pharmexcil.com€¦ · web view1.1.3 following the notification dop organized workshops in 9...
TRANSCRIPT
Sub-Working Group on Regulatory Issues For the 12 th Plan (2012-17)
The Terms of Reference of the Sub-Group on Regulatory Issues in the Pharmaceutical
Industry for the 12th Plan 2012-17 issued vide OM No. 35022/16/2011-PI.III dated
23.5.2011 (Annex-1) are:
i. To review the present status of WHO-GMP (World Health Organization – Good
Manufacturing Practice) certification and schedule-M compliance and suggest
measures for raising the level of compliance by manufacturers of drugs and
pharmaceutical products in the country.
ii. To assess the adequacy and relevance of present regulatory mechanism of drug
and pharmaceuticals sector and examine need for further strengthening to tackle the
menace of spurious drugs etc. and examine need for an apex authority to control
price, quality and supply of drugs.
iii. To indicate the milestones to be achieved in the 12 th Plan in the context of long
term goals as per item-I of the ToR (By Planning Commission) and recommend
programmes/schemes/measures that are to be initiated, continued or discontinued in
the 12th Plan period and estimated fund requirement.
iv. To make any other recommendations as may be appropriate for sustained
growth and competitiveness of the sector.
Page 1 of 32
The Sub Group had the following as its members:
-----
A number of other Members were co-opted as per requirement. These were:
-----
The Sub Group held four meetings on 9.6.2011, 17.6.2011, 28.6.2011 and 18.7.2011.
Minutes of the meetings are at Annex-II. The Sub Group meetings took into account the
recommendations of the 11th Plan (Annex-III) and their implementation status. Based on
these, further discussions took place on the Terms of Reference for the 12 th Plan. The
issues for the 12th Plan for this Sub Group broadly fall into two categories namely for
domestic production and for exports. Additionally regulations also concern new drug
testing regulatory requirement, nutraceuticals, veterinary and plant medicine, bio
pharma drugs. Within these, the Sub Group focused on reviewing the present status of
WHO–GMP certification including Schedule M compliance as also to assess adequacy
and relevance of present regulatory mechanism of drugs and pharmaceutical sector. It
is mandated to make recommendations to tackle menace of spurious drugs etc. and to
examine need for an apex authority to control price, quality and supply of drugs. Issues
relating to statutory provision for incentivizing research & development of generic and
new drugs were also discussed.
At the outset, the Sub-Group noted that presently total production of drugs in the
country is about US $ 20 billion. DoP is targeting to grow the industry to US $ 100 billion
by 2020. Given the estimated contribution of 30-40% by the SME sector1, the
production contribution would need to increase from an estimated value of about US $ 8
Bn to US $ 40 Bn by 2020. Thus, a five-fold increase has to be made in the growth of
the SME sector in the next 10 years. The SME sector is also doing contract
1 Small and Medium Sector is defined as per the MSME Act 2006 wherein a small scale unit is defined as that having investment in plant & machinery of Rs.25 lakhs to 5 crores. The medium enterprise is defined as having investment in plant and machinery between Rs.5 crores to Rs.10 crores.
Page 2 of 32
manufacturing for large MNCs and large Indian Pharma companies. This shows the
potential of the SMEs and for the growth of SME sector. The contribution of the SME
sector is discussed in more details later in this document as it was important point of
discussion for the Sub Group. Nevertheless it was unanimously agreed that in order to
support the growth of the Pharma Industry, the role of SME sector is important
alongwith with the leadership role of the large sector and so, a multi pronged strategy
would be necessary particularly in the context of the regulatory framework required for
enabling the growth of the Pharma sector as a whole.
Issue wise the recommendations of the Sub Working Group are as below:
1. To review the present status of WHO-GMP (World Health Organisation – Good Manufacturing Practice) certification and Schedule-M compliance and suggest measures for raising level of compliance by manufactures of Drugs and Pharmaceutical products in the country.
1.1 Schedule-M Compliance
1.1.1. The revised Schedule-M compliance standard was made mandatory w.e.f. 1st
July, 2005. The 11th Plan discussions on this subject made efforts to obtain the correct
picture as to how many units were Schedule-M compliant. The exact assessment was
not possible due to lack of accurate data due to shortage of drug Inspectors with the
Ministry of Health which is mandated alongwith the State Regulatory Authorities to
assess the compliance levels. However, it recommended a “Pharmaceuticals
Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme” (PTUFS) for enabling Schedule-M
compliance levels of the SME Units by proposing an Interest Subsidy Scheme offering
an Interest Subsidy of 5% on the loans made available to the SME Units with assistance
of upto Rs.50 lac to Rs.100 lac per units (Annex-III, Recommendations of 11 th Plan).
The scheme was to be operational for two years. It was also proposed to give soft loan.
It was estimated that out of the existing SMEs 40% may come forward to take
Page 3 of 32
assistance from the scheme. A fund requirement of Rs.560 crore was estimated and
the scheme was to be implemented with SIDBI as the nodal financial institution.
1.1.2 The Planning Commission approved the scheme with an outlay of Rs.340 crore.
Later however, the Department of Expenditure during the EFC dated 02.03.2009 for the
scheme advised that the existing upgradation scheme for SSI Units (CLCSS: Credit
Link Capital Subsidy Scheme) being implemented by Ministry of Micro Small and
Medium Enterprises (MSME) may be tweaked to include assistance for upgradation of
the SSI Pharma Units to Schedule-M standards. Based on the observation of the EFC,
DoP in consultation with industry finalized list of equipments for assistance under the
CLCS Scheme whereby the eligible equipments list was increased from 42
equipments to 178 equipments and machineries. Accordingly a Guideline was issued by
MSME on 13.7.2009. The CLCSS had provision for giving one time capital subsidy
assistance of upto Rs.25 lacs for upgradation projects of SSIs upto a total project cost
of Rs. 1 crore. As per the scheme a unit had to take a loan of Rs.75 lacs for availing the
capital subsidy assistance of Rs.25 lacs.
1.1.3 Following the notification DoP organized workshops in 9 large pharma cluster
places – Mumbai (Thane), Aurangabad, Nasik, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad,
Chandigarh, Indore and Bangalore. These meeting were organized by in partnership
with Industry associations – SPIC, IDMA, CIPI, FOPE etc. While the participation was
encouraging, actual applications for assistance did not materialize. There was
reluctance on part of the SSIs to avail loan for taking advantage of the capital subsidy
as envisaged in the CLCSS. The provision for assistance by inclusion of 178
machines/equipments was announced as above only in July, 2009, that is 4 years after
promulgation of the revised Schedule-M scheme by which time a number of units had
either closed down or reduced their lines of production for ensuring Schedule-M
compliance. Therefore, after 4 years not many units were keen to take assistance as
Page 4 of 32
per the revised CLCS Scheme for SSI Pharma Units. Consequently, the scheme
advantage could not be rolled out.
