4 Conclusions and recommendations

The Nordic plastic statistics landscape is fragmented and incomplete. While some plastic data points are available, particularly those linked to EU regulation, major challenges remain in terms of both comparability and uneven data availability. Many indicators are only partially covered or defined differently across countries – for example, what is counted as “plastic waste generated”. These definitional differences, especially outside legally mandated areas, make it difficult to produce a coherent Nordic overview or support joint policy action.

1. Collaboration is both wanted and needed – but should focus on areas where joint action adds the most value

Stakeholders across the region agree on the importance of collaboration. However, national approaches and efforts are isolated and differ in terms of definitions, classifications, and data collection methods. Without a clear governance structure and dedicated capacity within national agencies, harmonisation efforts are unlikely to be accomplished. In the short term, the most efficient path forward is to harmonise existing datasets – especially for plastic waste and high-level Put-on-Market (POM) indicators.

Four actions stand out as particularly important for alignment:

Shared definitions for plastic categories and statistical data points
Nordic adaptations of Put On Market models, such as UNITAR, to ensure comparability
Common assumptions on plastic shares across trade and production statistics
Coordinated approaches to waste composition, including standardised study designs

2. Waste-related data is relatively developed – other lifecycle stages need attention

Statistical coverage is strongest for end-of-life stages such as waste collection, treatment, and recycling – particularly for packaging. This reflects long-standing regulatory focus. In contrast, earlier stages such as production, market or trade – especially for non-packaging plastics – are less consistently covered or structured, with many data points rated “partly available” or “not available”.

3. Clearer definitions and structures would improve both quality and comparability

Several data points exist in principle but are not fully comparable across countries due to differences in classification systems or methodological choices. Aligning these aspects can unlock significant value and are likely less costly than collecting new data given that our analysis shows there are no real “quick wins”.

4. Analysis suggests few low-cost, high-impact gaps – but several strategic priorities

There are no true “quick wins” across all countries. However, some areas stand out:

Plastic waste recycling data: Offers strong value and is already well tracked; some potential for cost-effective improvements from aligning definitions and statistics collection efforts.
Put On Market (POM) statistics: Benefits of filling data gaps for POM statistics is rated highly in both cost-benefit analysis and Nordic workshop. At the same POM statistics are less developed than waste statistics. This area has collaboration potential for both methodological alignment and gap-closing-efforts.
Sector-specific market and waste flows: Still underdeveloped and costly to fill gaps in data. At the same time sector specific data is consistently rated as strategically important in order to understand large plastic flows and combat issues such as plastic leakage in high-risk sectors.
Trade and production statistics: Data exists but required accurate estimates of plastic shares in different products. An effort that once completed can allow for better continuous tracking of plastic statistics (for example using the UNITAR model for plastic Put-on-Market and plastic waste generated).

5. National differences must be factored into any joint roadmap

The workshop confirmed shared ambitions – but also highlighted that national priorities, data maturity and institutional roles vary. Any joint development effort should reflect these differences while working towards shared standards.

4.1 Recommendations

The recommendations below are designed to support more robust, comparable, and policy-relevant plastic statistics across the Nordic countries. Each proposal builds on insights from the project. The actions are grouped by thematic focus and include the underlying insight they aim to address.

Build a foundation for sustained collaboration

Recommendation 1: Establish a Nordic coordination mechanism for plastic statistics

Insight: National efforts are fragmented, and institutional prerequisites differ – including mandates for data production, the division of responsibilities across agencies, and available technical capacity.

Form a Nordic reference group with regular meetings, including key experts from each country's EPA and statistics office.
Assign the group a clear mandate to validate priorities, oversee harmonisation pilots, and coordinate inputs to international processes.
Assign the group responsibility for onboarding updates from international standards, documenting choices, and resolving methodological conflicts.
Secure a dedicated budget to enable continuity, coordination, and follow-up between meetings.
Consider rotating leadership or secretariat functions to maintain engagement across countries.

