Grants Supporting Local Manufacturing of Medical Supplies: Government & Donor Initiatives in Nigeria, India, Kenya”

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic awakened many governments to a harsh reality: import dependence for medical supplies is a strategic vulnerability. Masks, diagnostic kits, oxygen concentrators, ventilators—all became scarce globally. In response, countries like Nigeria, India, and Kenya are now pivoting toward local manufacturing of medical supplies. But factory infrastructure, regulatory compliance, and capital costs are steep barriers. Grants from governments and donors are one of the most vital levers to help local manufacturers step up, upgrade, and scale.

This article explores how grants and subsidy programs are driving local medical-supplies manufacturing in Nigeria, India, and Kenya. You’ll learn:

The key programs and policies in each country
Comparisons among them
What kinds of grants are available (capital, R&D, procurement support)
A step-by-step guide for manufacturers or startups seeking grant funding
Key insights, challenges, and realistic advice
Common mistakes and FAQs

Let’s begin by examining the policy and grant landscape in each country.

Nigeria: Push for self-sufficiency, procurement preferences, and local content

Government policy and procurement levers

Nigeria’s drive to localize medical manufacturing has become more assertive in 2024–2025. The Presidential Initiative for Unlocking the Healthcare Value Chain (PVAC) aims to reduce import dependence by boosting domestic production of pharmaceuticals, devices, and diagnostics. Nigeria currently imports about 70% of its health care products, and PVAC is trying to shift that balance.

One key instrument is preferential procurement policies. The Nigerian Approved Policy for Procurement of Health and Medical Equipment mandates that Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) give preference to local manufacturers when procuring medical devices and equipment.

This kind of policy-level support is critical because it gives local manufacturing grants a viable market to sell into.

Grant and funding programs

Bulk procurement for local manufacture: In 2025, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved ₦10.3 billion (about USD 25–30 million) for local procurement of medical supplies, including diagnostic kits produced in Nigeria. This is more demand-side support than pure subsidy, but it de-risks local manufacturing.
Healthcare R&D Intervention Scheme: The Central Bank of Nigeria publishes Health Sector Research & Development Intervention Scheme (HSRDIS) guidelines that provide grants for R&D in drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and local manufacturing of such medical goods.
Afreximbank API Funding: The African Export-Import Bank granted US$400,000 to Nigeria’s National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development (NIPRD) for an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient plant. That helps lower the upstream cost of manufacturing medical supplies in Nigeria.

So though direct large grants for devices are fewer, Nigeria is using a mix of procurement support, local preference, R&D funding, and upstream interventions.

India: The MedTech scheme and industrial incentives

India has long had an industrial policy orientation. In 2024, the Government launched a ₹500 crore (approx US$60–65 million) scheme to boost domestic manufacturing and export of medical devices.

Key features of the scheme include:

Subsidies for setting up design and testing centers, common infrastructure, clinical trial support
Capital grants (10-20%) for projects up to a cap (e.g., up to ₹10 crore)
Funding for component manufacturing to reduce dependence on imports
Support for skill development, diagnostic infrastructure, and promotional efforts

Moreover, India runs a Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for medical devices, offering direct incentives to firms that scale up local manufacturing.

The Indian government also explicitly reports structural policies in its “Boosting the Indian Medical Devices Industry” plan, highlighting grants, clusters, regulatory support, and incentives.

So in India, you see both grant or subsidy programs and market incentives / industrial policy targeted at medical supplies manufacturing.

Kenya: Emerging manufacturing ecosystem and donor support

Kenya’s medical device / equipment manufacturing is nascent, but growing.

A medtech landscape review notes 29 companies that manufacture or distribute medical equipment, many in consumables or diagnostics.
The Kenyan government, in its procurement, often partners with private sector firms to manufacture or assemble medical devices through public-private partnerships (PPPs).
There is a US$6,000,000 grant (through the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services) open for 2025 to strengthen Kenya’s lab and diagnostic infrastructure. While this is not strictly a manufacturing grant, it can subsidize equipment deployment, often tied to sourcing locally if manufacturers exist.

Moreover, Kenyan industrial policy analyses suggest that public-private partnerships in pharmaceutical manufacturing are supported by hybrid models combining public grant funding with private investment.

In Kenya, though pure grants to device manufacturers are less evident, there is demand-side grant support for laboratory systems and indirect incentives for local production.

Comparative Snapshot

Here’s a table summarizing and comparing the grant ecosystem in each country:

Country	Key Grant / Subsidy Programs	Policy / Procurement Support	Notable Advantages	Limitations / Gaps
Nigeria	Healthcare R&D grants (HSRDIS), API grant via Afreximbank, ₦10.3 bn local procurement	Local preference procurement policy for medical equipment	Existing government will, market guarantee	Small float, bureaucratic delays, regulatory constraints
India	₹500 crore MedTech scheme (capital subsidies, infrastructure, trial support) ; PLI scheme	Strong industrial policy, cluster support, export incentives	Large market, policy clarity, scale potential	Strict eligibility, capital requirements, regulatory complexity
Kenya	Donor lab grants (e.g. US health systems grant)	PPP support, government contracts for equipment	Potential for market growth, demand for diagnostics	Fewer grants directly to manufacturers, early stage framework

Step-by-Step Guide: How to Access Grant Funding for Local Medical Manufacturing

Here’s a pragmatic roadmap you can follow if you’re in Nigeria, India, Kenya or a similar jurisdiction and wish to secure grant funding to build or scale medical supplies manufacturing.