1.1.4 Based on the above experience, now no assistance seems to be required for
Schedule-M compliance achievement by SMEs. All future units are being setup with
compliance to revised Schedule-M standards.
1.2 WHO-GMP Standard Compliance
1.2.1 India is a member signatory country to the WHO certification protocol on the
quality of pharmaceuticals products moving in international commerce as resolve by
WHA 22.5 (1969). India, being a signatory state has accepted the GMP text as an
integral part of the standards for export of pharmaceuticals products. As per
arrangement, WHO-GMP certification is granted by the office of the DCGI (CDSCO)
and State FDAs. The certification is for two years at a time.
1.2.2 Since export of generics is to be a key strategy for growth of pharma industry in
the country, hence upgradation of SMEs to WHO-GMP standards would enable them to
export their products and thereby increase profitability. It is estimated that at present
about 800 units are certified by CDSCO for WHO-GMP production. As there are about
10,000 plus Pharma SME Units in the country, therefore, the number of WHO-GMP
standard units should be raised to at least 2000 by 2012 to enable the SME sector to
increase and sustain its participation in the Pharma Industry growth process. This is
also important from the point of you that increasingly the regulatory requirement are
tending to become more stringent both in the country as well as internationally and
therefore it is for the benefit of the small, medium and large sector. Accordingly to make
a reasonable impact on the growth given the ambitious target of achieving USD 100 Bn
production by 2020, it is estimated that about 1000 - 1200 units will have to be assisted
for raising their manufacturing standards to WHO-GMP levels. At an average production
Page 5 of 32
contribution of USD 10 Mn per unit, this would mean additional contribution of about
Rs.10 Bn from the above target achievement.
This would require modification of the list of machineries from the existing Schedule-M
requirements. It was accordingly decided that a list of machinery and equipments
required for WHO-GMP manufacturing standards would be prepared formally by DCGI
and communicated formally to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) for circulating
to all concerned Industry Associations for their feedback before taking up the matter
with the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) for upgrading the list
along with cost details under Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS). This
would form part of the DPR for WHO-GMP standards achievement.
MSME would then accordingly include the list in the list of equipments and expenditure
approved in the CLCS scheme for SSI pharma to begin with. It is estimated that
upgradation to WHO-GMP standards would require project assistance of about Rs.3
crores. Accordingly, it is proposed that assistance to SSI Pharma Units under the
CLCSS may be provided for project cost of upto Rs.3 crores with capital subsidy of Rs.1
crore from the current level of Rs. 25 lakhs capital subsidy on a total project cost of
Rs.1 crore. Also the assistance should be dovetailed to provide soft loan interest rates
by the Banks for this upgradation. Similar assistance would be provided to the medium
scale enterprises who are not WHO-GMP standard but wish to achieve the level for
increasing their competitiveness.
On the whole this (for 1200 units at the rate of Rs.1 crore per unit) would require total
financial assistance of Rs.1200 crores as subsidy. An alternative to capital subsidy can
be interest subsidy scheme as earlier proposed under the PTUFS for Schedule-M
compliance in t he 11th Plan with the difference being that now a similar procedure is
being recommended for achieving higher standards i.e. WHO-GMP standards. It is
proposed that a Detailed Project Report (DPR for WHO-GMP manufacturing standards
upgradation for SMEs) may be prepared by DoP for this and submitted for approval of
Planning Commission and the Department of Expenditure through the EFC process for
Page 6 of 32
assistance under the 12th Plan. For the medium scale enterprises DoP would finalise the
scheme already pending with the Planning Commission by providing required data on
the number of medium level pharma units and their status of WHO-GMP standard
achievements.
1.2.3 Meanwhile, all representatives of industry associations (IDMA, SPIC, CIPI,
FOPE, BDMA, FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM) would consult their members to ascertain the
status of compliance to WHO GMP and other International Standard and provide the
details of at least 100 or more units of SSI and MEs each which would be requiring
assistance from the Government for WHO upgradation. DoP would also issue
advertisement in newspapers inviting companies to give their proposals for upgradaton
and accordingly provide details for upgrading their facilities. There would be established
process for checking the WHO-GMP compliance status as well as the gap required to
be filled for achieving the set standard by installation of requisite plant and machinery as
well as required operating process and procedures.
1.2.4 The DCGI representative has emphasized that an important component of the
WHO-GMP certification was training required for putting in place standard operating
procedure to ensure WHO-GMP compliance. Accordingly, it was decided that the DoP
would organize workshops with the help of DCGI to educate SME units and industry
workmen about WHO-GMP standards in coordination and partnership with SIDBI /
Banks / SISI / DCGI / Industry Associations for this. For this, CIPI would organize
workshops in appropriate locations in Northern India, IDMA in Western India, BDMA in
Southern India. It was decided that in future representative of banks/ Financial Institutes
along with regulatory officials will also be ensured in order to sort out problems of loan
disbursement and other related problems being faced by SSI units. These workshops
should be funded by DoP. A detailed Working Manual would be prepared and
published for distribution to all concerns regarding achievement of WHO-GMP standard.
Page 7 of 32
As regards, compliance of reference standards was concerned, the Group felt that the
DCGI has not been able to provide Reference Standard, for example G.S.R. 852. In
this context, it has been decided that the reference standards should be specified
clearly and unambiguously. For this, reference working standards, impurity standards,
etc., should be worked out in consultation with the industry.
1.2.5 Further to above it is recommended that DoP should setup a full fledged
“International Manufacturing Standards Training Centre” especially for the industry
regulatory skill building as discussed above. A similar recommendation of Rs.100
crores was made in the 11th Plan but however the same could not be implemented. It is
accordingly proposed to setup one national center and five regional centers at
Chandigarh (at NIPER, Mohali), Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmadabad, Mumbai and
Kolkata. An amount of Rs. 60 crores should be allocated for setting up of the centers.
This would meet the capital cost including land, building and equipments. As regards
the operating cost, 70% would be borne by the industry and 30% by the government on
a recurring basis. The operation of the center would be done in a PP mode in
association with the industry association. The DPR proposed earlier would detail out the
structure and management of these centers. The centers would provide training in
WMO-GMP standards and other international manufacturing standards like USFDA,
MHRA, TGA, EDQM etc., Training would also be provided on Indian Pharmacoepia as
well as International Pharmacopeia standards required for achieving standards
compliance.
Some 5,000 suitably qualified working professionals in the industry would be trained as
above. Professional Consultants would be hired for the purpose would also assist in
developing Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) required for achieving compliance
standards.