While some technical tasks—such as model testing or data harmonisation pilots—can be supported by external consultants or researchers, the majority of the work must be led by national agencies. These institutions hold the relevant expertise, work with the data on a daily basis, and typically have broader access to confidential information than external actors. Their active involvement is essential to ensure relevance, feasibility, and long-term continuity.

Recommendation 2: Create frameworks that promote action and commitment

Insight: Lack of confirmed data reflects limited resources, low engagement or unclear roles.

Ensure future projects allocate both budget and time for active participation by key informants.
Build in a formal agreement on which data points are prioritised for development from the outset –

Draw on the approach used in the Nordic Municipal Waste Statistics project as precedent.
This refers to the Nordic Municipal Waste Statistics project (Grøn Nørholm et al., 2025), which succeeded in generating comparable recommendations through close collaboration between national experts from Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.
- Dedicated Time and Resources: Ensure participating countries allocate sufficient time and budget.
- Expert Involvement: Involve committed national experts with relevant expertise to achieve high technical competence.
- Flexibility: Allow flexibility for countries to involve external consultants as needed based on local management of tasks.
- In-person Meetings: Foster collaboration, clear communication, and alignment through in-person meetings, especially for technically complex topics.

One of the key factors for success with the project was the allocation of dedicated time and expert resources from each participating country.

Start with the most feasible and policy-relevant data

Recommendation 3: Launch a harmonisation pilot focused on plastic waste statistics

Insight: Waste data is more available, well structured, and a high-priority area for most countries.

Harmonise definitions, scopes, and reporting templates for plastic waste collected, recycled, incinerated, and landfilled.
Use this as a testbed to build collaboration and demonstrate value before expanding to more complex areas such as Put On Market or trade.

Recommendation 4: Develop methods for sector-specific plastic waste flows

Insight: These are currently missing but strategically important for future circular economy policy.

Design and pilot standardised waste composition studies for selected sectors (e.g. agriculture, fisheries).
Develop common frameworks for how to extrapolate national estimates from these studies using proxy factors.

Address key data gaps with scalable methods

Recommendation 5: Develop a Nordic plastic statistics handbook

Insight: Inconsistent terminology and categorisation hinder comparability.

Compile agreed data point definitions (e.g. plastic waste generated) into a jointly published, regularly updated Nordic plastics-statistics handbook that builds on – and goes beyond – EU reporting obligations.
Start from EU legal requirements (e.g. Waste-Framework Directive annex VII, proposed Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation, Eurostat plastics indicators) and identify the missing parameters for robust material-flow statistics – such as the gaps on polymer/additive composition, product-use segment and end-of-life fate codes mentioned in Nordic Council of Ministers (2024).
Incorporate the specific gaps flagged by Nordic Council of Ministers (2024) such as double counting in trade data, CN/PRODCOM code methodology, and sparse information on specific sectors to ensure comparability across Nordic countries.
As part of this effort existing statistics could be compiled into a Nordic data model.

Recommendation 6: Develop a methodology for estimating free-rider volumes in EPR schemes

Insight: Unknown Put On Market volumes limit the ability to identify free-riders and enforce obligations.

Develop a Nordic method to estimate unreported Put On Market by sector, based on trade/production data and existing EPR reports.
Identify high-risk sectors and design enforcement support tools (e.g. benchmarks, sector outreach).

Recommendation 7: Pilot methods for estimating commercial
Waste from commercial entities, hence non-household sources
(non-household) plastic waste

Insight: Commercial waste flows are not consistently covered; data is often fragmented.

Design and pilot harmonised method and sampling protocols for waste audits (sv. "plockanalyser") of commercial waste streams.
Alternative 1: Integrate with existing surveys where feasible and share learning across countries.
Alternative 2: A coordinated approach across the Nordic countries to perform audits and identify common plastic shares.

4 Conclusions and recommenda­tions