3 Phase 2 – Development, improvement and harmonisation of plastic data

The second phase of the project marks a transition from identifying gaps to actively closing them, building on the prioritisation and analysis conducted in Phase 1.

Phase 2 builds directly on the outcomes of the cost-benefit analysis and availability mapping, targeting data points that are both high-value and realistically feasible to improve.

The phase began with a Nordic workshop in March 2025, which brought together stakeholders from environmental and statistical authorities across all five countries. The workshop served two purposes: firstly, to validate Phase 1 findings and to identify, in dialogue, the most promising data for early-stage development. Secondly, to inform which data gaps Phase 2 would begin addressing – focusing on those offering the most benefit, feasibility, and alignment with future international standards.

3.1 Nordic Workshop

Summary

The Nordic workshop in March 2025 validated key findings from the data analysis and helped prioritise the most feasible and high-value data gaps for early harmonisation.

Waste-related statistics were consistently prioritised across countries – especially for collection, recycling and incineration – due to strong legal anchoring and existing structures.
Market, production and trade data were highlighted as important but require methodological alignment (e.g. plastic shares in CN/PRODCOM codes). The same was true for sector specific data.
Strong demand for coordination emerged, including shared Nordic frameworks, methodology comparisons, and adapted versions of UNITAR guidance.

The workshop confirmed broad alignment on data priorities, but also underscored that future progress depends on sustained national engagement and flexible, stepwise coordination.

Through collaborative discussion and structured exercises, stakeholders from Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland highlighted both common ambitions and practical challenges. These discussions ensured that the next steps in Phase 2 were grounded in real-world feasibility and national engagement. The workshop included a ranking exercise using a benefit–feasibility matrix, where participants evaluated prioritised data gaps and jointly identified which data points should be developed first. The dialogue also surfaced institutional limitations – such as mandate clarity, data availability, and technical alignment – providing essential input to guide the next phase of work.

Key insights from the Nordic workshop

The workshop surfaced both opportunities and tensions in the pursuit of harmonised plastic data. Below are the key takeaways identified by participants:

Insights on data priorities

No true “quick wins” across countries
While some data points are easier to address, few provide both high benefit and high feasibility to all participating countries – in line with the results from the cost-benefit analysis in phase 1.
Diverse national priorities and prerequisites
Countries varied greatly in which data points they considered most feasible or valuable to develop (e.g. market, production, or trade data), reflecting differences in national contexts, existing capacities, and policy drivers within the Nordics. This highlights the importance of starting with data points that are commonly viewed as both achievable and valuable, and of planning the work in a way that reflects each country's starting point and capacity.
High interest in market and production data – even when not policy-mandated
Several countries emphasised the importance of market input statistics (e.g. production, imports, sales), which are less tied to legal mandates but are seen as critical for understanding flows through the economy and supporting modelling efforts.

Insights on methods and frameworks

Strong demand for a common Nordic plastic methodology framework and comparative analysis
Participants expressed interest in jointly refining how gaps are prioritised and addressed, including identifying best practices and shared approaches across countries. This also includes comparing methodology for existing plastic statistics.
Need to adapt UNITAR methods to Nordic conditions
While UNITAR’s global methodology was viewed as valuable, several stakeholders noted the need for Nordic refinements – especially proxy factors for plastic shares in various products/flows.
Call for demonstrative process models
Participants highlighted the value of establishing common practices for how data can be structured and collected, particularly for complex areas such as trade statistics, product nomenclature, and plastic fractions.

Workshop ranking results and highlighted statistics

Before the workshop, participants were asked to complete a ranking exercise to provide a structured snapshot of which gaps in the plastic flow they considered most critical to address (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 Participants ranking the most important parts of the plastic MFA flow to focus on when closing plastic data gaps.

The ranking results confirm strong and consistent prioritisation of waste-related data points, particularly for collection and treatment. Put-on-market (POM) and sector-specific statistics also scored highly, though views were more mixed. Lower rankings for trade and stock reflect their perceived lower urgency or feasibility, consistent with Phase 1 findings that these data points are more complex or less actionable in the short term.