1.2.6 The Sub Group also discussed synergy strategies to address regulatory
compliance even while promoting growth of the pharma industries. In this connection,
Cluster based approach was discussed as an important strategy now increasingly being
recognized as an effective and sustainable strategy for competitive enhancement of
Page 8 of 32
MSMEs. Such an approach, which leverages the geographical proximity of the
enterprises on ‘collaborating while competing’ principle, is participatory and cost
effective. As it provides critical mass for customization of interventions, the DoP could
implement Cluster Development Programme for Pharma Sector SMEs (CDP-PS) to enhance Quality, Productivity & Innovative capabilities of the SME
Pharma sector in the country through better standards compliance. The Scheme
would be implemented on a Public Private Partnership (PPP) format. Support from the
DoP would be by the way of grant for creation of identified infrastructure and Central
facilities will be set up by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), formed by group of
entrepreneurs from the Cluster being benefitted. Such clusters presently exist in
Baddi (HP), Hardwar (Uttarakhand) and Gurgaon (Haryana) in the north,
Pattancheru, Pashmalyram and Khazipalli (in A.P), Alandur and Ambattur (both in
TN) in the South, Thane, Nashik, Aurangabad (all in Maharashtra), Vadodara and
Ahmedabad in Gujarat in the West and Goa/Sikkim in other special areas.
Therefore, such Central facilities would be set up in their clusters in the first
instance. Examples include:
Central Facilities Centre for quality and Govt. compliance.
Central Cold Chain facilities for Pharma Products.
Central Formulation and Product Development Facilities.
Central Environment Treatment Plant Facilities.
Other Common facilities as may be required.
The GOI grant would be restricted to assistance for land, building and machineries
cost. The operational cost to the extent of 70% would be met by the industry on a
recurring basis.
1.2.7 The cluster development approach could also be expended further to include
setting up of centers for generics development even while ensuring synergistic
regulatory compliance. For this it was envisaged that formulation development center
Page 9 of 32
could be established which would assist the SME Pharma in particular for development
of new formulations with a view to taping the vast opportunity opening up due to off
patenting of a number of molecules resulting in drugs worth US $ 300 billion to lose their
patent in the next five to seven years which would come under the generic domain and
would so be available for manufacturing by any unit after the expiry of the patent period.
In this regard it was recommended that there should be at least one National
Formulation Development Centre (NFDC) set up to assist the SMEs for the
development of new formulations which are the source of increasing production in the
domestic and export market. India Pharma Sector can tap this opportunity only if the
SME pharma sector is able to grow itself to develop this generic formulation and to
produce them not only for domestic consumption but also for exports. For this, as
already stated, not only there should be technological help but infrastructure facility
assistance in the form of PPP model set up of at least one Regional Formulation
Development Centre (RFDC) in each of the identified cluster growth areas of the
pharma sector in the country.
1.2.8 The Sub Group recognized the importance and usefulness of IT for strengthening
regulatory compliance in a cost effective manner. Accordingly it was recommended that
a project for developing IT software may be taken up for helping the SMEs in achieving
various regulatory compliances. After development, the software would be distributed by
the Department to the industry free of cost. DCGI office would provide full technical
guidance support for this. It was also decided that MoHFW/IPC would consider that in
order to increase awareness among SME, an option of reducing the cost of Rs. 15,000
per copy by putting Pharmacopeia on the internet may be explored as is the practice for
several international pharmacopeia such as USP and BP.
1.2.9 Under the Drug Price Control Order such SSI pharma units are exempted from
Price Control. In this context, as the SSI units have no incentive to grow themselves
into medium level in the present price control regime, a special provision needs to be
Page 10 of 32
made for the SSI pharma units to enable them to have higher level of investment in
plant and machinery as mandatorily required for WHO-GMP Certification even while
claiming SSI status. Therefore, limit of SSI categorization of pharma units should be
increased from 5 crores to at least 8 crores both for DPCO incentivisation and MSME
assessment. Similarly in the DPCO, the exemption from price control would be
provided to Pharma Units having appropriately certified investment of upto Rs.8 crores
in plant and machineries and having WHO-GMP certification.
1.2.10 Other related issues discussed in the Sub Group related to (i) Marketing
Authorization for generic product approved in regulated markets, (ii) Marketing
Authorization for generic product not approved in any regulated market; (iii) Clinical Trial
Application for generic version of a medicine already approved in India; (iv) Clinical Trial
Application for generic version of a medicine not approved in India; (v) Clinical Trial
Application for a new drug having origin in India and (vi) Clinical Trial Application for a
new drug having origin outside India. It was further stated that the current practice of
clubbing different activities under one process should be done away with. IPA stated
that approval for marketing norms is different for conducting clinical trials for generics.
IPA has submitted a document to MOHFW in this regard. It was decided that a copy of
the document would be forwarded to DoP.
It was pointed out that marketing approval and approval of clinical trials need to be
delinked. It was further stated that drugs available in the other countries but being
marketed first time in India are being classified as new drug for which Clinical Trials are
required to be conducted. DCGI representative stated that Drugs & Cosmetics (D&C)
Act 1940 only defines drugs and new drug and generics have not been defined in the
Act. There is a requirement of producing minimum 3 batches of 1 lakh tablets for
conducting stability data and for ensuring consistency of quality. Further, the batch size
of 1 lakh tablet though is generally fixed; it can vary depending on the product involved.
DCGI representative while pointing out the need to conduct phase III clinical trials in the
country as per the requirements Schedule 'Y' of D&C, Act 1940 stated that results
related to stability and efficacy varies from population to population. It was decided that
Page 11 of 32
all related issues should be elaborated by the industry and feedback should be given to
DoP. MoH & FW should nominate a representative of DoP to all Committees being set
up by MoH&FW for recommending changes in this regard in future.
1.2.11 Regulations concerning Government procurement from SME sector
There is a need to have a strategy for government procurement of drugs/ medicines
from SME as various state governments/ Government Institutions have laid down
restriction of minimum turnover of 35 to 50 crores for SME sector, for which efforts need
to be made to remove such restrictions. It was also stated that 70% Government
procurement amounting to Rs.7000/- crores is being done from SME units. IDMA also
informed that this issue was taken up with the Competition Commission earlier.
However, Commission has not taken any concrete action since all circulars and
instructions were stated not to be notified. In this connection, all the industry
associations representatives stated that the issue of insistence on WHO GMP
compliance by the government institutions/hospitals also needs to be addressed
suitably for Government. DCGI representative informed that a circular has already been
issued in 2005 in this regard. It was decided that a copy would be provided by DCGI
which would be circulated to all Industry Associations by DoP. It was also decided that
copies of guidelines/ instructions/circulars in this regard issued by various State
Governments/Institutions/Hospitals would be provided by IDMA to DoP and this issue
would be discussed further by organizing a meeting of all concerned stakeholders.
