Across Europe and in international forums, new rules are tightening how used clothing is collected, sorted and shipped. Governments are building systems to manage what happens after garments are discarded. Yet most of the sector’s climate impact occurs long before clothes are thrown away — and that part of the system remains structurally harder to regulate. Summary: EU institutions and international bodies are entering a more operational phase in textile governance. Export controls are tightening, extended producer responsibility schemes are being rolled out and classification rules are being clarified under the Basel Convention. Many of these measures are designed to address the environmental and trade risks associated with used clothing flows. At the same time, production volumes — where most emissions occur — remain outside direct regulatory limits. Addressing scale is proving more complex than regulating disposal. Further reading in this series : Why is textile policy focusing on the smallest part of the problem? How robust is the evidence behind environmental claims in the second-hand clothing trade? EU textile governance moves from strategy to enforcement Textile policy in Europe is entering an operational phase. From 2025, separate textile collection becomes mandatory across the EU. By 2028, all Member States must introduce Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles. These systems will require companies placing garments on the market to finance collection, sorting and treatment. National authorities are now defining fee structures, governance models and cost allocation mechanisms — decisions that will determine how financial responsibility is distributed across the value chain. At the same time, the revised Waste Shipment Regulation tightens scrutiny of textile exports. Authorities must assess whether shipments qualify as products intended for reuse or as waste subject to stricter controls. The distinction is legally decisive: misclassification can shift regulatory obligations, trade permissions and enforcement thresholds. Under the Basel Convention , technical discussions continue on the classification and reporting of used textiles in international trade. The outcome may influence documentation requirements, traceability standards and cross-border movements well beyond Europe. Taken together, these processes bring used clothing more firmly into waste governance and trade control frameworks. They are designed to improve transparency, prevent misclassification and reduce environmental harm associated with poorly managed textile flows. Political momentum behind export controls has partly been driven by claims that international trade in used clothing contributes to waste burdens in receiving countries. However, the scale and systemic impact of those claims remain empirically contested, and data gaps continue to shape the debate. Extended producer responsibility shifts financial power — but not production levels Textile EPR schemes represent a structural shift in regulatory logic. For the first time, producers will be required to finance end-of-life management at scale. This creates new financial flows, new data requirements and new institutional roles for compliance organisations and national authorities. Fee modulation — linking costs to product durability or recyclability — could influence design decisions. But EPR does not limit how many garments can be placed on the market. It redistributes end-of-life costs without directly constraining production volumes. The regulatory signal is therefore corrective rather than restrictive. Waste law is established territory. Production control is not. Upstream, policy instruments look different — and more cautious. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) provides a legal basis for textile-specific durability requirements, recycled content criteria and information obligations. Digital Product Passports are being developed to improve traceability and material transparency across supply chains. A ban on the destruction of unsold textiles is being phased in for large companies, combined with reporting obligations intended to increase visibility around excess stock and corporate sustainability reporting rules now require more detailed disclosure of environmental and supply chain impacts. These measures target product design, transparency and business practices. They can extend product lifespans, improve material efficiency and increase market scrutiny. What they do not do is set binding limits on production volumes. The unresolved climate question: scale Environmental impact in textiles is concentrated at the beginning of the lifecycle — in fibre production, processing, dyeing and manufacturing. Global clothing output has more than doubled over the past two decades, while European consumption remains structurally high. Regulating waste flows builds on established environmental law and administrative practice. Regulating production volumes raises broader questions about trade policy, industrial competitiveness, consumer demand and global supply chains. There is no existing EU framework designed to cap output in a globalised industry characterised by complex cross-border production networks. The result is a structural asymmetry: regulatory clarity is advancing rapidly in end-of-life management, while production scale — where the majority of emissions occur — remains outside direct quantitative control. The tightening of rules around used clothing marks a significant shift in textile governance. Whether comparable enforceability can be developed at the production stage remains one of the central unresolved questions in EU textile climate policy. Read more: Why is textile policy focusing on the smallest part of the problem? How robust is the evidence behind environmental claims in the second-hand clothing trade?

France has temporarily increased financial support for textile collection and sorting under its Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, raising payments from around €228 to €268 per tonne. The €40 uplift is intended to prevent insolvencies in a sector under mounting economic pressure. The decision comes as France’s textile recovery system faces a widening structural gap between volumes placed on the market and volumes collected. In 2024, nearly 891,000 tonnes of new textile products were placed on the French market, while collection volumes reached approximately 289,400 tonnes. Operators report falling resale values, rising logistics costs and saturated export markets, particularly in parts of Africa. The higher payment level is designed to cover a larger share of net sorting and logistics costs and preserve the collection and treatment capacity built up under the French REP system. Without intervention, industry representatives warned that bankruptcies could undermine both employment and recycling infrastructure. The measure is presented as temporary. At the same time, the government has signalled broader structural reforms to the textile REP framework, aimed at improving economic viability, traceability and domestic recycling performance. Discussions reportedly include stronger cost alignment within the system and potential financial penalties targeting ultra-fast fashion models. France’s move highlights a wider European question: whether textile EPR fees are calibrated to reflect real system costs in a market increasingly strained by overproduction and volatile second-hand demand. As the EU prepares to harmonise textile producer responsibility across Member States, the French case offers an early test of how quickly national systems can come under financial stress.

