DEFENCE OFFSETS AND LOCAL MANUFACTURING: ARE AFRICANS BENEFITING?

Defence offsets have become a central feature of global arms procurement, particularly for developing economies seeking returns beyond hardware deliveries. Under these arrangements, foreign defence suppliers are required to reinvest part of the contract value into the purchasing country, typically through technology transfer, industrial partnerships, or local production. For African states facing persistent security threats and constrained budgets, offsets are promoted as a pathway to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce long-term reliance on imports. As defence spending rises across the continent, the effectiveness of these arrangements deserves closer scrutiny.

Africa’s engagement with defence offsets dates back to the post-independence push for industrial self-sufficiency. South Africa led early efforts during the apartheid era, using industrial participation schemes to mitigate the impact of international sanctions. These evolved into formal Defence Industrial Participation (DIP) and National Industrial Participation (NIP) policies in the 1990s, requiring offset obligations of 50 to 100 percent of contract values. Egypt and Morocco later adopted similar provisions, linking major acquisitions—such as combat aircraft and armored vehicles—to local production and investment. By the 2020s, more than a dozen African countries had embedded offset clauses into procurement frameworks, often presenting them as instruments for industrial diversification.

Related Articles: INDUSTRY – DEFENCE PROCUREMENT SCANDALS IN AFRICA: LESSONS LEARNED

South Africa remains the most extensively studied case. The 1999 Strategic Defence Procurement Package, valued at approximately R29 billion, required suppliers to channel around R15 billion into the domestic economy. The programme sustained employment and enabled technology transfers in aerospace, electronics, and systems integration. Firms such as Denel and Paramount Group entered partnerships with major international manufacturers, supporting an estimated 15,000 jobs at their peak. Yet the limitations were clear. Offset investments largely reinforced existing capabilities rather than creating new ones, and ambitious job-creation targets were missed by a wide margin. High costs per job, fluctuating demand, and weak export competitiveness diluted the programme’s long-term impact.

Elsewhere on the continent, offset ambitions have varied in scale and execution. Egypt’s co-production of M1A1 Abrams tanks introduced assembly and maintenance expertise, expanding local armored-vehicle capacity. Morocco tied its F-16 acquisitions to industrial investments and research facilities that have since supported both defence and civilian manufacturing. Nigeria’s 2021 Local Content Policy requires foreign partners in UAV, naval, and aerospace projects to collaborate with domestic firms, while Kenya and Angola have secured skills transfer agreements in ammunition production and shipbuilding. Typically mandating 25 to 40 percent local content, these policies aim to integrate African firms into global defence supply chains rather than confining them to import dependency.

Where they work, offsets can deliver measurable gains. Local maintenance and overhaul capabilities reduce lifecycle costs and improve operational readiness. In Morocco and Egypt, small and medium-sized enterprises have benefited from supplier contracts, training programmes, and limited export opportunities. A 2023 African Union review noted that effective offset implementation has strengthened technical skills in engineering, logistics, and systems support competencies with spillover benefits beyond the defence sector.

However, structural weaknesses frequently blunt these outcomes. Corruption has undermined several high-profile offset programmes, most notably in South Africa, where allegations of bribery and inflated offset credits damaged institutional credibility. In many countries, opaque procurement processes and limited oversight allow suppliers to meet obligations through low-impact investments or accounting adjustments rather than genuine industrial development. Skills shortages, inadequate infrastructure, and weak research ecosystems further constrain local firms’ ability to absorb advanced technologies, leaving them confined to assembly and basic maintenance roles.

Critics also question the economic logic of offsets. Contract prices often include an “offset premium,” raising acquisition costs by 5 to 30 percent. When outcomes fall short, taxpayers bear the burden without corresponding industrial gains. South Africa’s defence exports declined sharply after 2010 despite earlier offset-driven support, reflecting how temporary interventions cannot compensate for shrinking budgets, policy uncertainty, and declining competitiveness. Similar patterns in Nigeria and Angola highlight enforcement gaps, where informal agreements lack penalties and performance monitoring is minimal.

The evidence suggests that defence offsets in Africa are neither a guaranteed catalyst for industrial growth nor an inherent failure. Their impact depends on governance, institutional capacity, and alignment with broader industrial policy. Without credible oversight, clear performance benchmarks, and sustained investment in skills and infrastructure, offsets risk becoming costly procurement add-ons rather than engines of manufacturing development. As arms suppliers compete for African markets, the challenge for policymakers is no longer whether to demand offsets, but how to ensure they produce durable economic value rather than deferred promises.