1.2.12 Regulation of biosimilar drugs
It is understood that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has drafted a set of
guidelines for conducting pre-clinical trials of biosimilars. These are in the context of
regulations concerning manufacture and marketing of biosimilars presently governed
by the Environment Protection Act of 1970 and the Drugs & Cosmetics Act of 1940.
Presently, even though biosimilars are regulated under these provisions of these Acts,
there are no set of specific rules to enable speedier and unambiguous clearance for
production of biosimilars. This is important in the context of the fact that biosimilars is a
very strong emerging market opportunity for the country to the tune of Rs. 300 bn. The
Page 12 of 32
DBT needs to take into confidence the industry through DoP to enable drafting of
proper guidelines for production of biosimilars in the country.
1.2.13 There is also discussion regarding formulation of a National Antibiotic Policy by
incorporating a new schedule namely HX in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act so as to prevent
large scale misuse of antibiotics in the country which are currently placed under
Schedule H of the D&C Act. This mainly concerns prescription and retailing of
antibiotics but should be done in consultation with the industry through DoP.
1.2.14 Another important issue concerns regulation for approval for fixed drug
combinations. This needs to be evolved in consultation with the industry. The DTAB
under the DCGI should have a representative of DoP so as to ensure that the Pharma
Industry concerns are addressed in a speedy and unambiguous manner.
1.2.15 The classification of medical representatives hired by the Drug Industry as
Workmen and the Labour Laws needs to be carefully examined again in the context of
the nature of the job which is an important regulatory issue concerning the pharma
industry sector. The industry and the DOP need to be taken on board in the context of
ongoing discussions in the Ministry of Labour and in the Ministry of Health.
1.2.16 The following actions are identified to overcome the challenge relating to
regulatory incentivisation of the Pharma sector in the context of R&D and also for taping
the generics opportunity.
Page 13 of 32
Present Status Proposed Change
(a) The fiscal benefit of weighted deduction for expenditure on scientific research u/s 35 (2AB) of Income Tax Act expires on 31 March 2012
This should be extended for a period of at least 10 years upto 31 March 2022. It should always remain valid for 10-year period.
(b) The expenses incurred on clinical trials, bio-equivalence studies, regulatory approvals and patent filings outside are not eligible for weighted reduction u/s 35(2AB).
Section 35 (2 AB) should be modified to include these expenses.
(c) S. 35A offers 200% weighted deduction for in-house R&D. However, with the imposition of Minimum Alternate Tax [MAT] of 20%, companies are unable to avail full benefit of weighted deduction. Though the law provides for carryover and set off, the ongoing and ever growing investment in R&D does not allow benefit of weighted deduction to R&D intensive industry.
Modify MAT to allow companies to take benefit of weighted deduction of 200% for R&D.
Alternatively, the amount spent for R&D should be treated as TAX CREDIT [Investment Tax Credit] and be allowed to be set off against Tax and/or MAT Payable.
(d) The weighted deduction u/s 35(2AA)allowed on sponsored scientific research undertaken through an approved national laboratory, university, Indian Institute of Technology and other specified institutions was increased from 125% to 175%.
The weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii)on contributions made to approved scientific research association, university, college or other institutions was also increased from 125% to 175%.
Similarly, the weighted deduction on contributions made u/s 35(1)(iia) to a company engaged exclusively in R&D and approved by the specified authority, should also be allowed.
(e) Grants and Interest Subsidy Allow grant of upto 75% for capital investment in technology development.
Offer soft loans for capital investment and working capital for technology development.
Ease administrative price control on products commercialized out of indigenously developed technology.
Page 14 of 32
(f) Exemption from Duties and Taxes:
Input credit is available only if R&D equipment and raw materials are used in the same premises where excisable goods are manufactured Several companies have set up R&D centres away from their factory premises. They are not eligible to claim credit for inputs/capital goods procured for the purpose of research and development. Thus, there is a distinction between R&D units within the factory premises and outside the factory premises.
The rules should be amended to allow CENVAT credit on all inputs used for R&D purposes even if they are used in a location outside the factory premises.
All inputs including capital goods and equipments necessary for carrying out research and development should be fully exempted from all duties and taxes.
1.3 Schedule-L compliance
The DCGI has made it mandatory for all units to be Schedule-L compliant as from
August, 2011. In this context there is need to understand the applicability of Schedule
‘L’ compliance for SSI Units are part of the GMP practices. As per DCGI, guidelines for
GLP compliance applicable only for pre-clinical studies. In view of the divergent views
expressed, it was decided the issue of compliance of Schedule ‘L’ would be examined
and clarification would be issued thereafter by M/o Health & FW. It is also to be
examined as to what amendments need to be made in the list of 178 items/equipments
currently included in the CLCSS scheme of MSME for Pharma SSI units for Schedule
‘M’ compliance and modified list, if required, along with cost details and other
requirements for ensuring Schedule ‘M’ and ‘L’ compliance would be suggested by O/o
DCGI. Initially DCGI would undertake this exercise which will focus on critical items
which make major contributions in production facilities especially of SSI and MEs. The
industry associations would give their suggestions for modifying and upgrading the
current list.
Also it was decided that there is need to remove confusion and apprehension of SSI
units and clarification to this effect that for units already compliant to Schedule ‘M’ no
further compliance for Schedule ‘L’ need to be ensured, would be issued by DCGI/ MoH
& FW.
Page 15 of 32
2.0 Regulatory matters concerning Exports - IPR, TRIPS, Patent Linkage, Importing countries standards compliance, FTAs, Data Exclusivity and other related issues
2.1 On the issue of Regulatory matters concerning Exports - IPR, TRIPS, Patent
Linkage, Importing countries standards compliance, FTAs, Data Exclusivity, etc., it was
pointed out that both large and SME units are finding it difficult to cope up with the
stringent demands being placed on these units especially related to Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) and other regulatory demands. In this connection it was recognized that
Indian Pharma Industry consists of 50% domestic and 50% of export market and issues
concerning both these segments need to be addressed separately. On account of this,
for the export units, different requirements are being specified by importers in different
countries, which are becoming difficult to comply with.
Further, different Laboratories especially Government and Private labs are having
different Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). As a result samples being tested for
export in Government/public labs are most likely to fail. In this context, there is a
requirement to spread awareness and educate SME units about SOPs for testing their
products. In this regard, while the Indian Pharmacopeia has prescribed testing
procedures and is currently having 2000 monographs including validation of procedures
which has to be followed by all manufacturers, there needs to be clear understanding on
the requirements. It was accordingly recommended that DoP in partnership with
MoHFW/IPC launch programmes to increase awareness among SME and country wide
workshops for training SME pharma on the SOPs for testing and fulfillment of Exports
requirements.