The results also reveal considerable variation in how countries and institutions prioritise data gaps. For most categories – aside from waste – there was a widespread between first and last rankings. This diversity reflects differing national mandates, data maturity levels, and policy priorities – underscoring the need for structured collaboration and a flexible, shared framework that focuses on aligning efforts while accommodating local conditions.

Country-level cost–benefit mapping: top highlighted statistics

Following the ranking exercise, participants took part in a more detailed cost-benefit mapping activity. Each country team – consisting of representatives from the statistical and environmental authorities

Finland was represented by the Pirkanmaa ELY Centre, which is nationally responsible for compiling plastic packaging statistics under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. However, representatives from the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), who lead the development of Finland’s national Plastics Roadmap and broader plastic data initiatives, were unable to attend. Additionally, representatives from Denmark did not participate in the workshop.

– placed the 37 prioritised data points from Phase 1 into a 2x2 matrix based on their perceived benefit and feasibility of development. This exercise allowed for a more granular understanding of which data points were viewed as in high demand or less urgent across national contexts.

Sweco synthesised the country inputs to identify a set of the most frequently highlighted statistics. These are presented in Table 5, along with short contextual comments on their perceived feasibility and strategic value.

Table 5 Listing the top 10 highlighted statistics from the workshop

Statistics	Comment
Sector specific Put On Market (POM)	Seen as valuable by all countries and consistently prioritised, even if not the absolute top-ranked in benefit or feasibility.
Sector specific collected	Regularly highlighted across countries as important, even if marked as less feasible to achieve.
Plastic POM	Rated as high benefit in Sweden. Norway and Iceland were more ambiguous, but no country marked this low.
Production of secondary plastic	Considered very important by Sweden and Norway, but seen as time-consuming or difficult to develop – especially for Iceland
Plastic waste collected	Seen as both useful and feasible by Sweden and Norway. Iceland viewed it as relatively easy to implement.
Plastic waste recycled	Sweden and Norway saw it as strategic but more complex; Iceland rated it as easier to move forward with.
Plastic waste generated	Same pattern: Sweden and Norway saw it as strategic but more complex; Iceland rated it as easier to move forward with.
Various POM statistics such as Bottle, Plastic bags	Countries disagreed: some saw these as easy to improve, others viewed them as less important.
Plastic waste to incineration	Considered a high-value area by Sweden and Norway, with Iceland seeing it as an easier improvement.
Post-Consumer Recycled content in plastic packaging POM	Not seen as urgent now, but likely to become important by 2030 due to future EU targets.

The most frequently highlighted statistics focused on aggregated waste-related data points (collected, recycled, generated, incinerated), which were consistently rated as both high benefit and high feasibility by Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. These were seen as strong candidates for early development.

Put On Market (POM) statistics also appeared prominently, particularly sector-specific breakdowns and common formats like bottles and plastic bags. While valued, their placement varied by country, reflecting different views on both value and feasibility.

In contrast, production- or trade-related data points were less frequently highlighted, often due to uncertainty about definitions and plastic shares in customs- or production codes.

The Nordic workshop confirmed shared ambitions to advance plastic data harmonisation, while also revealing key differences in national priorities, capacities, and institutional roles.

In the Nordic countries, responsibility for collecting and reporting plastic statistics is typically divided across public agencies. National statistical offices tend to cover macro-level data such as production and trade, while environmental authorities focus on waste, recycling, and sector-specific flows. In some cases, producer responsibility organisations also contribute specialised datasets. While institutional arrangements are broadly similar across the region, specific roles and mandates vary from country to country.

Waste-related data points emerged as the most actionable common ground – and notably align with existing legal mandates and established reporting areas to the EU. In contrast, greater divergence was seen in market and production data. These insights provide a critical check on which data points are likely to see early progress and where coordinated refinement, shared tools, and methodological support will be required moving forward.