[Annexes]


• Annex 1
• Annex 2 EVALUATION FORM
• Annex 3 Participants List
• Annex 4 Friedrich – Ebert Stiftung Seminar Proceedings Series

[page number of print ed.: 59]

Annex 1

PRIVATISATION: The Way Forward
Commecialisation, Privatisation Techniques & Financing Options

PROGRAMME

[page number of print ed.: 61]

PRIVATISATION: The Way Forward

Commecialisation, Privatisation Techniques & Financing Options

PROGRAMME

[page number of print ed.: 62]

Annex 2
EVALUATION FORM

1. Please provide your comments on the following:
Theme of the seminar

Well suited and it showed how parastatals are operating in the privatisation process. Excellent, very appropriate

Timing of the seminar

Timing of the seminar was okay. The workshop came at an opportune time when some parastatals are undergoing privatisation. However, some companies were fairly represented whilst those that are directly involved in the privatisation process did not even turn up. They should have attended in order that they brief participants on progress made so far. Quite appropriate, however, we need to follow up progress and put more pressure for action.

Others were concerned that Government used the Constitutional Commission as an excuse for not attending the meeting. Workshop could have been held on Sunday, and Monday to allow those involved in Constitutional Commission consultations to attend both important meetings. Others thought the timing was inappropriate because too many things are happening at the same time such as Christmas lunches, receptions etc. Seminar should have come before presentation of the Millennium Budget because it is very difficult to reverse proposals that would have been made and adopted.

Venue provided

Well and centrally located with excellent facilities although the public address system was poor, particularly during discussion time. Consequently, some of the questions raised were not clearly heard by some participants. There was some interference from other proceedings on the second day of the seminar. Air conditioning was poor and should be used only when necessary. Sitting arrangement could be improved, preferably the board room style.

Ability to meet seminar objectives

The general feeling of the participants was that this was okay although the seminar lacked necessary participants. Objectives were not totally met since some interested stakeholders did not participate and some presenters did not show up. Those from parastatals that are doing well managed to participate effectively. The general feeling was that all parastatals involved in the privatisation process should have attended.

[page number of print ed.: 63]

Are there other people who were missed in the target group for the workshop?

The Government itself should have sent representatives to explain their position and interest in holding a large shareholding in the privatisation process in some of the companies. Honourable Minister Msipa and other donors such as the World Bank should have attended as well. Government Ministers such as Minister of Finance, National Economic Planning Commission, Public Service Labour and Social Welfare; Micro-credit industry representatives e.g. Zambuko Trust; top officials in the President’s Office, Ministry of Finance, Reserve Bank senior staff, Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, civil society; small scale communal farmers / representative organisations, civil servants, those from parastatals still to be privatised; and presenters from other countries where privatisation was not successful would have shared their experiences on what should be avoided;

If, so propose organisations / individuals who should have been invited as well

NRZ, ZISCO, ZESA, Government, Ministers, Members of Parliament informal sector, Ministers and bilateral donors, Diplomatic missions, Trade Unions, Monopolies Trade and Competition Commission, local business community, Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, Consumer Council of Zimbabwe, and journalists.

2. Please comment on presentations made on the following:
Keynote address

Enlightening, Good, Good, Relevant but maybe inappropriate speaker given tensions between Zimbabwe and U.K.

Privatisation Update – Zimbabwe’s Experience

Not covered because there was no representation from NEPC

Good, Requested that the paper be sent to the delegates who attended the seminar. Workshop organisers were requested to seek for an explanation on why the presenter never turned up even though prior confirmation had been made.

Privatisation in Zimbabwe – The Experiences of Dairiboard Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

Well done, excellent presentation but more time should have been given to the presenter. Others said it was a milestone revelation yet others thought new ideas were being brought about by the same Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who was there before privatisation and is still running the same privatised body with the same techniques;

Privatisation in Zimbabwe – The Experiences of Cotton Marketing Board (COTTCO),

Well presented, Good, Good, More time should have been given to the presenter. Milestone presentation which raised very interesting issues such as how they handled their retrenchees;

[page number of print ed.: 64]

Privatisation in Zimbabwe –The Experiences of Zimbabwe Reinsurance Company (ZIMRE)

Good presentation. Perhaps use of transparencies could have helped to come up with better presentation. The presenter was reading his script rather than speaking to his notes. This made his presentation dull.

Critical Issues in the Privatisation process: Best Practice with a focus on the legal, political and financial dimensions of privatisation

Several points were not well elaborated such that the audience did not understand it very well. Presenter centred more on legal aspects compared to political and financial dimensions of privatisation. This was a disappointing session as it focussed on the legal aspects only and did not touch on the socio-political issues. Useful clarification of issues, Lacked proper focus; Raised important issues on the appointment of Boards of Directors, One major problem with the presentation was that it over emphasised issues of parastatal reform rather than touching on key issues on the legal framework of privatisation

Summary of the Previous Day’s Deliberations

All points were captured very well, Good and brief, well summarised, Excellent were the comments on the summary. The summary touched on all issues that were raised. This helped some participants to catch up with missed points.