Even for regulations compliance as per existing status there is need for training of the
Pharma professional in a workshop mode to train them concerning compliance on
existing IPR, TRIPS, Patent Linkage, Importing countries standards compliance, FTAs
and Data protection provisions. This is besides the fact that contentious issues
Page 16 of 32
concerning these points need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner on a
continued basis which the DoP needs to take up in a more proactive manner.
2.2 It was further recognized that exporting units including bulk drugs and
formulations Pharma units are facing three types of non-tariff barriers related to
regulatory requirements from EU. Firstly that Indian Drug Manufacturing Units exporting
to EU have to ensure compliance to EDQM and have to obtain their certificate for every
drug in addition to the standards for the importing country. This is acting as an
additional barrier. IPA further informed that EDQM certificate is applicable for bulk drugs
for 3 years and there is currently a proposal under consideration for charging 15,000
Euros for issuance of certificate per bulk drug. Secondly, in the case of bulk drugs, third
party audit are being insisted upon as a result companies are being forced to divulge
their intellectual property infringing on their right to protect data. Thirdly, EU is insisting
on verification of pedigree of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients in case of export of
formulations. In order to address this multipronged barrier, there is a need to create
synergy among various government departments/ministries viz. Department of
Commerce (DoC), Pharmexcil, M/o Health & FW, DoP for formulating an integrated
strategy to tackle such barriers and may include taking counter measures. The efforts
by Pharmexcil in taking up the matter with DoC were discussed including the initiative
to take up dialogue with the concerned embassies and MPs from EU in India. DoP
needs to take up this issue in a more proactive manner with DOC etc.
2.3 As regards the requirements for IPR enforcement under various trade
agreements viz. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of WTO, World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), Anti Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA),
etc. due to lack of clarity of the exact requirements under these agreements, exporters
in India are facing problems in ensuring their compliance which is affecting their exports.
Furthermore, efforts are being made by a few countries especially developed countries
to define additional requirements in a sophisticated manner resulting in TRIP plus
Page 17 of 32
arrangement which is likely to impact Indian exports adversely in the long run. IDMA
representative stated that they had already taken up the issue, and are currently
observer on WIPO and had attended latest Congress in Paris. These issues need to
be tackled in a comprehensive manner by joint efforts of DoP and DoC .
2.4 Another issue concerns Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), a new
regional free trade agreement which include the United States, Australia, Peru, Vietnam
and Malaysia, Japan, etc. and builds on an existing Free Trade Agreement between
New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam. Under TPPA, these countries
are defining stringent conditions even for products transiting these countries which are
likely to have adverse impact on Indian Pharma products. In this connection while the
private industry has taken up initiatives with South American countries, namely Brazil,
Argentina and Mexico etc. to address issues related to exports, however, problems
remain especially with countries like Argentina. These need to be addressed
emergently. In this connection, while there is a trust deficit between the industry and
the government especially in the context of government signing Free Trade
Agreement(s) with various countries wherein facility of zero duty is being extended there
is every likelihood of creation of further problems without proper involvement of the
Industry.
2.5 On the issue of data exclusively It was agreed that data exclusivity should not be
insisted upon as there are 200 preparation patents are expiring in USA. While DoC has
taken up issue of data exclusivity and patent linkage and draft also has been circulated
by Deptt. of Industrial Policy and Planning (DIPP), there is a chapter on investment
related to issue of IPR which might impact industry adversely. In this connection, while
assurance has also been given by DoC/DIPP that additional conditions of IPRs would
not be imposed and statements issued to the effect that India would not accept any
TRIPs plus arrangement including any condition of data exclusivity there was need for
Page 18 of 32
to be actively involved on behalf of the industry with DoC and DIPP for a holistic view
point.
2.6 It was recognized that while there is need laying a pathway for building and
improving regulatory infrastructure of the country, however, the pathway should be
calibrated to suit the country’s social goals and infrastructure. Utmost care should be
taken to ensure that the regulatory authority is exercised with caution and after
consultations with the stakeholders. Nothing should be done blindly to imitate the
regulatory norms of the developed countries that may curb development of innovative
processes for better yields and quality – a unique strength of the Indian pharmaceutical
sector. It was agreed that regulatory requirements are being modified at very fast
pace which is creating problems for domestic manufacturers. Though the industry is not
opposing the regulatory requirements being specified by the Government, there is need
for the Government to ensure smooth transition. It was recognized that the regulatory
environment is becoming more stringent day by day due to popular pressure even for
domestic manufacturers in developed markets. In this context therefore, Indian pharma
industry needs to assume a leadership role and effort to be supported by pro active
participation of MoH&FW and DoP.
2.7 In the special context of these regulations impinging on Indian Pharma’s
leadership in the API sector, it was decided that in order to address these issues, details
of APIs production especially in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Eastern Europe would be
collected. IPA and BDMA would conduct a study, to be funded by DoP, and prepare a
report on export of Indian APIs/formulation drugs to EU and details of APIs being
manufactured in these countries in 4 weeks time. IDMA was asked to provide further
details with regards to Paris meet. It was also agreed that there is a need to tackle
these issues in organized manner wherein representatives of the industry need to be
co-opted in the efforts. It was decided that a Cell would be established in IPA, to be
funded by DoP, on all issues related to IPR, regulatory issues, etc. acting as barriers.
IPA will respond and provides its feedback on the proposal in 3 weeks time. Also
Page 19 of 32
Regular and periodic meetings could be held between DoP, MOHFW, DoC and Industry
to address these issues on a continued basis.
2.8 It was also decided that in order to examine issues related with possibility of
adoption of Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-
operation Scheme (jointly referred to as PIC/S), two international instruments between
countries and pharmaceutical inspection authorities, which provide together an active
and constructive co-operation in the field of GMP. PIC/S' mission to lead the
international development, implementation and maintenance of harmonised Good
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards and quality systems of inspectorates in the
field of medicinal products, is to be achieved by developing and promoting harmonised
GMP standards and guidance documents; training competent authorities, in particular
inspectors; assessing (and reassessing) inspectorates; and facilitating the co-operation
and networking for competent authorities and international organisations.
2.9 For this, a Task Force headed by Shri V. Topa to be supported by IPA, to be
funded by DoP, would prepare a road-map on all the above issues 2.1 to 2.8 and submit
the details to DoP. It was also decided that report of the Task Force of Department
Commerce would be examined and appropriate action would be suggested by this
SWG.
