Reliable plastic statistics are essential for effective policy responses to the growing global plastic pollution crisis. Despite ambitious Nordic and EU targets on plastics, existing data remains fragmented, incomplete, and difficult to compare across countries, significantly limiting policy impact. To address these challenges, the Nordic Council of Ministers launched an initiative that identified high-level recommendations, this project was initiated to build on some of these. The key priorities are:
Identify and prioritise key plastic data points crucial for policy monitoring and evaluation.
Assess the availability and comparability of prioritized data, as well as the cost-efficiency of improving these data across the Nordics
Provide concrete guidance on where development and harmonisation of data across the Nordic countries can have the greatest impact at the lowest cost.
The data prioritisation process was split into a three-step process:
Data prioritisation: 37 plastic-related data points were selected based on mentions in EU, Nordic and global policy documents and strategies.
Data availability mapping: Each data point was assessed across countries for availability, comparability and documentation.
Cost–benefit analysis: Each data point was ranked by cost and a weighted value of benefits e.g. environmental impact and policy relevance.
Insights from desktop research and interviews were finally validated in a Nordic workshop held in March 2025 with representatives from Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland.
Harmonising and developing data offers high value but demands coordinated national action
The analysis confirms that few plastic data gaps offer true quick wins. Most high-value data gaps already have raw data somewhere in the Nordic region, but misaligned definitions and fragmented reporting limit their comparability. Key conclusions:
Waste-related data—such as collection and recycling—are the most readily available (43% fully available), driven by EU and national reporting requirements. Yet comparability across countries remains weak due to inconsistent definitions and reporting practices.
Market, production and trade data show strong long-term potential for continuous tracking though emerging models such as the one in development by UNTAR and UNEP. However, such data require reliable plastic-content estimates across HS/CN and PRODCOM codes.
Sector-specific waste data, such as from construction or textiles, are also highly relevant, but need significant investment in data collection, modelling and harmonised methodologies.
Meanwhile, intermediate use, recyclability and in-use stock data consistently score low in both value and feasibility due to vague definitions and limited demand.
The analysis highlights priorities for harmonisation and development across the Nordic countries.
In the short term, aligning definitions and reporting templates for waste-related statistics offers the greatest value, given their policy relevance and higher availability.
Medium-term efforts on the other hand should centre on developing shared methodologies for estimating plastic shares in production, market and trade flows. Delivering on this ambition will require not just technical alignment, but also sustained national engagement and structured Nordic cooperation.