The Department of Agriculture has been ordered to release to a member of the public the records it holds of two cross-compliance inspections carried out on a farm in Co Wexford, the first in 2006 and the second in 2018.

The release demand was made under the access to information on the environment (AIE) regulations - EU directives that mandates the release of environmental information held by, or for, a public authority to any member of the public person who requests it, subject to certain exceptions.

The Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI) annulled a Department decision to not release the information which had been sought by a Mr Eoin Brady.

ADVERTISEMENT

The OCEI noted that a “large amount of information in relation to this farm/farmer is already in the public domain” and factored this into the basis of the decision issued.

However, it also stated that the order “should not be taken to mean that any request for access to information concerning an individual farmer will be granted”.

Instead, each request should be considered on its “individual facts and the rights of the individual data subject must be carefully considered in the context of each case”.

Planning issues

The information pertaining to the farm referenced to have already been in the public domain includes a Wexford County Council planner’s report.

This report named the farmer in question as having been refused permission to build a milking parlour on the basis that it had not been proven that the site had sufficient effluent storage capacity and that it was not clear that the development would comply with the nitrates directive.

The individual seeking the cross-compliance information alleged that “significant levels of coliform bacteria have been recorded in a private drinking well beside the farm” and that at the time he requested the records, Wexford County Council was in the process of prosecuting the farmer for failure to comply with an enforcement notice.

Cattle tagging

Some of the records to be released concern areas of inspection not directly related to the environment – such as one of the inspections being focused on cattle tagging and identification.

The OCEI took the position that there is “a real and substantial possibility” that the overall compliance of a farm with the cross-compliance requirements is “likely to have a direct effect on the environment”.

“To my knowledge, there is no evidence to suggest that the disclosure of details such as name, address, herd number or ortho maps – contained in records relating to cross-compliance inspections (from 19 and seven years ago respectively) - would result in any negative consequences for the individual concerned,” the office’s decision stated.

The decision referred to the then-Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) as being “in essence, the linkage of direct financial support to the observance of environmental and other law”.

“Public awareness of this farm’s compliance or otherwise would support greater understanding and transparency in terms of how such inspections operate in practice.

“It would also provide assurance as to what inspections were carried out on this farm and when, as well as inform the public of any issues of non-compliance which could have the potential to impact on the local environment.”

It argued that the release of cross-compliance records would allow the public to know whether the farm in question has been subject to inspections, these inspections’ outcomes and any remedial action taken.

The farmer, any other party to the appeal or any other person affected by the decision may appeal it to the High Court on a point of law within two months from its publication.