2.10 2D Barcoding
The Sub Group discussed in detailed regarding the Regulatory requirement regarding
2D Barcoding for export of medicines mandated by DGFT w.e.f. 1 July 2011 to prevent
fake medicines. It was pointed out that Barcoding was devised as a means of Inventory
Control by Supermarkets in the West as it is impossible to physically control inventory of
thousands of items. That Pharma MNCs use Barcoding to prevent transfer of medicines
from one country to another as their MRP varies in each country. However, since
Barcodes can be replicated, hence they cannot be uncontroverted mechanism for
Page 20 of 32
preventing counterfeit drugs. The implementation of 2D Barcoding at tertiary level i.e. at
strip level is very expensive. It is estimated that the cost for a small unit monthly cost
would be around Rs.1,00,000- for barcoding. Thus for example, the cost on inks alone
for a small unit producing 10,000 strips per day shall be Rs.25,000 per month which
works out to be 1 paise per tablet. Additionally, there would be costs of Registration with
M/s GS1, Interest on Investment on Machines, Depreciation, Rejections, Annual
Maintenance Contract (AMC) which is around 10% of Machine cost, labour - especially
in sorting 30% rejections. All this would add up to around 4 paise per tablet. Indian
Pharma SMEs exporters are known for Affrodable Drugs the world over. Paracetamol is
exported @ 16 paise per tablet. A 4 paise increase per tablet works out to be 25%
increase in price - more than enough to edge out Indian SMEs from competition and
loose the business to China. On the other hand while one tablet of Generic version of
Viagra costs 60 paise and is exported by Indian SMEs for 70 paise the same tablet is
retailed for $10 each by Pfizer under the Brand Name of Viagra in countries where
Patent is applicable. It should be noted that while MNCs who export high priced
patented drugs have no such problem, the SME sector would be handicapped by
avoidable expenditure on extra regulatory compliance.
An important issue in the connection relates to preparation of art works. Many importing
customers send their artworks for labels and packings as per norms of importing
country. All such orders would be cancelled or material rejected. The Barcodes have
no use when Non- branded drugs for Hospitals in foreign countries are exported as they
are never counterfeited like expensive brands of MNCs. A strip of 10 tablets of
Paracetamol is exported for Rs.1.50 each. There is simply no motivation as it will be like
counterfeiting One Rupee coins. Barcoding is impossible when labels of medicines are
too small like Tetanus Toxoid and Zentel – size 20mmx25mm. Hundreds of Small
consignments valued between US$ 5000-10,000 each are exported by Indian SMEs
each day. Each consignment consists of several items. All Such exports shall cease
with one stroke in view of the fact that Barcoding renders them unviable - which seems
one of the real motives. other pitfalls of Barcoding relate to the fact that Barcode
Page 21 of 32
Machine Suppliers have opined that rejections shall be a minimum of 30%. So far they
have been unable to perfect the machines for better results. It means a lot of time and
money will go into sorting out good and bad strips, which could easily result in delays
and hence cancellation of orders.
As per DOC, only one company namely M/s GS1 has been appointed as the sole
Barcode provider by Government. SMEs will have to source their Barcodes and
accessories like Inks etc, from them. It is well established that free 2D Barcodes
available on the Internet. With tens of thousands of brands this would be unfair practice
to benefit GS1 company
In this context it is worthwhile to examine conditions like stipulation of 2D Barcoding
only if the importing country mandates a specific requirement, then exporter can adhere
to the same. The word importing country should be substituted by Importer. Based on
the above, the Sub Group was of the recommendation t hat the matter needs to be
discussed at length with DOC for acceptable resolution.
It has to be understood that in the past, MNCs have repeatedly tried to browbeat India
medicine exports. High quality Affordable Generics exported by Indian SMEs have been
categorized as “counterfeits” in the West and seized at Transit Ports in Europe even
when neither the producing country (India) nor the importing country in Latin America
had Patents on the medicine. Also Counterfeit issues have been equated with “fake”
and “spurious” drugs (a public health issue). CDSCO had mooted amendment of
Definition of Spurious Drugs in World Health Assembly based on IMPACT proposal.
Thus while Barcoding is being portrayed as a step towards increasing Export, in real
terms it makes exports cumbersome and impossible from SMEs. Export prices shall
increase and lead time for shipment shall increase which deprives Indian SMEs of
competitiveness in International market. This will either enable China or MNCs to take
over. The matter needs to be resolved quickly.
Page 22 of 32
In any case, since bar coding would be an important Regulatory requirement in the
times to come, therefore, it was recommended that an allocation of Rs. 100 crores may
be made for assisting SMEs to enable them to install and establish 2-D barcoding
technology for the 12th Plan. A DPR would be prepared by IDMA and SPIC which would
be funded by DoP for submission to the Planning Commission.
3. To examine the need for further strengthening to tackle the menace of spurious drugs, etc., and examine the need for an Apex Authority to control price, quality and supply of drugs.
3.1 It was noted that in the Eleventh Plan recommendations, a proposal for National
Authority for Drug and Therapeutics (NADT) but no clarity had emerged for addressing
issues related to pricing, quality and supply of drugs in holistic manner. NPPA is
handling issues relating to pricing and DCGI is handling issues related to quality of
drugs including Good Distributing Practices (GDP), there is currently no authority for
ensuring supply of sufficient good quality drugs. There is a perceived need of industry
for setting up of a NADT addressing all these issues in a single window mode. During
the course of discussions, in the Twelfth Plan Sub-Working Group Two Industry
associations namely OPPI and IDMA supported the proposal of having a single window
system for addressing these three issues. It was pointed out by some other
Associations like IPA that pricing and regulatory issues should not be part of one
authority/body under any single ministry of Government of India. It was further informed
that a bill of M/o H & FW for setting up a CDA dealing only with regulatory issues
without addressing the issues related to pricing is pending in Parliament by taking away
some powers from the State governments. This bill was sent to Rajya Sabha in 2009.
In this context, it was decided that a copy of the proposal of DoP for National Authority
for Drugs and Therapeutics (NADT) needs to be examined in further detail outside the
Twelfth Plan Sub-Working Group discussions in a more comprehensive and focused
manner.
Page 23 of 32
3.2 As regards, the issue of tackling of spurious drugs menace, it was agreed that
this is an exclusive subject of the Ministry of Health and hence DoP may not included in
the Twelfth Plan Working Group discussions as part of subject to be dealt with in DoP.
