Defence Offset Policy Yielding Diminishing Returns Despite Various Amendments

In DAP 2020, the scope for offsets is now confined only to contracts involving outright purchase of materiel from foreign vendors through competitive bidding.

The modified defence offset policy in the recently released Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020 reflects the vacillation that has dogged its evolution since 2005, when it was adopted by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) amid fanfare to achieve objectives that were, however, delineated only seven years later in July 2012.

The policy was aimed at binding foreign vendors to plough back a certain percentage of the overall contract value into the buyer country on terms and conditions stipulated by the latter. Till the advent of DAP 2020 offsets could be discharged by investing in cash or kind in India’s domestic defence manufacturing and services sector, civil aerospace, internal and coastal security, and defence research and development.

Initially, all outright capital procurements exceeding Rs 300 crore from overseas vendors, or their licensed production through a production agency designated by the MoD, entailed an offset obligation of at least 30%, with the latter reserving the right to alter it. An almost sevenfold rise in this basic threshold to Rs 2,000 crore in 2016 led to a significant reduction in the number of contracts necessitating offsets.

Also read: Will the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020 Make India Self-Reliant in Defence Production?

Scope of offset policy restricted

In DAP 2020, the scope for offsets has shrunk further. It is now confined only to contracts involving outright purchase of materiel from foreign vendors through competitive bidding. Conversely, all contracts based on ab initio negotiations with a single vendor are now exempt under the new procedure from discharging offsets.

The MoD’s somewhat disingenuous justification for terminating offsets is that vendors ‘load’ extra costs onto the final contract value and doing away with them can reduce purchase costs. This, however, was known even in 2005, but the MoD took a conscious decision to bear this additional cost in order to strengthen India’s fledgling defence industry through integration with the global supply chain and infusion of technology.

The offset-exempt categories in DAP 2020 include acquisitions through inter-governmental agreements or IGAs, for instance, the 2016 procurement of 36 French Rafale medium multi-role aircraft and other assorted equipment acquired via the US foreign military sales (FMS) programme. The import of Apache attack and Chinook heavy-lift helicopters are India’s most recent FMS buy. This exemption is significant as a large proportion of India’s recent military acquisitions have been via these government-to-government routes.

Five Rafale combat aircraft from France arrive at the Air Force Station in Ambala on July 29, 2020. Photo: IAF via PTI

What could be the possible consequences?

Consequently, it is only a matter of time before private overseas materiel vendors begin pressing their governments into duplicating IGA or FMS-type schemes to bypass India’s offset policy. Such a move would automatically terminate the offset policy altogether, much to the foreign vendors’, and possibly, even the MoD’s relief.

If this policy were indeed discontinued eventually, the MoD would be relieved, as it would then not need to ‘police’ offset contracts that are difficult, if not impossible, to monitor. The vendors, for their part, would be appreciative as navigating the MoD’s complex and inchoate offset regulations and timelines to discharge them is nothing short of a nightmare, further exacerbated by the threat of the MoD penalising them for defaulting on offsets, instead of removing the bottlenecks to facilitate performance of the offset contracts.

The case for terminating offsets is reinforced by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) that stated in a report tabled in the parliament on September 23, that they had not yielded the ‘desired results’ despite being repeatedly tweaked over the past 15 years to render it industry-friendly and result-oriented.

From the onset, offsets were stymied by unnecessary MoD controls. Offset guidelines elaborately specified ways for vendors to discharge this obligation, but concurrently robbed them of the freedom to do so by stipulating that its prior approval was mandatory. Even changing an Indian offset partner (IOP) or either re-phasing or restructuring the offset implementation schedule necessitated MoD’s prior approval. This not only hindered offset execution, but also severely tried the vendors’ patience to an extreme.

The regulatory control exercised by the MoD could perhaps be justified had it helped in achieving its policy objectives but, unfortunately, that is not the case. The CAG pointed out in its September 2020 report that in many cases the vendors made various offset commitments to qualify for the principal contract without being earnest about fulfilling them.

