Plastics Waste Collected

3.6 Plastics Waste Collected

3.6.1 Definitions and Scope

1Plastic waste collection: The organised process of collecting, storing, and transferring discarded plastic materials from their point of generation (households, businesses, institutions, public spaces etc.) to facilities for sorting, processing, recycling, recovery, or final disposal. This encompasses all activities and systems

• 2both formal and informal - designed to remove plastic waste from the immediate environment where it is generated and channel it into waste management pathways.

3This definition encompasses both mixed waste collection (where plastics are collected alongside other materials) and separate collection systems specifically targeting plastic waste streams.

4There are three types of collection systems that should be considered.

• 5

  Formal collection systems: Government-approved or contracted services operating through established infrastructure with regular schedules, designated equipment, and official protocols.

• 6

  Informal collection systems: Activities performed by waste pickers, scavengers, individuals and small-scale entrepreneurs who gather valuable plastic materials for sale to recyclers without formal integration into municipal systems.

• 7

  Community-based collection systems: Organised initiatives led by environmental groups, community organisations, and volunteer networks that conduct regular or periodic plastic waste collection through cleanups, targeted collection drives, and awareness campaigns to supplement formal systems in areas with service gaps.

8Self-haul where households or businesses transport their own waste directly to a facility, dumpsite or recycler - is a distinct pathway. Whether it is counted as “collected” depends on the destination. Material delivered to a controlled facility is collected and managed, while material self-hauled to an open dump should be treated as uncollected or self-managed. Countries should decide and document how self-haul is handled, especially for material-flow accounting.

9Possible components of waste collection data could include:

• 10

  Collection coverage: The geographic area and population with access to plastic waste collection services, expressed as a percentage of total area or population.

• 11

  Types of plastics: The separation of plastic types, which may affect collection methodologies and subsequent processing. Example plastic polymers are - Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE)/ Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS) and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS).

• 12

  Location: The type of building (household, public building, business etc) or environment (e.g., beach or park) the plastic is collected from.

3.6.2 Why waste collection data matters

1Collection is the link between waste generation and everything that follows. Only material that is collected can be sorted, recycled, recovered or safely disposed of. The share of generated plastic waste that is collected – and the share left uncollected – is therefore one of the most policy-relevant figures in the whole life cycle, and a direct input to estimates of mismanaged waste and leakage.

2Collection data supports several uses: measuring collection coverage and the gap to universal collection; planning and financing services and infrastructure; recognising the contribution of the informal sector; and reporting against SDG indicator 11.6.1 and the global plastics instrument under negotiation.

3.6.3 Methods for generating waste collection data

1To obtain data on plastics waste collected, users could consider applying one (or several) of the methods in Table 3.6. The methods are grouped by who is most likely to lead or supply the data:

• 2

  Government: methods that rely on government oversight, funding or regulatory authority – for example weighbridge and collection-route records, household and business surveys, and mandatory schemes such as extended producer responsibility, deposit-return systems and digital waste tracking.

• 3

  Private sector: voluntary schemes run by producers or retailers, such as in-store take-back programmes, that generate data on the plastic they collect.

• 4

  Voluntary commitments and partnerships: voluntary, coalition-led initiatives in which businesses – and in some cases governments – commit to shared targets and report annually on their plastic packaging.

• 5

  Waste-management organisations: public or private operators that collect and handle waste, whose operational records – weighbridge data, route monitoring and corporate reporting – can be used directly.

• 6

  Informal sector: methods that capture collection by informal waste workers who earn a living from waste but are not formally employed, such as waste-picker surveys, records from junk shops and sorting facilities, and mobile data-collection apps.

• 7

  Research and academia: studies by universities and research institutes, such as GIS mapping and spatial analysis and material flow analysis.

• 8

  Environmental groups and citizen science: voluntary, community-led data collection, such as community waste audits, clean-up and litter monitoring, and citizen-science reporting apps.

9Any plastics material collected through studies looking at “plastics in the environment” could also be calculated and added to the “plastic waste collected” data figure.

