Support for investment fund, larger
private sector role for identifying projects
By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 14th May 18
By Tuesday, defence production stakeholders
must respond to new draft proposals for the defence offsets policy, which the ministry
of defence (MoD) issued last month.
The defence offsets policy, which the Kelkar
Committee first proposed in 2005 and which was formalised that year, binds
foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that win Indian contracts to
plough back money into Indian defence industry. The Defence Procurement Procedure of 2005 (DPP-2005)
required all OEMs winning defence contracts worth over Rs 300 crore to invest at
least 30 per cent of the contract value into “direct offsets”, i.e. into
production in India related to that contract.
Since 2005, the offset
policy has been repeatedly tweaked and liberalised. Important changes include:
permitting offsets to be discharged through civil aerospace and internal
security, besides defence; disallowing and then re-allowing offsets through
“services”; and promulgating “multipliers” that grant enhanced offset credits
for investments in MSMEs (micro, small and medium enterprises) and
high-technology projects.
In August 2015, fresh offset guidelines
permitted OEMs flexibility in choosing and changing Indian Offset Partners
(IOPs) and projects. In 2016, the threshold at which offsets liabilities kicked
in was enhanced from Rs 300 crore to Rs 2,000 crore.
Yet, with neither OEMs nor the MoD
satisfied with how offsets have delivered, the MoD has now proposed bold new
offset initiatives. These include, first, allowing offsets through creating
defence manufacturing infrastructure --- such as testing laboratories, ranges
and skill centres; through sponsoring projects that generate high-technology;
and through transferring critical technologies that do not exist in India.
Multipliers between two-to-five have been
proposed for these, with higher multipliers allocated to investments in the
recently-announced defence industry corridors in Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh. A
multiplier of three means an investment of $100 million would gain offset
credits of $300 million.
Secondly, the MoD proposed to allow OEMs to
discharge offsets through equity investment in manufacturing units for defence,
aerospace or internal security. Such an investment, made in a defence manufacturing
corridor, would be eligible for a multiplier of four, while investment into any
other area would obtain a multiplier of three.
Finally, the MoD’s draft guidelines propose
allowing offsets to be discharged through investment in “MoD registered,
professionally managed, SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) regulated
funds dedicated for development of start-ups and MSMEs of defence, aerospace
and internal security related enterprises in the country.” Such investments
would be eligible for a multiplier of three.
Private industry reactions, most of which
have already been fed-back to the MoD, express incomprehension about why
identifying defence infrastructure projects, technology projects and critical
technologies eligible under offsets are to be identified by “a collegium” that
only comprises “SHQs (service headquarters), DRDO (Defence R&D
Organisation) DPSU (defence public sector undertakings), OFB (Ordnance Factor
Board) [and the] DDP (Department of Defence Production).” Private industry says
that, as equal stakeholders, they must participate in identifying eligible
projects.
Private firms have also questioned the clause
that restricts offset credits only to the capital investment an OEM makes in a
production project, but the “products/services arising out of the investment by
the vendor shall not be eligible for offset discharge.”
Private firms point out that production
value is the final goal, and should be the most important metric for offset
eligibility. “Disallowing offsets for production value would mean that an OEM
who invests in a joint venture (JV) that produces nothing would get the same
offsets credits as an OEM that is highly successful in producing defence
equipment for the domestic and export market.
There are strong private sector views about
the proposed defence investment funds, especially given that the MoD’s
Technology Development Fund, proposed by the Rama Rao Committee in 2011, has
received only a luke-warm endorsement from the MSMEs it was meant to benefit.
“Given that offsets are not being fully
discharged, establishing such a fund through offsets would not take away from
anything. Instead, investment would come into India and another channel created
for funding MSMEs and start-ups”, says the chief of a large defence firm.
Others point out that leaving the
regulation of the fund to SEBI, rather than to the MoD, is an excellent step.
“There should be professional management of the fund, and oversight of the
funds investment activities should be through the quarterly reports that SEBI
mandates. Excessive MoD interference would be a death blow”, says a chief
executive.
On April 11, the MoD announced the
establishment of the first such fund. Details are still awaited.
MSMEs, however, which were meant to be the
prime beneficiaries of offsets, argue that the bulk of offsets have thus far been
discharged through “build to print” manufacture of defence and aerospace
components and sub-systems in Indian factories. They say this method must
continue to derive the maximum offset benefits.
Driving home their point, they say that
maximum production value, and the most employment creation, has taken place
through “build to print” manufacture.
I think it's too late in the day Ajai to see anything worthwhile come out of such worthless initiatives!
ReplyDeleteInstead of nonsensical offsets, we should ask for deep discounts, at least we will save forex rather than get money back in places which we don't need them.
How many good examples we have from the billions of money coming back as offsets - what technology we got? How many people got employed? The biggest private players in this field have a turn over of few hundred crores......