PETpla.net Insider 12 / 2012

EDITOUR REPORTS 11 PET planet insider Vol. 13 No. 12/12 www.petpla.net because such a measure could have fatal consequences for the Russian beer market. At present around half of all Rus- sian beers are bottled in PET bottles. The ban would have a knock-on effect on machine manufacturers, PET processors and breweries. For smaller or independent breweries, the ban could prove fatal. It is also a fact that beer consumption in Russia is rising steadily, and the determining factor for the hard-pressed consumer is price, pure and simple, although that may be less true in the cities.A number of our contacts mentioned that attempting to reduce alcohol consumption by law is illogical and unworkable. Beer has a relatively low alcohol content, they reason, so why not focus on drinks with a high level of alcohol? It was tried in the Soviet era when prohibitions were put on the sale of vodka. These were occasionally relaxed as no alternatives were available. That is not the case today. A further consequence of the proposed ban, brought up in discussions between politicians, lobbyists and consumers, is a decline for the moment in new investments to promote further development of the market. This applies equally to multinational and local beer bottlers. As long as this uncer- tainty persists, no-one will be willing to take any financial risk. In the view of many of the processors and bottlers we visited, there is unlikely to be any further agreement before the end of the year. Instead, they claim, we will receive from the legislators, only empty promises about the timing of any decision. + + + +Breaking news: Go-ahead for beer in PET+ + + + Shortly before PETplanet went to press, news reached us that the proposed legislation to ban beer in PET bottles has been dropped. This clears the way for the strong develop- ment of PET beer markets in Russia. (see editorial, page 3) Preform and closure formats Turning now to preform and closure formats, the most striking feature is the inconsistent usage of both. Here we find mainly monolayer bottles frequently with a PCO 1881 neck finish, and this is especially true as far as well-known multi-national brands such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola are concerned. Most PET bottles, however, are still using the PCO 1810 neck finish and corresponding closures, both PCO 1810 and the BPF format weighing in at just under 1g. Although both Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola have introduced the short neck standard, the other closures and preforms are apparently maintaining their stubborn hold on the market. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, seems to be the verdict of the market, which is happy with the format, just as the consumer is happy with the price. Why change to the PCO 1881? The Russian consumer appears to be much more conservative than consumers elsewhere in Europe, preferring the tried- and-tested to anything new. Despite this, change is likely to come, albeit gradually. Many preform manufacturers are still producing PCO 1810 and BPF neck finish. For example, bottlers, following a switch to PCO 1810, are continuing to use their BPF closures. Often processors shy away from the costs that are a necessary part of any switch even if the savings in the long term would almost certainly be considerable. For instance, a willingness to change is frequently preceded by a spe- cific requirement on the part of the customer. The switch is therefore basically already underway – even though in most cases it is all still only on paper. This means that it will probably be another two years at least before there is any large-scale introduction of PCO 1881. In addition, people are unwilling to restrict their routine production process by switching systems and this is especially true of medium sized companies. As a result, any reduction in costs is, as far as many Russian producers are concerned, a matter of saving materials in preform production by adjustments to the wall thickness and light base. PET-Recycling as a model for the future Although these days recycling is well established in many parts of the world and enjoys a high degree of popu- larity, Russia’s recycling system is still well and truly stuck in the dark ages. Though, in many parts of the country, refuse recycling plants are being planned, for instance in the oblasts of Smolensk, Belgorod or Novosibirsk, there has been no hurry to treat the topic seriously. This is despite the fact that many in Russia appreciate the need for environ- mental awareness and recycling, but the chances of any large-scale implementation are hampered by the lack of any separate and sensible waste disposal infrastructure. In private households all the different kinds of refuse are cur- rently still unsorted. With a total annual volume of up to 40 million tonnes of waste (approximately 285kg per capita) being stored at landfill sites or incinerated, correspondingly gigantic amounts of valuable raw materials are being literally destroyed. And there are still no clear rules for the sorting of waste. When it comes to the disposal of bottles in the PET sector things are much the same. A bottle return system, as was implemented before in the earlier Soviet Republics for glass bottles, is at present available only to a highly minor extent for glass and not at all for PET bottles. Committed companies who are keen to devise a solution for the future here are rare. One such pioneer company is Plarus in Sol- nechnogorsk near Moscow, which is constantly urging the government to do more. The PET recycler has, for example, set up sorting baskets for PET bottles and these have since been used by the local population. The collected bottles are then recycled at Plarus into valuable rPET. So far so good, but the impact is minimal. It is a one-off project, and the state does not seem keen to get more involved. So it is not surprising that recycling, consisting purely of returning bottles, has up to now been a loss-making business and this can only change in the long term, and only if there are changes in the recycling market itself. All our correspondents deplored the fact that the govern- ment seemingly offers only lukewarm support to recycling initiatives. Consequently, no investments are being made in the installation of such systems either. At least not as yet. It is important to convince the government of the advantages of separating and recycling waste by means of dedicated project work. Evidence shows that Russia, compared with Western Europe, is 10 years behind when it comes to recy- cling and it is important to make this up in the coming years with backing from the government. Currently there is a belief that the government may approve legislation to promote the recycling infrastructure. It is hoped that a decision on this will be made in the not-too-distant future.