10Table 3.6. Tools for developing waste collection data

Method	Description	Advantages	Limitations
Government — Weighbridge data collection. Examples: UK Government; Environmental Protection Agency (USA).	Systematic recording of incoming and outgoing waste by weight at transfer stations, recycling facilities and disposal sites.	Provides precise quantitative measurements; creates an ongoing data record over time; enables tracking of seasonal variations; relatively simple to implement at formal facilities.	Misses waste outside formal systems; does not differentiate plastic types without additional sorting; requires functioning weighbridge infrastructure.
Government — Surveys of households and/or businesses.	See Part IV, Surveys, for detailed guidance.	—	—
Government — Regulated producer responsibility schemes, including EPR and take-back schemes. Examples: Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association; LUCID (Germany); CITEO (France); UK Government.	Mandatory frameworks requiring producers to take financial and/or operational responsibility for the collection, sorting and treatment of post-consumer packaging waste. In some cases businesses report data on the amount of material they collect in order to reduce payments through an EPR scheme.	Creates dedicated funding streams for collection systems; establishes systematic data reporting mechanisms; enables tracking of specific packaging materials.	Requires a robust regulatory framework and enforcement; complex to implement and administer; data quality depends on producer compliance; may not capture informal sector activities.
Government — Deposit return schemes (DRS) / container deposits. Example: Reloop Global Deposit Book.	Refundable deposits on beverage containers (also called “bottle bills” or “container deposit schemes”) that drive high-capture separate collection. Scheme operators report units and tonnes returned and overall return rates.	Very high return rates and clean, well-quantified material streams; robust, audited unit-level data; captures containers whether or not collected at kerbside.	Usually limited to beverage containers (PET, HDPE, glass, cans); requires deposit infrastructure and a clearing system; may overlap with kerbside and EPR data, creating double-counting risk.
Government — Collection route monitoring.	Tracking formal collection vehicles using GPS and digital logging systems to map collection coverage and quantify collected materials.	Provides real-time operational data; identifies gaps in collection coverage; enables optimisation of collection routes; facilitates accurate record-keeping.	Limited to formal collection systems; requires technological infrastructure; may not account for collection quality; initial implementation costs can be high.
Government — Waste management records analysis.	Examination of official waste management records, contracts and budgets to determine service provision extent and effectiveness.	Uses existing data sources; provides historical trends; cost-effective; offers insights into financial sustainability.	May contain incomplete or inaccurate records; does not capture informal sector activities; often lacks detailed waste composition data; variable record quality between jurisdictions.
Government — Digital waste tracking. Example: UK Government mandatory digital waste tracking.	A national, mandatory digital system in which waste producers, carriers and permitted sites record every waste movement online, replacing paper waste-transfer notes. Records capture the type, quantity, origin and destination of waste.	Legally mandated, with comprehensive coverage of formal waste movements; standardised, machine-readable records; tracks waste from source to destination; reduces waste crime and mis-reporting.	Covers only formal, permitted operators, so misses the informal sector and self-haul; requires digital infrastructure and compliance capacity; recently introduced, so time series are short; plastic must be separated from mixed-waste records.
Private sector — Take-back programme data (voluntary). Example: Woolworths soft-plastics collection (Australia).	Data from manufacturer programmes that collect their products for recycling.	Closed-loop tracking potential; product-specific recycling rates; direct producer involvement; design-for-recycling insights.	Limited to participating companies; often focused on high-value products; a small portion of total plastic volume; selective reporting of successful programmes.
Voluntary commitments — Voluntary commitments and reporting initiatives. Examples: Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitment; The Plastics Pact network.	Voluntary, coalition-led initiatives in which businesses — and in some cases governments — sign up to shared targets and report annually on their plastic packaging, including recycled content, reuse, and the material recovered through their systems.	Standardised annual reporting across many large organisations; internationally comparable; captures major brands and signatories; publicly available.	Voluntary and self-selected, so not nationally representative; focused on packaging, recycled content and reuse rather than total collected tonnage; self-reported, with limited independent verification.
Waste-management organisations — Weighbridge data and collection route monitoring.	Can be collected from government sites or privately owned sites. See the government entries above for detailed guidance.	—	—
Waste-management organisations — Corporate reporting analysis.	Examination of waste management companies’ operational reports, service records and sustainability disclosures to extract data on plastic waste collection volumes, coverage areas and processing methods.	Provides data directly from collection service providers; contains detailed operational metrics and performance indicators; often includes temporal data showing collection trends; may include previously aggregated and analysed datasets.	Commercial sensitivities may limit full data disclosure; reporting standards vary between companies, hampering comparability; primarily focuses on areas with profitable collection operations; may emphasise positive outcomes.
Informal sector — Waste picker surveys. Example: Iyer et al. (2012), India.	Direct interviews and questionnaires with informal waste collectors to document their collection routes, volumes, material preferences and selling channels.	Captures data outside formal systems; provides insights into recovery of high-value plastics; documents socioeconomic aspects of collection; identifies informal sector integration opportunities.	Challenging to establish representative samples; potential distrust of official data collection; labour-intensive fieldwork; self-reported data may lack precision.
Informal sector — Data from junk shops and sorting facilities.	Collection of purchase records from informal sector middlemen who buy materials from waste pickers and sell to recyclers.	Captures quantitative data on material flows; more centralised than individual waste picker surveys; provides price data for different plastic types; identifies market dynamics and value chains.	Reliant on cooperation of private businesses; record-keeping may be inconsistent or informal; may miss materials that bypass these intermediaries; potential reluctance to share commercially sensitive data.
Informal sector — Real-time data collection via mobile applications. Example: KOLEKT (University of Colombo and Fcode Labs, Sri Lanka).	Digital tools tailored for informal sector workers to log collection activities, routes and quantities through smartphone applications.	Enables real-time data collection; reduces barriers to participation; provides geospatial data on collection patterns; potential to formalise and recognise contributions.	Requires smartphone access and digital literacy; may face adoption barriers among waste pickers; needs ongoing technical support; potential privacy and trust concerns.
Research and academia — GIS mapping and spatial analysis. Examples: Zulkifli et al. (2022), Malaysia; Hamidu et al. (2015), Ghana.	Using geographic information systems to map collection coverage, waste generation hotspots and service gaps.	Visualises spatial dimensions of collection systems; identifies underserved areas precisely; supports evidence-based infrastructure planning; enables correlation with socioeconomic factors.	Requires specialised GIS expertise and software; data-intensive for comprehensive mapping; needs regular updating as conditions change; may oversimplify complex social dynamics.
Research and academia — Material flow analysis.	See Part IV, Material Flow Analysis, for detailed guidance.	—	—
Citizen science — Community waste audits.	Participatory events where volunteers sort and categorise plastic waste from designated areas to identify collection gaps and characterise local waste streams.	Builds community awareness and engagement; provides hyperlocal data on waste composition; low-cost methodology with educational benefits; can be replicated across different contexts.	Variability in implementation affects data quality; limited sample sizes may not be representative; typically conducted as one-off events; volunteer capacity affects thoroughness.
Citizen science — Plastic pollution monitoring. Examples: Tangaroa Blue Foundation (Australia); International Coastal Cleanup.	Clean-up initiatives that occur periodically at the same sites. Information gathered can include quantity, categories and composition of debris. Before collected debris is diverted back to formal waste management streams, its weight can be recorded, giving the quantity of debris returned to managed waste streams.	Creates a temporal dataset that can identify trends; establishes baseline measurements used to assess the effectiveness of interventions; raises awareness of collection inadequacies; engaging citizen scientists leads to cost-effective long-term monitoring.	Methodological inconsistencies between groups; focuses on outcomes rather than collection processes; variable volunteer commitment affects data continuity; typically limited to accessible public spaces; event organisation, people management and data sorting require human and financial resources.
Citizen science — Digital reporting platforms. Example: Litterati.	Mobile applications and web platforms that enable citizens to report uncollected waste, illegal dumping and collection service issues.	Creates real-time data on collection failures; wide geographic coverage potential; empowers community participation; direct feedback loop to authorities.	Self-selected reporting creates sampling bias; requires digital access and awareness; data verification challenges; may focus on complaints rather than systematic data.

