A report from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute highlights both the promise and the fragility of today’s international textile reuse system. While the study documents a well-organised value chain linking used-clothing collections to thriving second-hand markets, it also underscores that regulatory, logistical and political pressures in Europe risk undermining one of the few proven circular models that actually works. The report highlights how used textiles collected in Sweden are routed through specialised sorting centres and then exported for reuse in markets where demand is strong. In the case study following Humana Lt’s operations, approximately three-quarters of all collected garments were suitable for reuse, with only a small fraction classified as waste. In Kenya, these garments generate jobs, support small businesses and extend the lifespan of clothing that would otherwise be downcycled or incinerated. "There is a well-functioning value chain for reuse. Clothes that we cannot find a market for in Sweden today are given a longer life in a new market. The sorting facilities have developed specialised expertise in sorting by both quality and product categories, with the value increasing at each stage", says Mathias Gustavsson at IVL. The IVL Report contradicts claims that Europe is dumping its textile waste in Africa Contradict waste narrative These findings directly contradict a widespread narrative portraying second-hand exports to Africa as “waste dumping”. The economics simply do not support this claim: exporting low-quality, unsellable textiles is financially irrational for collectors, who face both sorting costs and significant import duties in receiving countries. Instead, the report shows that the global reuse trade is driven by market demand and quality controls—not the disposal of unwanted waste. European policies destabilising Yet, the study also warns that new European policies risk destabilising the system. Mandatory separate textile collection, now being rolled out across Member States, often fails to distinguish between reusable garments and true textile waste. When these streams mix, contamination increases, quality declines and fewer garments can be resold—threatening the viability of reuse both domestically and internationally. Amanda Martvall, textile expert at IVL, says: "Collection should be designed to avoid mixing these two types of textiles. This will improve the quality of both textile streams, enabling clothes to be reused in the first instance, and other textiles to be recycled in a cost-effective manner once the technology is in place". At the same time, political resistance to second-hand imports in parts of East Africa, coupled with growing global scrutiny of textile waste, places additional pressure on exporters. Without clear differentiation between reuse and waste management, European legislation may inadvertently funnel more textiles into recycling and incineration—even though reuse remains far more climate-efficient. A well functioning reuse system might undermined by incoming regulations Why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations The IVL report therefore lands at a critical moment. It shows that a working, economically viable reuse chain already exists and delivers significant environmental and social benefits. But it also makes clear that this model is not guaranteed to survive the next wave of regulatory reforms unless policymakers adopt more nuanced approaches. For the circular economy to live up to its promise, Europe must protect and strengthen the reuse value chain—not disrupt it. And that begins with acknowledging what the data shows: the export of used clothing is not a dumping problem, but one of the most effective reuse systems we currently have. This is why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Full IVL-Report Read more: True & False about second-hand clothing Read more: "Is this what they wanted? To nearly collapse the system for collecting clothes?"

The suspension follows a petition claiming Kenya signed the deal without properly consulting its East African Community (EAC) partners. The Kenyan government has now moved quickly to contain the fallout after the East African Court of Justice halted implementation of the EU–Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement . Kenya’s Trade Minister Lee Kinyanjui stressed that the EPA remains crucial for Kenyan exporters and essential for jobs across its agricultural and manufacturing sectors. He pledged uninterrupted market access for European partners while Nairobi appeals the ruling. For Europe’s second-hand textile industry, the decision injects a new element of risk into an already fragile global supply chain. Kenya is a key sorting and transit hub for used clothing, and any legal uncertainty around trade frameworks can influence logistics, compliance requirements and long-term investment decisions. The Kenyan government is now seeking to overturn the suspension and is engaging with other EAC member states to clarify regional obligations. The outcome will be closely watched in Europe, where recyclers, sorters and re-use operators depend on East African stability to maintain volumes, meet sustainability targets and navigate increasing regulatory pressures at home. Read more: The Kenya Times

Nearly 50 Swedish and Nordic fashion companies — including H&M, Lindex, Acne Studios, and Björn Borg — are demanding a VAT cut on used clothes. The campaign is being driven in collaboration with STICA  (The Scandinavian Textile Initiative for Climate Action), a non-profit focused on reducing the fashion industry’s climate impact. According to STICA, “low profitability in secondhand sales” is the biggest obstacle preventing circular business models in the fashion industry from competing with traditional linear models. It is pointed out that because each secondhand garment is unique and handling costs are high, turning a profit is especially difficult. Increased profitability would encourage more players to enter the secondhand market, and for existing ones to invest more heavily. The group is urging the Swedish government to include the VAT cut in its 2026 budget. So far, however, no such measure has appeared in the government’s proposal. These demands are coming during a period when the second-hand industry in Europe are struggling to survive, despite the fact that reuse is considered the most important part of a circular economy. One reason for this struggle is new EU-regulations that lead to higher costs for second-hand enterprises.