Also read: Defence 101: Atmanirbhar Bharat Will Need More Than Another Official Declaration

An instance of this facetiousness stated in the report is the prevarication on the part of Dassault Aviation in confirming technical assistance to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for indigenous development of the Kaveri engine for the Light Combat aircraft as part of its Rs 59,000 crore deal for 36 Rafale fighters.

The reality is that the control exercised by the MoD in ministering its offsets through the medium of technical evaluation often ‘persuades’ the vendor otherwise free to choose the avenues for discharging the offset obligation into agreeing to unworkable demands and implementation schedules, defeating the basic rationale of the policy, if ever there was any. In fact, the policy could have perhaps worked better in the absence of these controls and greater clarity about what the MoD wanted.

In short, after 15 years, the MoD’s offset policy is terminally floundering, partly due to the way it was structured, but more because of the means incorporated to enforce it which have not been untangled in the latest round of revision. Hence, its quiet burial remains the only sensible way forward to try and untangle the complex and, at times, incomprehensible DAP 2020.

This brings to mind a song by Urdu poet and song writer Sahir Ludhianvi in the 1963 Bollywood blockbuster Gumrah: Woh afsana jise anjam tak lana na ho mumkin, use ik khubsoorat mod de ke chhodna achha (It is better to abandon the story that cannot be brought to its logical end, giving it a beautiful twist.)

India’s defence offset policy that is struggling to deliver the intended outcome can certainly benefit from Sahir’s romantic, but unassailable, advice.

Amit Cowshish is former financial advisor (acquisitions), Ministry of Defence.

Despite the Hype, the Defence Offset Policy Hasn’t Really Worked for India

Foreign suppliers find India’s offset guidelines too complicated to comply with.

New Delhi: ‘Offset’ has become a buzzword in India’s defence manufacturing industry in recent years, as the government steps up arms purchases to maintain the balance of conventional military power in the region. But despite that, the country is struggling to reap the intended benefits of the policy.

The reason for this is that foreign suppliers find India’s offset guidelines too complicated to comply with. The repeated changes in offset guidelines do not seem to have helped the matter either.

The offset policy, introduced in 2005, mandates foreign suppliers to spend at least 30% of the contract value in India. It was first revised in 2006 and then again in 2011 and in 2016. Another round of tweaking is currently underway.

A defence equipment manufacturer told The Wire that offset norms are revised even before the industry adjusts to them.

But on the other hand, countries like Spain, Japan and Brazil have used offset policies to build credible local defence manufacturing capabilities. For example, Brazil’s Embraer aircraft manufacturing programme is globally cited as a successful experiment in offset policy implementation.

Indian defence manufacturers lack the technological prowess needed to benefit from the offset policy. They are not able to effectively use transferred technology in their own manufacturing processes. It is no surprise, then, that foreign suppliers find themselves struggling to fulfil their offset commitments in a cost-effective manner, and so outsource only low-end manufacturing and machining jobs to private and public sector companies in India.

According to industry sources, the real problem lies in implementation, not in the policy. Regulatory and operational bottlenecks further complicate challenges for foreign arms suppliers.

Civil aerospace, internal security brought under offset policy

The Ministry of Defence introduced the offset policy following recommendations from a panel headed by former finance secretary Vijay Kelkar. The panel was tasked with suggesting measures to involve private players in defence equipment manufacturing under a public-private partnership model.

After several rounds of revision, civil aerospace and internal security deals have also been brought under the offset policy. The offset limit has now been increased from Rs 300 crore to Rs 2,000 crore.

The policy now allows the private sector to compete in the production of surveillance vessels, such as inshore and offshore patrol vessels, with defence shipyards. This has provided a level playing field for private players in the shipbuilding sector.

The policy change has injected price competition into the market and also led to an improvement in the timely delivery of contracted supplies.

However, private players are yet to play a big role in the production of helicopters, trainers and transport aircrafts.

The offset policy envisions leveraging  big-ticket purchases in the defence space to cajole original equipment manufacturers into giving outsourcing orders, transferring technologies to Indian companies and investing here. The objective is to create a strong local ecosystem for defence manufacturing, and step up exports.

