and ‘Coillte’. The Department submits“there is no advance agenda sent out ahead of these routine meetings, besides that which is included in the meeting invitation and that there are no minutes recorded at these meetings” .
18. Additional searches were conducted by a HEO within DAFM Coillte Governance Section who searched their own emails, shared emails, computer drive, and shared eDOCs using keywords“Coillte Meeting” and“September” . No relevant records were identified. Further searches were conducted by the Director of Forestry of his inbox and drive using keywords‘Field Trip’, ‘Coillte’ , and‘Slieve Bloom’ . Two records were identified, the first being an agenda for the field trip to Slieve Bloom which was provided to the appellant with the original decision. The second record was a“MS Teams invitation which appears to simply have been used as a placeholder in Outlook Calendar” . This record was originally deemed to be irrelevant but has now been provided to the appellant. DAFM submits following these searches they hold no records in relation to parts 4 to 7 of the appellant’s request.
19. It is important to note that where a public authority refuses a request for records under article 7(5) of the AIE Regulations, the question this Office must consider is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. The Regulations do not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found, or, indeed, may have been destroyed in line with the body’s records management policies. The passage of time is also relevant factor in such appeals. It is also important to note that the Commissioner does not generally expect public authorities to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist, or rejects a public authorises explanation of why a record does not exist. The test set out in article 7 (5) of the AIE Regulations is whether the public authority has taken all reasonable steps to locate the record(s) sought.
20. I hold the view that the searches conducted by the Department were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. I am satisfied that the Department has taken sufficient steps to determine that it does not hold further environmental information relevant to the appellant’s request and accordingly was justified in refusing the request based on article 7 (5) of the AIE regulations.
21. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I affirm the Department’s decision.
22. 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