The pressure on UNEP and Basel Convention is building up when it comes to classification of used textiles. Last week SMART (Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association) has submitted detailed formal comments to the Basel Convention Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), strongly urging them to reject proposals that would reclassify used textiles as “waste,” “hazardous waste,” or “plastic waste.” SMART cautions that such regulatory changes, though likely well-intentioned, would severely disrupt functioning circular-economy systems that keep billions of garments in circulation, support millions of livelihoods in developing economies, and prevent massive amounts of clothing from ending up in landfills. The backbone of global circular economy “Used textiles are not waste — they are the backbone of the global circular economy,” said Jessica Franken, Head of Government Affairs at SMART. She warned that classifying secondhand clothing as hazardous or waste could undermine systems already delivering significant environmental and social benefits. What often is described as textile waste is actually plastic. Here from a beach in Ghana. In its letter, SMART emphasizes that robust, data-driven research consistently shows that 80–95%  of secondhand clothing exports are reused, resold, or repurposed, while only 5–10%  prove unwearable—directly challenging outdated and methodologically weak studies often cited in policy debates. SMART also highlights that these markets sustain millions of jobs in regions such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia, generate government revenues, and contribute meaningfully to global circularity. Furthermore, life-cycle analyses cited by SMART suggest that extending the life of garments through reuse dramatically reduces carbon emissions — by as much as 70-fold compared to producing new clothing. Rejecting the proposed reclassifications, SMART argues, would preserve legitimate reuse and recycling flows. The association urges regulators to distinguish clearly between reusable goods and waste in trade codes, and to focus policy efforts upstream—targeting overproduction and fast fashion via Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measures rather than penalizing reuse. Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: used textiles is not waste A couple of weeks ago sixteen organisations published an open letter directed to UNEP regarding concerns over flawed data and non-transparent processes, when it comes to used textiles, second-hand trade and waste. UNEP has not yet given any public answer to this, but the pressure on both UNEP and Basel is now building up regarding correct data and analysis about the second-hand trade and what should be considered facts and verifiable data. Written by Thomas Lundkvist About SMART The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART)  is a nonprofit international trade association founded in 1932. Its members — companies involved in collecting, sorting, and reusing or recycling both pre-consumer and post-consumer textiles — operate across the globe. SMART advocates for high standards and best practices in textile reuse and recycling, providing a forum for its members to network, educate, and influence policy. Read more: Textile sector’s sharp rebuke: accuses UNEP of flawed used-textile guidelines

The European textile and apparel industry is calling on the European Commission to streamline rather than expand regulations under the forthcoming Circular Economy Act (CEA). In a new position paper submitted this week, EURATEX warns that excessive or fragmented rules could hinder innovation and weaken the competitiveness of Europe’s textile sector. The industry group outlines a clear vision: the CEA should simplify the regulatory landscape , ensure a level playing field across EU member states , and create conditions that encourage sustainable growth. European apparel and textile industry wants EU to simplify, not complicate, regulations. Among its main recommendations, EURATEX urges EU to simplify rules for textiles: Harmonised Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes  to align national systems and reduce market distortions. Facilitating the use of textile by-products , turning waste into valuable resources. Common Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria  to steer public demand towards sustainable textiles. Avoiding new administrative burdens  and overlapping reporting requirements for companies. “A coherent and predictable policy framework is key to helping our industry lead the transition to circularity,” the association said in its statement. “Europe must support innovation, not drown it in red tape.” EURATEX represents the interests of Europe’s textile and clothing manufacturers, a sector employing around 1.3 million people and generating over €160 billion in annual turnover. The group has been a key voice in the EU’s ongoing shift toward a circular and sustainable textile economy. Read more: EURATEX Position Paper

