Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

121. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government if he will outline the rationale for the decision to review the Memorandum of Understanding between his Department and an organisation (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60208/25]

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

122. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government if representatives of an organisation (details supplied) will be formally consulted as part of the review of the existing Memorandum of Understanding with his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60209/25]

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

123. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government whether the announced review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between an organisation (details supplied) and his Department will delay the implementation of agreed actions under the MoU, including the establishment of the countryside forum on nature and if he will provide a revised timeline for delivery [60210/25]

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 121 to 123, inclusive, together.

It understood that the Question is referring to the Topical Issue Debate of Wednesday 22 October Vol. 1074 No. 4, in which it was stated that, in the context of the workload of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of my Department, I have asked that a review be undertaken of all existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and the commitments arising from them, of which the MOU referred to is merely one.

The review of all Memoranda of Understanding has been requested in light of the challenging and demanding agenda that is before the NPWS, and in acknowledgement of the requirement to balance resource allocation. The NPWS is responsible for the drafting and delivery of Ireland's Nature Restoration Plan; the management of over 90 sites in State ownership; compliance and oversight across more than 600 Natura 2000 sites; the processing of over 11,000 permits and licences each year; statutory consultation on planning and development proposals; international compliance with a range of binding instruments; and the management of over 5 million visitors per annum to its sites. All of this represents a substantial and complex workload. Moreover, the upcoming EU Presidency in 2026 is already placing additional demands on teams and personnel.

The NPWS is committed to strengthening its engagement with all stakeholders and has established a number of fora through which I and my Department meet with stakeholders, including the organisation referenced, such as the Sustainable Hunting of Wild Birds Stakeholder Forum and the Independent Advisory Committee for the Nature Restoration Plan. In addition to these formal channels, there are frequent informal interactions and discussions with the relevant organisation. In light of the workload outlined, the NPWS does not have the capacity to engage concurrently in two fora with a similar subject matter. As stated in the Topical Issue Debate referenced, it is not feasible to convene the Countryside Forum on Nature before 2026, and not before the work of the Sustainable Hunting of Wild Birds Stakeholder Forum is concluded. This does not reflect a lack of appreciation or willingness to enter into further dialogue with the organisation referenced, but is a practical response to the scale of the current obligations of the NPWS and the need to ensure that all sectors receive fair and balanced attention.