As any chemical trader will tell you, it is often the logistics in a deal that can makes the difference between profit and loss. The transportation costs, the insurance, the handling fees, paperwork and taxes all take a toll (pun intended) on a chemical business’s bottom line.

This is one of the many reasons why chemical processing plants are so frequently located near their primary markets. But when this is not possible, chemical products must be imported or exported, and it is at this point that bureaucracy takes its biggest bite. But it is a bite that varies greatly from place to place.

A World Bank study showed that the ‘fees’ for importing a 20 foot container into Tajikstan were US$10,650 but only US$675 in Sri Lanka. And yet costs also change over time, the Tajikstan container fees were ‘only’ US$4,550 in 2011, so have more than doubled in 5 years. How many chemical import/export companies went out of business as a result of the increase is unknown, but given the vital nature of the chemical industry’s work, shouldn’t chemical import/exporters be given tax breaks?

Whilst this may sound wonderful for those of us inside the industry, given the reputation that industrial chemicals have it will be a less appealing option for the majority of the population. It would be career death for any politician proposing it.

This is especially true as public perception of a chemical company is of a massive multinational, such as BASF or Bayer, despite the fact that most chemical businesses are relatively small. The American government trade body SelectUSA reports  that in 2012 in the US there were 10,000 chemical companies which directly employed 784,000 workers (an average of only 7.8 workers per company).

But still, it is firms like ExxonMobil that enter the public concept of a chemical company when they read of the firms alleged attempts to hide knowledge of climate change. Whilst tax headlines for chemical companies includes Dow’s 2013 claim for US$1 billion worth of tax deductions which were declared a ‘sham’ by the New York Attorney General, as reported by Reuters and others.

But perhaps there is some bright news for chemical traders, from the growing number of bonded and tax free logistics centres starting up around the world, such as those that recently opened for pharmaceutical supply imports to Indonesia.

The news, which was reported in Manufacturing Chemist, describes the obvious benefits, “The move constitutes long-awaited support for local industries, including pharmaceuticals, which still imports up to 90% of the ingredients needed for the production of medicines. By storing goods in PLBs [bonded logistics centes], overseas suppliers can drastically cut the delivery time to the local buyers.”

This is of course, not only good news for not only to traders, but to suppliers and purchasers, as well as the Indonesian public, who can expect to pay less for their medicine. But better news still, is that, “The government plans to establish a further 50 bonded logistics centres across the archipelago in 2017.”

Many will argue that duty free centres like this mean that the government has less income for its vital services, such as schools and hospitals, but import and export duties on vital chemical products, that are supplied to 99.9% of the global population, are a tax on us all. In a world where free trade and open markets are increasingly a geopolitical goal, doesn’t an industry that gives vital employment to so many deserve a better tax break?