The European Commission is navigating increasingly complex terrain in the textiles sector — with two apparently contradictory priorities emerging in parallel. On one hand, it is taking aim at ultra‑fast‑fashion imports from China, while on the other it is pressing ahead with policies that could significantly restrict exports of second‑hand clothing to African countries. The combined effect threatens to accelerate the dominance of Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion clothing on the African continent — and raises concerns over unintended environmental and social consequences. Two bold directions Earlier coverage by Reuse News  highlighted how Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion platforms are penetrating global markets and reshaping trade flows of used and new garments. In addition, recent coverage (for example by Euronews) shows that imports of fast‑fashion into Europe rose by 14 % in the first half of 2025 versus a year earlier — with China accounting for an overwhelming share of parcel shipments. Simultaneously, the EU is developing rules under its circular‑economy and textile‑waste agenda that would tighten controls on the export of used textiles (and potentially second‑hand clothing) to third‑countries, citing concerns that large exports end up as waste in countries ill‑equipped to manage it. This EU strategy might fuel ultra-fast fashion, opposite the intentions. A problematic convergence The push to curtail Chinese ultra‑fast imports and the push to limit second‑hand exports are not independent. They converge to create a systemic risk: if European second‑hand flows to Africa are curtailed, and Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion exports continue or increase, then the African market may become even more heavily dependent on Chinese ultra‑fast apparel — with possible ramifications: Reduced competition : Second‑hand imports from Europe have traditionally supplied large volumes of affordable garments to African markets. Restricting these flows may reduce competition and drive more sourcing towards ultra‑cheap Chinese new imports. Increased waste risk : Ultra‑fast‑fashion garments often have shorter lifespans and may be of lower quality. If Africa becomes saturated with cheaper fast‑fashion items rather than used garments with longer real‑use value, the risk of clothes quickly entering waste streams may increase. Social‑economic impacts : The used‑clothing trade supports local markets, sorters and traders in many African countries. A sudden reduction in supply may undermine livelihoods even as ultra‑fast imports dominate, shifting value away from local actors. Mountains of textile waste grows in Europe.  When export of used clothes from Europe is decreased, the textile waste in Europe will grow. Since there is now functioning system for recycling textile fibers, more textiles will go to incineration, which is increasing the negative climate impact. EU:s intention to reduce the negative climate impact from the textile industry might lead to opposite result. Why the EU is acting From the EU’s perspective the arguments driving both directions are clear: The textile industry is a major source of resource use, emissions and waste, and the EU is committed to transition towards a circular economy in textiles. The surge in ultra‑fast‑fashion imports from China and elsewhere is seen as undercutting European producers who must meet higher environmental and social standards. At the same time, the EU has highlighted that used‑textile exports to Africa may lead to dumping of non‑reusable garments and contribute to waste burdens in countries with weak waste‑management infrastructure. A costly gap in this assessment Given the EU’s intention to reduce the textile industry’s negative climate footprint and push the development of a circular economy, the above assessment could constitute a costly mistake. The judgment that exports of second‑hand clothing from Europe largely consist of unusable garments which go straight to waste has in recent times been strongly rejected by actors within the industry ( Textile sector’s sharp rebuke: accuses UNEP of flawed used-textile guidelines ) . A review by Reuse News has also shown that the figures on large volumes of textile waste have no support in qualitative investigations and that the narrative is partly driven by money from precisely those Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion companies that is pointed out as a problem: How deceptive narratives about textile waste fuel ultra-fast fashion Unanswered questions However, the policy mix raises important questions that remain unresolved: To what extent are second‑hand exports actually leading to waste in African countries — versus being a valid route of reuse? Will limiting second‑hand flows without simultaneously controlling ultra‑fast new‑garment inflows simply shift dependence rather than reduce waste? How will Africa’s local economies, which have grown around used‑clothing markets, respond if supply from Europe falls while cheap new imports from China rise? How will the EU ensure that restrictions on one stream (used‑clothes exports) do not perversely drive growth in a higher‑volume, lower‑quality alternative (ultra‑fast fashion)? Summary: How EU:s textile strategy may fuel Chinese ultra-fast fashion The EU finds itself in a strategic double‑bind: tackling Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion imports on the one hand, while tightening rules on second‑hand clothing exports on the other. Without careful calibration, the result might lead to a textile strategy that may fuel Chinese ultra-fast fashion and a surge of ultra‑cheap new garments into Africa just when access to higher‑use‑value second‑hand garments is restricted. For the circular‑economy goals to prevail, policymakers must guard against unintended consequences and ensure that Africa’s clothing markets, local value chains and waste‑management systems are not left worse off. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Urgent call: EU must act against ultra-fast Fashion and implement textile regulations Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Read more: Second-hand sector not to blame for textile waste crisis

A recent LinkedIn post by the European Commission has triggered a lively discussion about how Europeans manage their old clothes, just days after the implementation of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive. The Commission’s post included a poll asking professionals to share how they deal with unwanted garments — by donating, repairing, reusing, or discarding them. The response was immediate and substantial, with hundreds of comments highlighting the growing awareness of textile waste and the need to shift towards more sustainable habits. EC's Linked In post Many respondents emphasised the importance of reuse and repair , arguing that extending the lifespan of clothes is one of the most effective ways to reduce environmental impact. Several also pointed to the problem of overconsumption , particularly of cheap fast-fashion items imported from China , which dominate the lower end of the European clothing market. The timing of the post was no coincidence. The revised Waste Framework Directive introduces new rules for separate collection of textile waste  across EU Member States by 2025, aiming to reduce landfill use and encourage recycling, reuse, and circular business models. Also the dominating narratives debate about textile waste is currently questioned from several organisations. Most people is donating used clothes While some praised the EU for raising awareness through social channels, others called for stricter regulation  of textile imports and stronger producer responsibility schemes  to ensure fashion brands play their part in reducing waste. The Commission’s engagement on LinkedIn signals a broader strategy to use professional platforms for public dialogue on environmental policy — and underlines how textile waste has become a defining issue  in Europe’s sustainability agenda. Read more: EC:s Linked In Post Read more: Urgent call: EU must act against ultra-fast Fashion and implement textile regulations

A group of members of the European Parliament is pressing the European Commission to take immediate and decisive action to curb the rise of ultra-fast fashion in the EU market. In a priority question, MEPs from the PPE group ask how the Commission plans to use trade and regulatory tools to protect Member States from unfair competition and non-compliant textiles. The MEPs pose two urgent questions to the Commission: If the Commission considers that national legislation falls short, what urgent action will it take at EU level to protect Member States from unfair competition? How many weeks will the Commission need to take the requisite measures? Will the Commission commit to using all the legal and trade instruments at its disposal to ban the sale on the European market of ultra-fast fashion products that do not conform to EU legislation?   MEPs ask how the Commission plans to use trade and regulatory tools to protect Member States from unfair competition and non-compliant textiles from ultra fast-fashion Why the urgent call for EU to implement textile regulations? Ultra-fast fashion refers to extremely low-cost, high-volume clothing imports that reach the European market often through parcel shipments and offer minimal longevity or sustainability. According to the MEPs, the issue is exacerbated by large volumes of small-value parcels: EU customs services recorded about 4.6 billion parcels worth under €150 in 2024, many of which contained textile products that do not comply with EU legislation. The textile industry is a significant sector: for example France’s trade deficit in the textile industry (excluding energy) is said to be over 20 %. Furthermore, the fashion-retail ecosystem is now being reshaped by players like SHEIN, which announced on 1 October 2025 that it would open its first physical stores in France. Just two days earlier, the European Commission had requested that the French authorities postpone adoption of a national law aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the textile industry, citing potential conflicts with EU law. Will EU act and implement textile regulations against ultra fast-fashion For EU policy-makers, the challenge is two-fold: first, enforcing existing legislation on textiles (covering product safety, environmental standards, trade compliance) and