4.0 To indicate the milestones to be achieved in the 12th Plan in the context of long term goals as per Item-I of the ToR and recommend programmes/schemes/measures that are to be initiated, continued or discontinued in the 12th Plan period and estimated fund requirement
4.1 At the outset the Sub Group discussed in depth regarding the availability of
credible data on the pharma SMEs is very important. This issue was also highlighted in
the 11th Plan discussions wherein it was estimated that as per 3rd All India Census of
Registered SSI Units, conducted by the then Ministry of Small Scale Industry, there
were 6090 SSI Units in 2001-02.. The compliance position in respect of them was
stated as below:
1672 – Schedule-M GMP Compliance
1797 in the process of establishing Schedule-M GMP Compliance
370 units not in a position to comply GMP norms
337 units have surrendered their licences for manufacture of drugs
The present position of data needs to be examined in the context of the available data
base of 350 companies from Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). It provides
very useful information from the published annual accounts of companies. The table
below from this data base presents domestic and export sales of Formulations and APIs
(at the first point) for the 15-year period ended March 2010:
Page 24 of 32
Domestic and Export Sales (Rs. crores)
Year Exports Growth % Domestic Growth % Total Growth %
Mar 1995 1,701.13 0.00 10,645.58 0.00 12,346.71 0
Mar 1996 2,498.52 46.87 12,676.86 19.08 15,175.38 22.91
Mar 1997 2,991.48 19.73 13,987.63 10.34 16,979.11 11.89
Mar 1998 3,396.12 13.53 15,436.74 10.36 18,832.86 10.92
Mar 1999 3,923.62 15.53 17,998.73 16.60 21,922.35 16.40
Mar 2000 4,801.46 22.37 20,590.23 14.40 25,391.69 15.83
Mar 2001 5,654.37 17.76 21,540.81 4.62 27,195.18 7.10
Mar 2002 7,385.95 30.62 23,315.83 8.24 30,701.78 12.89
Mar 2003 9,809.31 32.81 25,911.22 11.13 35,720.53 16.35
Mar 2004 12,466.12 27.08 29,642.54 14.40 42,108.66 17.88
Mar 2005 14,385.16 15.39 31,435.52 6.05 45,820.68 8.82
Mar 2006 16,724.33 16.26 37,283.54 18.60 54,007.87 17.87
Mar 2007 22,736.95 35.95 42,247.14 13.31 64,984.09 20.32
Mar 2008 27,155.53 19.43 49,087.79 16.19 76,243.32 17.33
Mar 2009 33,412.45 23.04 54,106.89 10.22 87,519.34 14.79
Mar 2010 36,683.34 9.79 59,828.93 10.58 96,512.27 10.28
Source: CMIE (As of 9 June 2011)
As may be seen from the above table, the domestic sale has doubled every five years.
For the 15-year period (1995-2010), the domestic sale has grown at compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 12 per cent, whereas exports have grown faster at CAGR of 22
per cent. The CAGRs, measured by three five-year periods, viz. 1995-2000, 2000-2005
and 2005-2010, are indicative of the growth trends:
Page 25 of 32
CAGRs for Three Five-year Periods
Period Exports %
Domestic %
Total %
1995-2000 23 14 16
2000-2005 24 9 13
2005-2010 20 14 15
The deceleration in the CAGR for exports during 2005-10 could be due to global melt
down in 2008-09 and rising non tariff barriers by the developed countries. The slow
down during 2000-05 in domestic sales could perhaps be attributed to greater focus on
the global markets.
The second data base is IMS Health data. It is based on a sample of 450 companies,
provides trade and institutional sales of formulations in the domestic market. Its data for
the five-year period ended March 2010 is given below:
Indian Pharmaceutical Market
Year Trade Sales (SSA)
Institutional Sales (HSA)
Total Sales (SSA + HSA)
Value Growth %
Mar 2006 24437.2 1921.2 26358.4 15
Mar 2007 27955.6 2276.9 30232.5 14
Mar 2008 32108.8 2532.2 34641.0 15
Mar 2009 35367.5 2949.8 38317.3 10
Mar 2010 41700.7 4035.9 45736.6 18
Source: IMS Health MAR MAT 2010
The data reflects domestic sales value of formulations only. It captures sales at the
second point from Stockists to Retailers and Hospitals separately. It does not capture
tender or direct sales by companies to hospitals. As may be seen from the above table,
the domestic formulation sale has grown at CAGR of 15 per cent in the four-year period
(2006-10) from Rs 26,358cr to Rs 45,737cr.
Page 26 of 32
It is noteworthy that the last 200 companies in IMS Health data base contributed only
Rs 114cr or 0.25 per cent of the total sales value of Rs 45,737cr in 2009-10. This is
indicative of the direct contribution of the small scale sector to the total pharmaceutical
direct sales. The small scale sector needs careful consideration and validation of its
contribution from the sales contribution point of view so as to properly assess its role in
shaping the future growth of the pharmaceutical sector.
Going forward, the growth will accelerate further. The patent expiries, pressure on the
developed country governments to contain their healthcare expenditure and readiness
of the domestic companies will drive exports. On the domestic front, rising income,
improved health infrastructure, rise in the prevalence and treatment of chronic diseases,
high prices of patented products and greater market penetration will accelerate the
growth.
Projected Growth of Pharmaceutical Sector
Year
Export Domestic Total
Rs 000 cr
Growth %
Rs 000 cr Growth %
Rs 000 cr Growth %
Base Year (2009-10)* 36,683 9.79 59,829 10.58 96,512 10
(11th Plan) 2011-12 51,078 18% 76,390 14% 127,467 16
(12th Plan) 2016-17 130,302 21% 157,690 16% 287,992 18
Target Year (2019-20) 232,7462 22% 248,2593 17% 481,0054 19
*CMIE Data Base Source: IPA
It may however be noted that these are very challenging targets.
Role of Public Sector: The Public Sector, which played key role in the growth of the
domestic industry, has become unviable. It would be a herculean task to revive them in
today’s competitive environment without protectionist policies. At best, it can become a
catalyst for indigenous production of APIs and intermediates from the basic stage for
supporting the domestic bulk drug industry and address strategic goal of reducing 2 About USD 46.5 Bn.3 About USD 53.5 Bn4 About USD 100 Bn.
Page 27 of 32
reliance on the third country thereby ensuring medicine security and growth of domestic
industry.
Role of Medium & Large Domestic Companies
The medium and large domestic companies have been the drivers of growth,
contributing 75% of direct and indirect domestic sales and over 90% of direct and
indirect exports. Besides sales, other indicators that bring out contribution of the
medium and large domestic companies are gross fixed assets formation, increase in
wages and R&D spend. The export of top 50 companies for the year 2009-10 reveal
that pharmaceutical industry’s foray in the global market is driven mainly by the
domestic companies (Annex – B). These top 50 exporters accounted for 76% of total
exports of Rs 36,683cr in 2009-10. It is noteworthy that only two foreign companies
feature in this list contributing less than 2% of the total pharmaceutical exports. The
annual increase in the gross fixed assets of domestic and foreign companies is given in
Table below.