3.6.4 Disaggregating waste collection data

1As with the other stages, collection data is most useful when disaggregated. Wherever the source data allows, it should be broken down along the following dimensions:

• 2

  Collection system: formal, informal and community-based, and separate versus mixed collection.

• 3

  Collection coverage: population and area with access to a service, as a percentage of the total.

• 4

  Polymer and product type: e.g., PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE/LLDPE, PP, PS/EPS—.

• 5

  Source location: household, business, institution, public space, or environment (e.g., beach, park).

• 6

  Operator and pathway: who collects (municipality, private contractor, waste pickers, retailers, DRS) and where the material goes next.

7Further detail on these categories is provided in the Disaggregating Data section.

3.6.5 Data challenges and a tiered approach to getting started

1Collection data carries specific challenges. Formal-system records (weighbridges, route logs) miss the informal sector, community collection and self-haul. As most collection is mixed, plastic is usually weighed only as part of a larger waste stream, and a plastic fraction must therefore be estimated and applied. “Collected” is easily confused with “generated” or “recycled,” and double-counting is a risk where deposit, EPR and kerbside data overlap. Sources should be combined and clearly documented.

2A practical way to begin is to match the method to current data capacity and strengthen it over time:

• 3

  Basic: estimate collected tonnage from formal-system records (weighbridge and collection contracts) and a collection-coverage rate, applying a plastic fraction to mixed waste.

• 4

  Intermediate: add separate-collection and EPR/DRS reporting, household and business surveys, and structured engagement with the informal sector (waste-picker surveys, junk-shop records).

• 5

  Advanced: reconcile all sources in a material flow analysis that links generation, collection (formal, informal and community) and downstream treatment, disaggregated by system and polymer, with routine validation.

6Countries can move up the tiers as capacity grows; the priority at every stage is a transparent, repeatable method and consistency about what “collected” includes – for example, whether informal-sector and selfhaul flows are counted.

3.6.6 Further materials

• 1

  Eurostat Waste Statistics - the EU’s waste statistics database, covering generation, treatment and management data for member states, including circular-economy Sankey flows.

• 2

  Basel Convention plastic-waste reporting - the annual national reporting system for transboundary movements of hazardous and plastic wastes, including exports, imports and disposal methods.

• 3

  UNEP Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter (GPML) Digital Platform - country dashboards with plastic-flow data, policy tracking and consolidated global datasets to support evidence-based policymaking.

• 4

  World Bank What a Waste 3.0 - a global waste database covering 217 countries, with generation, collection and treatment data and projections to 2050.