second, tackling the business model of ultra-fast fashion which relies on rapid turnover, minimal cost, and often low quality and unsustainable production. The sheer volume of parcels and imports complicates customs enforcement and regulatory oversight. MEPs argue that without stronger EU-level action, Member States risk being flooded with textile goods that undercut local producers, bypass environmental obligations and degrade market standards. The opening of retail outlets by ultra-fast-fashion brands in major EU markets adds urgency to the demand for a robust EU response. What could happen next The European Commission now faces pressure to detail a timeline and strategy for intervention. Possible actions include: Deploying customs and trade-law tools to block non-compliant textile imports. Harmonising EU-wide standards and enforcement for textile products, especially low-value parcel shipments. Considering bans or restrictions on ultra-fast-fashion goods that fail to meet legislation. Enhancing transparency and due-diligence obligations on brands and importers operating in the EU. In summary: EU must act against ultra fast-fashion and implement textile regulation MEP:s Question : Europaparlamentet Read more: Why China’s ultra fast fashion industry probably doesn’t want you to buy second-hand clothes

A coalition of representatives from the global textiles collection, reuse, and recycling sectors — joined by policymakers and academic experts — has issued an open letter to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), raising serious concerns about the integrity, methodology, and practical implications of UNEP’s Circularity and Used Textile Trade Project. While acknowledging UNEP’s ambition to drive sustainability and circularity in the textile sector, the signatories warn that the project’s current approach risks unintended harm. The proposed global guidelines to distinguish used textiles from textile waste, they argue, lack sufficient rigour, transparency, and stakeholder inclusion. If adopted in their present form, these guidelines could adversely affect millions of livelihoods in the second-hand clothing trade and hinder meaningful circular economy outcomes. “We are concerned that the project’s findings may not fully reflect the realities of the global textile trade,” said Alan Wheeler, CEO, Textile Recycling Association, UK. “UNEP’s willingness to adopt unverified findings betrays its stated commitment to impartiality and undermines public trust. We demand that UNEP correct its course, commission truly independent research, and reconsider its guidelines.” “What we have seen throughout this consultation process is not the objective inquiry that we expect from a UN programme,” said Jeffren Boakye Abrokwah, Chairman, GUCDA. “The Circularity and Used Textiles Trade project could reshape national trade policies that affect the livelihoods of millions of people around the world. In Ghana, for example, UNEP’s research partner is an NGO with a pre-existing waste advocacy campaign that is financially supported by the ultra-fast fashion industry. We have rightly raised concerns about national dialogues where many participants were closely connected to the NGO and questions were leading or closed-ended, which may have affected the neutrality of the data collected.” Textile sector accuse UNEP of flawed guidelines and methodolgy Data integrity and methodological opacity The letter highlights discrepancies between the textile waste figures cited in UNEP’s drafts and those found in prior academic and industry studies. Signatories argue that critical data has been shared without disclosure of collection techniques, analytical processes, or validation protocols — preventing independent scrutiny or stakeholder engagement. Insufficient inclusion of industry actors Despite consultations via workshops and surveys, many grassroots collectors, sorters, traders, and small-scale actors report that they were excluded from meaningful participation. The letter claims the consultation timeline was rushed, access to draft materials was limited, and certain voices dominated the discourse, diminishing the chance for comprehensive, balanced input. Definitions and conflict risks Central definitions — particularly what qualifies as “waste” versus “used textile” — appear to have been applied without adequate peer review or disclosure. Compounding the issue, the coalition raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest: in Ghana, for instance, the research partner leading stakeholder dialogues reportedly has ties to an NGO campaigning on waste issues and receives funding from ultra-fast fashion interests. “There’s a serious risk UNEP’s work will be tainted unless it disengages from activist organisations beholden to fast fashion interests,” warned Teresiah Wairimu Njenga, Chair, Mitumba Consortium Association of Kenya. “The potential harm to communities in Kenya, and indeed worldwide, could be profound.” In summary this is a very sharp criticism and accusation from the textile sector against UNEP. The dominating narrative about Europes dumping of textile waste in African countries has long been challenged and rebuked