Yap State News Brief: March 13, 2012
YSL Speaker Responds to Governor Over ETG Proposal
In response to Governor Anefal’s letter (www.yapstategov.org/News/03-2012/03-08-12.htm)
to YSL dated February 28th, Speaker Henry Falan responded on behalf of the
Legislature with the following statement:
Dear Governor Anefal:
Thank you for your letter of February 28, 2012 concerning the ETG proposed
investment agreement for which a counter-offer, according to you, “has been
transmitted to ETG for their consideration,” and also concerning the Yap State
Resolution No. 8-29.
As you clearly pointed out in your letter, the Legislature did not forward any
specific comments on the specifics of the unofficial copy of the proposed
investment agreement which we received from your legal staff. Our reading of the
unofficial copy, together with our unequivocal support for development,
especially in the private sector, prompted the adoption of YSR 8-29 expressing
the sense of the Legislature as a whole that a proposal of this magnitude
requires the review and complete understanding of the State Leadership and the
people of Yap. YSR 8-29 is merely requesting to “defer signing an investment
agreement proposed by the ETG until such time when the people of the State of
Yap have been fully informed about the proposal, and until the State Leadership
has unanimously agreed that such proposal will be in the best interest and
welfare of the people of the State of Yap.”
Since we learned of the proposed agreement during the January 19, 2012 State
Leadership meeting, we took to heart with the understanding that a position will
be taken on the proposal by consensus of the Leadership.
The proposed agreement specifies that “ETG has executed the Strategic Framework
Agreement with the government of the State of Yap,..., to develop a unique world
renowned top grade tourism project according to a Master Investment Plan to be
developed,....” The Leadership needs to review and discuss the proposed
agreement along with the strategic framework agreement which is already signed,
before making any decision for the most appropriate next course of action to
take, if any. It appears that the proposal may require the use of privately
owned land in Yap over which the State Government may not have any authority to
commit to ETG for the project. Because of the potential requirement for lands
NOT owned by the government, we must be extremely cautious and not respond in
any way to the proposed agreement until we have fully informed the people whose
lands and communities may be directly affected.
The government news brief of January 18, 2012, stated that the Chairman of the
Council of Pilung had signed the MOU with ETG on Thursday, January 12, 2012;
this has cause concern amongst the people of Yap as more people have been
calling the Legislature to register their concern about ETG, and to find out
more about the project which some people claim will be implemented in their own
communities. People want to know what ETG is planning to do in Yap. Obviously,
the Legislature does not have any information except the proposed investment
agreement.
Although most of the specifics of the ETG matter may still be unknown or unclear
to some, the known specifics such as the signed documents agreement should be
shared with the people of Yap.
The Legislature through the Chairman of the Committee on Government, Health and
Welfare, has asked for a copy of the MOU and copies of any other signed
documents including the signed Strategic Framework Agreement; and to date we
have not received any copy of any of these signed documents. An unsigned copy of
the MOU between the Chairman of the Council of Pilung and ETG was given to us by
a staff of the Council. If the signed document is in fact the same as the
unsigned document, then we as elected leaders should defer taking further action
until the people understand the possible direct affect that ETG activities could
have on their lives. As you know, the MOU includes statements such as:
“The Parties [ETG and Council of Pilung] acknowledge that the role of ETG as the
full scale developer of the tourism resource of the State of Yap. The Council
hereby supports ETG regarding the development of the Project to the largest
extent. The Council further agrees to give to ETG their full assistance
regarding the acquisition of land lease.” “The Parties agree that the Member of
the Council shall witness, in a written form, the execution of the land lease
instruments between ETG and the land owners with respect to the lease of land
located within the community that said Member is associated with.” “The Parties
agree that the Member of the Council shall coordinate and mediate should any
dispute arises between ETG and respective local community.”
We all fully support economic development, and especially improvement and
development of the private sector, but it must be done responsibly and in a
sustainable manner. This would require transparency and informed decisions by
all stakeholders and especially the people and communities whose lands will be
required for the ETG project to become a reality.
In your letter you were asking if we have any questions regarding the
“counter-offer,” and to work together moving forward. As much as I am grateful
for working together moving forward, I also truly believe that the people of Yap
must first be made aware of the things that their government is negotiating on
their behalf. It is on behalf of the people of Yap that any moving forward will
occur. The people of Yap are unequivocally sophisticated who need to be fully
informed of government acts that are being contemplated to affect their lives.
The people should be fully informed about what the State government may have
agreed to and/or may be negotiating with ETG concerning the people’s lands and
their communities. Hence, perhaps the “counter-offer” could be reconsidered and
be referred to the State Leadership for assessment and appropriate next course
of action.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Henry Falan
Speaker