Gross Fixed Assets and Annual Increase
Year Domestic Companies Foreign Companies
Gross Fixed Assets
Rs Cr
Addition For the Year
Rs Cr
Gross Fixed Assets
Rs Cr
Addition For the Year
Rs Cr
Mar 1995 4,647 0 927 0
Mar 1996 6,388 1,741 1,085 158
Mar 1997 7,803 1,415 1,202 117
Mar 1998 9,552 1,750 1,308 105
Mar 1999 10,703 1,150 1,453 145
Mar 2000 12,271 1,568 1,504 51
Mar 2001 13,083 812 1,524 20
Mar 2002 14,733 1,650 1,499 -25
Mar 2003 17,455 2,722 1,729 230
Mar 2004 20,713 3,258 1,966 237
Page 28 of 32
Mar 2005 25,639 4,925 2,054 88
Mar 2006 31,061 5,423 2,254 200
Mar 2007 36,503 5,442 2,522 268
Mar 2008 43,807 7,304 2,910 388
Mar 2009 51,946 8,138 3,454 544
Mar 2010 58,658 6,712 3,949 496
Total Increase in 15 Years 54,010 3,022
Source: CMIE
This 15-year period is hall mark of India’s move to market economy and liberalization of
trade and investment policies. India signed TRIPS Agreement in 1994 signaling
reintroduction of product patent from 1995 and allowed 100% foreign equity through
automatic route in the pharmaceutical sector from 2001. Notwithstanding these policy
changes, the foreign companies seems to have done little to increase their investment
in the manufacturing sector, as may be seen from the above table. The foreign
companies invested Rs 3,022cr only in the fixed assets as compared to Rs 54,010cr by
the domestic companies between 1995-96 and 2009-10.
Wages and employment is another indicator of the contribution of the domestic
companies. According to CMIE data base, the wage bill of the domestic companies
reported more than twelve-fold increase over 15-year period from Rs 664cr in 1994-95
to Rs 8,172cr in 2009-10. On the other hand, the wage bill of foreign companies
reported only a little over three-fold increase from Rs 350cr in 1994-95 to Rs 1,215cr in
2009-10. It is thus evident that the maximum employment is generated by the large and
medium domestic companies. The employment data for the pharmaceutical sector from
the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) is given below:
Employment Data for Pharmaceutical Sector
Page 29 of 32
Source: Annual Survey of Industries Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation
It may however be noted that the drugs and pharmaceutical is not a very labour
intensive industry compared to textiles, software and automobiles.
In the above context, the 4th Census of the MSME Units done by MSME is important.
The initial assessment by DDG, Department of C&PC was of 10563 units, the details of
which were published in a Directory in 2008-09. Later, this data was sought to be
validated by MSME and the work was also given to expert agency – ICRA. This work
is still in progress and data is being collected from State Governments regarding SSI
and Medium Enterprises separately along with the status of WHO GMP Compliant
Page 30 of 32
Year No of Employees
Mar 1995 1,81,497
Mar 1996 2,04,609
Mar 1997 2,11,614
Mar 1998 1,89,295
Mar 1999 2,13,999
Mar 2000 2,43,410
Mar 2001 2,33,704
Mar 2002 2,26,416
Mar 2003 2,23,556
Mar 2004 2,40,791
Mar 2005 2,65,396
Mar 2006 2,90,021
Mar 2007 3,36,211
Mar 2008 3,53,692
units. In this context, it was decided that all Industry Associations, DoP, MoHFW,
Pharmexcil and MSME would team together to prepare reliable comprehensive data on
SME pharma units. To begin with details of new SSI units set up since 1 st April, 2008
would be collected by DCGI through State Drug Controller and provided to the
Department in three weeks time. Also Pharmexcil would provide data wherever
required. For this DoP should fund a study/ survey to be conducted by Industry
Associations / other institutions to ascertain details of units manufacturing bulk drugs
and formulations. In this regard it was also decided that CIPI will collect requisite details
from Northern region, IDMA from the Western region and BDMA from the Southern
region and provide the details to the department on priority basis. CIPI will also provide
details of units located in excise-free area to DoP after collecting requisite details from
their member units.
In any case, the Group while assessing the action plan for the growth of SME sector,
uniformly agreed that presently the total production of drugs in the country is about US $
20 billion. DoP is targeting to grow the industry to US $ 100 billion by 2020. The SME
sector is also doing contract manufacturing for large MNCs and large Indian Pharma
companies. This shows the potential of the SMEs and accordingly DoP is targeting that
the SME Pharma should grow to a size of at least US $ 40 billion by 2020. Thus, a five-
fold increase has to be made in the growth of the SME sector in the next 10 years.
In this context, the milestones to be achieved for the 12th Plan could be as follows:
Upgradation to WHO-GMP standards of 1200 SME units by 2017 at the rate of
300 units per annum at the cost of Rs. 1200 crores of subsidy either as one time
capital subsidy or interest-based subsidy
Upgradation to US FDA/EDQM/TGA and other International Standards of 250
units by 2017 at the rate of 50 units per annum at the cost of Rs. 2 crores per
unit and a total cost of Rs. 500 crores.
Page 31 of 32
Training of 5000 Working Professionals in WHO-GMP and other International
Standards GMP requirements by 2017 at the rate of 1000 professionals per
annum at a cost of Rs. 100 crores.
Setting up of one National and five Regional manufacturing standards training
centres at the total cost of Rs. 60 crores.
Setting up of one National and five Regional formulation development and
training centres as per International Standards at a cost of Rs. 100 crores.
Establishment and upgradation of 10 Pharma Growth Clusters by 2017 at the
rate of 2 per year with a per cluster cost of Rs. 50 crores and a total cost of Rs.
500 crores.
Total requirement of all allocations being Rs. 2460 crores.
As regards deletion/modification of existing schemes is concerned, there are no
schemes in the above areas being presently implemented by DoP. The CLCS Scheme
being implemented by MSME would need to be modified for SSI Pharma units with
appropriate budgetary allocations.
It was clearly recommended by the Sub Group that the task of the Department of
Pharmaceutical (DoP), Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers is to catalyze and
encourage quality, productivity and innovation in pharmaceutical sector and to
enable the Indian pharmaceutical industry to play a leading role in a competitive
global market. For this, world class quality manufacturing facilities with high level
of productivity with innovative capabilities are required. The recommendations of
the Sub-Group as above are expected to catalyse this process if they are
implemented in a time bound and purposeful manner.
-----------------------------------------------
Page 32 of 32