by both the industry and academic experts. What might looks like textiles is actually plastic. Calls to Action The coalition’s open letter presents a set of urgent demands: Suspend advancement  of the current draft global guidelines until the underlying research is independently validated and better aligned with the realities of international used-textile trade. Publish full transparency  by releasing research methodologies, data sources, definitions, and drafts across all study countries, allowing for peer review and open stakeholder feedback. Broaden representation  by engaging independent and regionally grounded experts and practitioners to collaborate on genuinely inclusive and evidence-based global standards. The letter ends on a collaborative note, urging UNEP to treat these recommendations not as criticism but as an opportunity to reinforce the legitimacy, impact, and fairness of this important global effort. The signatories express willingness to engage in constructive dialogue toward a more equitable and sustainable global textiles trade. Read open letter here Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Context & Background UNEP’s Circularity and Used Textile Trade Project  operates across Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan and Tunisia, aiming to develop policy guidance and global criteria to help distinguish used textiles from waste. UNEP - UN Environment Programme   he initiative is part of the broader One UNEP Textile Initiative, which seeks to align all UNEP textile work around key goals: eliminating hazardous chemicals, curbing overproduction and overconsumption, and scaling circular business models. While global guidelines could guide more sustainable trade practices, observers have flagged the difficulty of creating one-size-fits-all criteria for diverse national contexts and value chains. The letter underscores that guidelines disconnected from on-the-ground realities may backfire, harming small actors and undermining access to affordable clothing in many regions.

"It is fast fashion  -  driven by overproduction and throwaway culture  -  that fuels the textile waste crisis. Yet blame has shifted onto a sector that actively reduces waste - the second-hand sector. The claim that this sector exports waste is not supported by data, and it defies logic." Sven Pedersen, Editor in Chief for Reuse News comments about the open letter to UNEP. United Nations Environmental Programme's (UNEP) push for clearer definitions of textile waste is welcome  - precise terminology benefits all stakeholders. But such efforts must be grounded in evidence. UNEP’s approach suggests second-hand clothing is a key source of textile waste, yet available evidence and operational realities point to more nuanced practices and systems.  I have worked in second-hand clothing for over 26 years, the last 10 in Kenya. Here, the trade is a lifeline  -  supporting 2 million incomes and 24 million livelihoods. For many, it is the only way to access decent clothing with dignity. Even in low-income areas, people are well-dressed and take pride in their appearance. Despite claims that textile waste is choking Nairobi’s streets and landfills, that is not what I have seen. After more than ten years here  -  and I have also visited the Dandora landfill  -  it is clear that textile waste is minimal and makes up only a small part of the overall waste stream. In Kenya, clothes are reused, handed down, and worn for years. People buy far less than in high-consumption economies, where fashion trends drive constant turnover. In the Global North, perfectly good clothes are routinely discarded  -  not out of need, but because people can afford to replace them. Much of this waste is incinerated, making it invisible while contributing significantly to CO₂ emissions  -  about 10% of global footprint. Blaming second-hand clothing for textile pollution is misleading. This trade keeps garments in use, reduces demand for new production, and supports millions of livelihoods. Traders in Ghana protesting against false narratives about textile waste earlier this year. Extensive research Extensive studies from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Ghana show textile waste in second-hand imports is minimal  -  typically 2% to 5%  -  mostly due to human error in manual sorting. The claim that this sector exports waste is not supported by data, and it defies logic. It is fast fashion  -  driven by overproduction and throwaway culture  -  that fuels the textile waste crisis. Yet blame is unfairly shifted onto a sector that actively reduces waste. Here is why it is inaccurate to claim that the second-hand clothing trade exports textile waste: Textile waste is not traded internationally -  it would lead to financial losses for exporters, importers, and local traders. The second-hand clothes sector systematically avoids it. Exporting textile waste to the Global South makes no economic sense.  Incineration in Europe costs €0.05–€0.07/kg, while shipping to Kenya is more than €1/kg. Garments are carefully sorted before export to meet import standards.  