Privatisation as a tool for Indigenisation

Not presented. Viewed as lack of commitment. Others requested that CZI conveys to Dr Mthuli Ncube their disappointment and an explanation for non-attendance was required whilst others considered failure to show up as being rude. Some participants found it difficult to link privatisation to indigenisation because the indigenous people do not have money. This, they said, could only be possible if measures are put in place by Government, and particularly the private sector, to assist them.

Privatisation of Agricultural Parastatals – Small holder farmers’ Experience

Some thought the paper was fairly presented whilst others were of the opinion that it was very good and quite informative. Having listened to agricultural parastatals present own papers before this one, this paper was not seen as very exciting. Some participants did not find the presenter to be a very engaging speaker.

The Role of Privatisation in Infrastructure Development

Opinions about this presentation ranged from being good, very good and very disappointing to others. Why ? This was because of the use of overheads, which was found to be ineffective e.g. the presenter had whole paragraphs on transparencies. He did not use the microphone. And he only looked at ZESA. Participants anticipated coverage on other forms of infrastructure such as the telecommunications (PTC), air transport (Air Zimbabwe) etc however; the presenter made a good coverage on his topic.

[page number of print ed.: 65]

Privatisation: Financing Options and Role of Financial Institutions

Very well covered. It was recommended that such presenters be involved more often. Some participants found the presentation quite informative and educative as the presenter did his presentations very well, making good use of the Overhead Projector. Consequently his presentation was found to be quite simple and straight- forward. However, some participants anticipated the presenter to cover the role of pension funds and life companies / corporations.

Is there a burning issue that you wish to recommend for adoption by Government

• Recommended that there be more transparency in the operations of the Government. This is more so in such areas as large ownership of shares in parastatals;

• Translate talk into actions;

• Enhance the pace of privatisation;

• Stakeholder participation should be a priority in policy formulation;

• Independence of the Privatization Agency;

• Government policy on Privatisation should be made clear;

• Ensure transparency, time specific privatisation, empowerment etc;

• Ensure sufficient mobilization of resources and delivery of services at minimal cost;

• Take note of globalisation and its effect;

• Technology and the need for a sound resource base;

• Need for sound and clear policies;

• Need for efficient economic managers and a One-Stop-Shop Privatisation Agency;

• Government should address problems of inflation and interest rates;

• Government should be encouraged to participate in such workshops as this one on Privatisation;

• People want to know how the Privatisation Agency operates , how and where it derives its authority; government should assist in ensuring that this is made clear;

Any other comments

• Government should have minimum or zero control in the parastatals that are being privatised;

• Need for a clear cut policy on Privatisation;

• Organisers should ensure that;
  • all presenters turn up for their presentations, otherwise it will not make sense to have some topics not covered, thus leaving a lot of questions unanswered;
  • there is adequate documentation. This area was not adequately handled. All presenters’ papers should be given to the participants and a summary document would be appreciated if it could be posted to all delegates;
  • there is adequate time for discussions and organisers should abstain from a programme that is too tight. One and half days was considered too short a period for such an important topic;
  • bring government personalities to generate the required effective dialogue;

    [page number of print ed.: 66]

  • Arrange another seminar to look at the Privatisation Agency’s Terms of Reference;
  • One participant commented that this was the first workshop organised by CZI / FES that he / she had attended. It was therefore hoped that more similar workshops would be organised in the future since so much had been learnt on privatisation that was unknown to the participant.
  • notify participants of all impending seminars in time so that adequate preparation and research could be done ahead of time. Thanked the organisers very much for coming up with this seminar;

• Involve stakeholders in the composition of the Agency;

• It is a pity that Government representation from appropriate ministries were not present;

• No mention was made of the disadvantages of privatisation;

• Public enterprises to be privatised should have been tabled together with the proposed time table or the action plan;

• CZI should prepare a summary with recommendations for submission to Government;

• Address the question of financing for indigenisation;

• Industry was encouraged to preempt Government „fear into the unknown" as they proceed with privatisation by providing the answers ahead of time e.g. with ZESA privatisation, government fears include what happens to the power tariffs and impact on the poor following privatisation.

• The Zimbabwe Privatisation Agency should have a proper legal structure that ensures its transparency rather than have a situation that obtains today i.e. a situation where the Authority is headed by a Director who operates without a Board and reports through the Senior Secretary in the Office of the President and Cabinet;

• Do not use clout as a substitute for transparency in the Privatisation Agency.

[page number of print ed.: 67-69]

Annex 3
Participants List

[page number of print ed.: 70-71]

Annex 4
Friedrich – Ebert Stiftung Seminar Proceedings Series