Step 1 — Understand your national policy & procurement environment

Check if your ministry of health, industrial policy, procurement laws offer preference or mandates for local manufacture (e.g. Nigeria procurement policy)
Identify any existing donor / government grants currently active (e.g. Indian MedTech scheme, R&D grants in Nigeria)
Find industrial clusters, special economic zones, or “medical device parks” in your country

Step 2 — Identify grant programs or calls

Subscribe to government portals (health, industry, MSME) and donor agency sites
Watch industrial or medtech scheme announcements (e.g. India’s ₹500 crore scheme)
Track multilateral bank funding (World Bank, African Development Bank) that may include health manufacturing windows

Step 3 — Define a viable manufacturing / value-add model

Select one product (diagnostic kit, PPE, medical devices) you can realistically produce
Consider upstream input (e.g. APIs, components) and how grant can assist
Build a business model, cost structure, regulatory compliance (standards, ISO)

Step 4 — Build partnerships

Collaborate with research institutions, universities, health ministries, regulatory agencies
Engage with local health facilities or buyers to anchor demand
Secure technical support (e.g. quality labs, testing centers)

Step 5 — Prepare your grant proposal

Your proposal should include:

Problem statement & demand analysis
Description of product / device / kit
Manufacturing plan (process, materials, capacity)
Quality assurance / regulatory compliance plan (standards, certification)
Financials & budget (CAPEX, OPEX, raw materials, labor)
Timeline & milestones
Risks & mitigation (supply risk, regulatory risk)
Impact metrics (jobs created, cost reduction, local content, health outcomes)
Sustainability and scale plan

Step 6 — Submit and follow up

Ensure you meet all eligibility, documents, deadlines
Be ready for due diligence, site visits, audits
If successful, deliver per milestones and report impact

Step 7 — Leverage procurement commitments

After funding, aim to obtain procurement contracts from government or donor agencies to anchor your market
Use local preference policies or health ministry buy-ins to stabilize demand

Key Insights & Lessons (From Real Cases)

Demand anchoring is critical — The Nigerian ₦10.3 bn procurement commitment gives confidence to manufacturers while reducing demand uncertainty.
R&D grants must be tied to downstream manufacturing — In Nigeria, the HSRDIS encourages not just research but scaled manufacturing.
Subsidies cannot substitute policy clarity — In India, the MedTech scheme is only compelling when paired with clear regulatory pathways, predictable incentives, and cluster support.
Donor grants often go to infrastructure / lab / equipment first — In Kenya, the health systems grant supports laboratories and diagnostic systems, not necessarily full manufacturing units.
Public-private partnerships as hybrid models — Kenya’s pharma manufacturing literature emphasizes PPPs as a practical strategy to pool risk and deliver scale.

Common Mistakes & Pitfalls

Mistake	Consequence	How to Avoid
Overextending product range too early	Operational risk, quality failure	Focus on 1–2 core product lines first
Ignoring regulatory compliance	Grant may fail or market access blocked	Invest early in standards, ISO, approvals
Weak demand guarantees	Grants may not convert to sales	Secure MOUs or procurement pledges from health ministries
Poor costing of inputs	Budget overruns	Get market quotes and include buffer
Lack of local partnerships	Lower credibility	Partner with local labs, research institutions, health agencies

FAQs

Q: Are grants sufficient, or will I need co-finance?
Often grants cover part of cost; you may need matching or co-finance, especially for larger capital equipment.

Q: Can I start producing diagnostic kits or PPE rather than full devices?
Yes — many governments begin by supporting consumables and kits, because the regulatory burden is lower.

Q: How important is quality certification?
Critical. You’ll need compliance with standards (e.g. ISO, WHO prequalification) for procurement eligibility.

Q: How do I find the right donor or grant calls?
Monitor government health, industry, MSME portals; follow multilateral banks, WHO, Global Fund calls; network in health innovation ecosystems.

Q: What timeline should I expect?
From proposal to full-scale manufacturing, 1–3 years is common — capital setup, regulatory approval, quality systems build those lead times.

Conclusion & Call to Action

The shift toward local manufacturing of medical supplies is no longer optional — it’s essential for health security. In Nigeria, India, Kenya you already see promising grant and subsidy schemes—but success requires navigating policy, regulation, partnerships, and grant mechanics.

To recap:

Government procurement preference, subsidy programs, and R&D grants are key levers
India leads with aggressive MedTech incentives and PLI support
Kenya is building capacity, lab systems, and PPP models
Grant applications must be grounded in strong business models, regulatory planning, and impact metrics

If you have a manufacturing plan for masks, diagnostics, PPE, or components — start aligning with the policies of your country, build strong partnerships, and prepare grant-ready proposals. The grant windows are opening; be in position to apply.