The sector has decades of experience tailoring supply to diverse global markets through close collaboration with local traders. Shipments are demand-driven, initiated and prepaid by importers.  These clothes are not ‘dumped’ – they are valued commodities actively sought by traders and consumers in the Global South because of good quality.   False claims about of a high percentage of waste in second-hand clothing are harmful and it is extremely important that research is grounded in thorough evidence. Such claims threaten a sector that provides millions of livelihoods and access to affordable, dignified clothing. Second-hand sector not to blame for textile waste crisis The sector is a working circular economy  -  not a waste stream. It keeps garments in use, reduces landfill and incineration, and strengthens economic resilience. Restricting it undermines a proven solution. These realities are precisely why I support the open letter to UNEP, which calls for greater transparency and methodological rigour in research on distinguishing used textiles from textile waste. Sven Pedersen Editor in Chief Read more: Textile sector accuses UN Environmental Programme of flawed data and methodology Read more: Mountains of textile waste growing in Europe - not in Africa Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate

The collection of clothes and textiles has quickly become a logistical and economic trial for many actors in Europe. Two of the largest operators in Germany have filed for insolvency, and collection organizations in Sweden are struggling to keep operations running. "It's a system on the brink of collapse," says Cristofer Ståhlgren and Lars Råsberg from Human Bridge, Sweden's largest collector of used clothes. "Is this really what they intended?" they ask. Human Bridge has agreements with over 140 municipalities and has been operating since 2001. Prior to recent legislative changes, the organization collected approximately 12,000–13,000 tons of textiles annually. These items were sold to sorting companies in Europe, with the proceeds funding Human Bridge's primary mission: donating medical equipment to developing countries. "It started already in 2023" However, in 2023, Swedish authorities began halting shipments of used clothing due to new EU directives prohibiting the export of household waste. Although 95% of Human Bridge's collections consist of clothing, the inclusion of small amounts of shoes and bags led to shipments being classified as household waste and subsequently stopped. "We were forced to burn usable clothes, bags, and shoes that otherwise would have gone to second-hand shops around the world," says Ståhlgren. "This was already on the brink of disaster." Cristofer Ståhlgren, Sales & Logistics Manager Human Bridge, Sweden To circumvent this issue, Human Bridge began sorting textiles in-house, a resource-intensive process that strained their finances. "We began at that point to already be financially stretched to the limit," Ståhlgren adds. Increased Volumes and System Overload In January 2025, Swedish authorities implemented the EU directive requiring separate collection of textile waste, prohibiting disposal of textiles in household trash. This led to a surge in textile volumes, overwhelming collection organizations like Human Bridge. "Suddenly our collection volumes increased by up to 80%," Ståhlgren reports. "That meant we needed even more resources, and it became even harder to manage financially." Swedish collecting bins closed due to overflow of textiles. The consequences were severe: many collection points had to be shut down because they couldn't handle the increased volumes. This disruption undermines the entire system designed to address the textile industry's environmental challenges. The fewer clothes that go to the second-hand market, the more will be incinerated, and the more new clothes will be produced. This is is exactly what the EU in the long run wants to prevent. Temporary Reversal and Lingering Concerns In response to the crisis, the Swedish government announced that, starting October 1, 2025, it would again be permissible to dispose of unusable textiles in household waste. However, Ståhlgren remains skeptical about the effectiveness of this change. "No, we'll see. I've been wrong before, so I really don't dare hope for anything in this situation," he says. Human Bridge warns that without urgent financial support, the system for collecting clothes could be near collapse. In some municipalities, they are planning to terminate collection agreements; others are forced to pause operations. The organization is urging municipalities to temporarily cover additional costs until a producer responsibility scheme is in place. Such a scheme would require textile manufacturers to take responsibility for collection and handling, a measure that is currently under development. The EU Parliament has recently adopted an agreement on producer responsibility for textiles, which is set to be implemented by 2028. System at a Crossroads The intended goal of the legal change is clear: to steer Sweden toward more circular management of textiles, where clothes and fabrics are reused or recycled rather than incinerated. However, in practice, the system is at its breaking point: infrastructural limitations, heavy regulation, and a weak economic model threaten to undermine these ambitions. If nothing is done to strengthen capacity, provide financing, and clarify the regulatory framework, the goal may turn into a system in ruins, with much of the collected material still ending up incinerated. For Human Bridge and similar organizations, this is a situation requiring quick solutions—or the risk that efforts simply won't be enough. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Reuse News - Mountains of textile waste growing in Europe - not in Africa

