CORRECTION: Oh the irony! World Bank advises Zambia to renegotiate

**Apologies for any confusion caused. The Post has corrected its report today (Friday 30 March), pointing out that Eva Jolly is not, as described below, a senior advisor to the World Bank. She is a Norwegian Government advisor, working on an assignment for the World Bank. Shame. Let's hope the Bank take her arguments seriously. In another story in The Post today, it is suggested that Jolly will meet Finanance Minister Magande on Monday.**

++
The Post reports today that a senior advisor to the World Bank on corruption, Eva Jolly, has advised Zambian parliamentarians that the country should renegotiate its contracts with mining companies.

While the intervention will be welcomed by many in Zambia, they will also probably remember the World Bank’s central role in the design of the privatisation process and the negotiation of the self-same contracts. Anyone needing a refresher would do well to look at the Afronet/RAID report here. As discussed in the ‘For Whom The Windfalls?’ report, to the fury of the mining companies, the Zambian Government has also been using the IMF to increase pressure on the companies for renegotiation.

Minewatchers of a forgiving nature will probably want to ignore the irony of the situation and welcome all repentant sinners into the fold, particularly as the companies now appear to find themselves under attack from every angle, with Government, Parliament, civil society and elements of the EU, IMF and World Bank all backing a renegotiation. Donors appear to have recognised that the privatisation process has returned a pathetically small amount of revenue to the Zambian state, increasing pressure on either donors or the already hard-pressed Zambian workforce and consumers to increase their contributions.

The Post reports that Jolly told members of the African Parliamentary Network Against Corruption (APNAC): "I think this is an interesting question for Zambia because you have contracts in mining industry which require getting tax on results but it is very difficult to calculate what this result is… Probably you don't have specialised people to look into the mining companies. It's much safer for you probably to have loyalties (sic: royalties presumably) than to have taxation on the benefits. Then you can have loyalty (sic) on each tonne of copper being exported. It is then easier to control." Commenting on Zambia's mining contracts, Jolly took a similar line to Patriotic Front MPs in a recent debate on renegotiation of the contracts, proposing that an investigation of elements of corruption in the negotiation of the original contracts should be the key to re-opening talks, "Looking at them, I am very shocked that Zambia is being deprived of rent of its land. I think maybe time has come to renegotiate these contracts. These contracts are depriving you of too much… If you can prove that these contracts were elaborated with corruption within them, they can be cancelled... If you can prove that the negotiators from the Zambian side were paid from the mining industry then you can cancel them… That is the most dramatic way of doing it."

In the same article, The Post notes that APNAC chairperson and high-profile Patriotic Front MP Given Lubinda announced that his organisation would start mobilising resources to deal with issues of the mining agreements.