A total of 12 offset contracts were concluded between 2005 and 2012, with a value of $1.5 billion. Subsequently, ten more contracts were concluded between 2013 and 2016, with a combined value of nearly $1.5 billion.

Defence sector fails to attract FDI

India’s dream of becoming a defence manufacturing hub is far from fulfilled, despite vigorous marketing by the government. The sector attracted a paltry sum of Rs 56 lakh as foreign direct investment (FDI) between October 2014 and September 2016, according to a reply given by minister of state for defence Rao Inderjit Singh in parliament recently.

The picture was even more dismal in 2015-16, with the sector attracting only Rs 8 lakh till September, as per data available with the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.

India’s offset policy, which many feel originated from the defence public sector’s inability to increase exports, lacks coherence and well-defined aims. It is totally silent on what it wants to achieve, say defence experts.

The defence ministry decided to use its substantial imports to promote exports. The initial policy, as announced in 2005, sought the direct purchase of products, components and services by foreign vendors. It was also aimed at creating both market access and new new markets. However, it soon dawned on the government that the policy was restrictive and unrealistic. It therefore initiated an exercise in 2006 to widen the scope of the policy.

According to defence experts, India’s ‘one size fits all’ policy approach has not yielded the desired results. This is why even 14 years after implementation of the offset policy, India heavily relies on imports to meet hardware requirements of its military, experts said.

India’s arms imports increased by 24% between 2008 and 2012, and then again at the same rate between 2013 and  2017, according to data released by global think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recently.

As many as 130 countries have offset policies in place, but their formats are different

Globally, there are more than 130 countries with offset policies, but they follow different formats. For example, the UAE’s offset policy stipulates that all suppliers of arms must develop commercially viable products worth at least 60% of the contract within a period of seven years.

Malaysia seeks opportunities for compensatory exports, technology transfer and direct investment in infrastructure.

South Africa demands nearly 20% of the contract value as direct defence-oriented offsets, 45% as counter purchase by the seller and 35% as foreign investment.

The UK insists on defence-related, new and of equivalent technical quality offsets. Both direct and indirect offsets are permitted by the country.

A new round of amendments underway

The defence ministry recently amended the offset policy to provide more opportunities for foreign arms suppliers to invest a percentage of the value of a military hardware deal in India.

Foreign suppliers of aerospace- and internal security-related hardware will be allowed to fulfil their offset obligations by investing in defence-related infrastructure projects such as setting up testing labs and skill centres. Foreign suppliers will also be allowed to fulfil their offset obligations by sharing “specified critical technology”.

These projects will be implemented through an agency to be identified by the government, which could be a public sector entity, the Defence Research and Development Organisation or a Special Purpose Vehicle to be set up with or without industry participation.

The government has allowed foreign suppliers to invest in a SEBI-regulated fund to meet their offset obligations. Experts said the proposed policy will drastically change how companies such as Boeing, Airbus and Dassault will spend an estimated $14 billion in India by 2028.

France offers to revive Kaveri engine project as part of Rafale offset programme

France has offered to help India revive the unsuccessful Kaveri engine project for the indigenous Tejas aircraft and a host of other high-end collaborations as part of the offsets in the 7.87 billion euro Rafale fighter plane deal.

Under the agreement, the French side has made a 30% offset commitment for military aerospace research and development programmes, and the balance 20% for manufacturing Rafale components in India.

The offsets will be carried out by French companies Safran, Thales, MBDA and Dassault, all part of the Rafale project.

The government has planned defence purchases of $250 billion to modernise the Indian military. Offset expenditure for these relatively less hi-tech purchases would be 50% of the contract. With Indian defence manufacturing companies lacking technological depth to benefit from offset programmes, how contracts worth $125 billion will be implemented is unclear.

Anil Ambani-promoted Reliance Defence has said that it has bagged offset contract of Rs 30,000 crore for the Rs 1 lakh crore-lifecycle cost contract signed by the defence ministry with France’s Dassault Aviation for Rafale jets.

But on the other hand, defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman has said that the government has not yet decided on an offset programme for the deal.

The contradictory statements of Reliance Defence and Sitharaman have given rise to the suspicion that the defence ministry is not maintaining records of offset contracts.