Fast fashion giants like Shein, backed by China’s manufacturing powerhouse, are increasingly targeting the global market, with a particular focus on Africa. But behind their advertisements and ultra-low prices there might be a deeper strategy: undermining the thriving second-hand clothing industry, which is seen as a large obstacle for expansion. There are a few facts strongly supporting this theory. The African second-hand market, fueled by imports from wealthier nations, has long served as a vital component of the circular economy. It extends the lifespan of clothing, reduces waste, and provides affordable options for millions of consumers. However, Chinese ultra fast fashion brands are eager to expand their markets-shares. China's ultra fast fashion industry probably doesn't want you to buy second-hand clothes Africa has become a battleground for fashion dominance. The continent imports massive quantities of second-hand clothes, which sustain local businesses and create jobs in sorting, repairing, and reselling garments. For decades, this circular system has been both economically and environmentally sustainable. But fast fashion brands probably view this as a threat. Their business model depends on high turnover and mass consumption, leaving no room for durable garments to circulate in the economy. This leads to the assumption that China's ultra fast fashion industry probably don't want you to buy second-hand clothes. Supporting NGO:s with a waste narrative One strategy seems to be donating substantial amounts of money to foundations and organisations that promote information about the supposed negative impact of the second-hand market in Africa. The OR Foundation, for example, has received at least $15 million from Shein. This organisation has been one of the most vocal in promoting the claim that nearly half of second-hand imports to Ghana consist of unusable clothing that ends up in landfills. But these claims have been debunked by several other studies, yet they continue to be widely circulated. Learn more:   The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Learn more:   GUCDA Report refute claims of textile waste in Ghana Another organisation in Kenya, ACT, Africa Collecting Textiles, have made similar claims about the second-hand import to Kenya. These claims have also been refuted by several organisations and studies. ACT is also partly funded by Shein and received 5 million Euro in 2024. Learn more:   EAC Report refute claims of textile waste in Kenya The environmental cost The ultra fast fashion model comes with a massive environmental footprint. Producing millions of garments at breakneck speed requires enormous amounts of water, energy, and raw materials. These clothes are often poorly made, meaning they cannot be reused or recycled effectively, leading to increased textile waste. In contrast, the secondhand market plays a crucial role in reducing waste and mitigating the fashion industry’s climate impact. By extending the life of clothing and replacing the need for new production, it offers an environmentally friendly alternative that aligns with global sustainability goals. A well-functioning system under threat Shein and other similar brands approach threatens to disrupt a system that has worked efficiently for decades. Second-hand clothing not only supports sustainable practices but also provides affordable apparel to millions in low-income regions. Ultra fast fashion, with its low prices and poor quality, undermines this system, creating a cycle of overconsumption and waste. This disruption isn’t confined to Africa. As ultra fast fashion brands expand their reach, they challenge the global second-hand industry, which has been instrumental in reducing textile waste in wealthier nations. If second-hand markets collapse, the result will likely be more landfill waste, higher carbon emissions, and a step backward for the circular economy. Opposite to what politicians, policymakers and the public in Europe want. The call for action Environmental advocates are calling for stronger regulations on ultra fast fashion brands, particularly in regions like Africa where their impact is most severe. Policies such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) and import tariffs could help curb the influence of ultra fast fashion. Shein’s financial support for organizations that criticize the second-hand clothing trade appears to form part of a broader strategy. While often presented as sustainability efforts, such initiatives raise questions about the underlying motives behind them. Written by Thomas Lundkvist