The Swedish company Circulose has announced it will restart commercial-scale production at its facility in Sweden later this year, marking a rare development for industrial textile-to-textile recycling in Europe. The plant, previously operated by Renewcell before its insolvency in 2024, was the world’s first commercial chemical textile recycling facility for cotton-based textiles and has now been revived under new ownership and a revised strategy. The restart comes at a time when the global textile recycling sector is struggling to move beyond small-scale pilots and demonstration projects toward stable industrial volumes. Across Europe and beyond, new ventures are emerging, but complex value chains, uneven collection systems and supply constraints have kept truly commercial textile-to-textile recycling rare. Recent initiatives in the United States, France and Spain have focused on building textile regeneration hubs that integrate sorting and pre-processing with recycling, but most remain in early implementation phases. Industry observers have pointed to logistics, access to consistent and quality-controlled feedstock, and regulatory uncertainty as key barriers to scaling fiber-to-fiber recycling. Textile recycling, fiber-to-fiber, is still underdeveloped for stable industrial volumes. Demand-linked production model for recycled dissolving pulp Circulose’s announcement underscores both the potential and the fragility of industrial textile-to-textile recycling. The company said preparations are underway for production to resume in the fourth quarter of 2026, with new CIRCULOSE pulp expected before year-end. The material is a dissolving pulp made from discarded cotton textiles and is designed to be processed into regenerated cellulosic fibres such as viscose, lyocell and modal. Chief executive Jonatan Janmark said the company has aligned its production plans with confirmed demand and secured commitments from eleven partner brands before restarting operations. He described the restart as a milestone for scaling next-generation materials and said the ambition is to integrate recycled dissolving pulp into existing fibre supply chains. Strategic agreements have also been signed with fibre producers, including Tangshan Sanyou, Aditya Birla Group and Jilin Chemical Fiber, aimed at anchoring commercial volumes within established viscose and cellulosic fibre production. Until new production is fully operational, orders are being supplied from existing inventory produced prior to Renewcell’s bankruptcy. Circulose was acquired by private equity firm Altor in 2024, and the company’s revised approach signals a shift toward demand-linked production rather than speculative capacity expansion in advance of secured offtake. Industrial textile-to-textile recycling in a shifting EU policy context The revival carries symbolic weight in a European context where several high-profile textile recycling ventures have struggled to secure long-term profitability at industrial scale. At the same time, EU policymakers are advancing rules under the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles intended to increase recycled content, strengthen separate textile collection and restrict the destruction of unsold textiles. These measures are expected to influence future demand for recycled fibres and secondary raw materials. Yet upstream challenges remain significant. Large-scale textile-to-textile recycling depends on reliable access to sorted, traceable and quality-controlled textile feedstock, an area where collection, sorting and pre-processing infrastructure across Europe is still uneven and in transition. For now, Circulose stands as one of the few examples of a commercial-scale textile-to-textile recycling facility in Europe returning to operation after insolvency. Whether this restart marks a turning point for fiber-to-fiber recycling will depend less on technology alone and more on how effectively supply chains, collection systems, regulatory frameworks and market incentives align in the years ahead.

Rising inflows, uneven material quality and delayed financing are pushing parts of the system towards instability. RREUSE and a coalition of European social and circular economy organisations has issued a stark warning: the EU’s textile collection and sorting system is under acute pressure. The statement came 18 January, just months after separate textile collection became mandatory across the EU under the revised Waste Framework Directive, and before extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles are fully operational in many member states. RREUSE describes the situation as an unfolding crisis for collectors and sorters. Since the obligation to collect textiles separately took effect, volumes have increased significantly in several countries. However, collection is only the first step in a longer and more resource-intensive chain. Sorting, grading, preparation for reuse and potential recycling require labour, logistics capacity and stable end markets. In many regions, that infrastructure is still adjusting to the new regulatory landscape and to the forthcoming EPR framework. “The influx of disposable fashion, and therefore low quality, non-reusable and non-recyclable garments, is overwhelming recovery systems,” said Neva Nahtigal, Director of RREUSE, as part of the coordinated industry warning. She added that the organisation is “extremely concerned about what this means for the future of social enterprises across the EU.” Overflowed collection bin in Sweden. Financing gap in textile EPR rollout A central concern is the gap between rising inflows and secured financing. Extended producer responsibility systems for textiles are being rolled out across Europe following amendments to EU waste legislation, but implementation timelines, fee structures and governance models vary. In the meantime, many collectors, including social enterprises that rely on resale revenues, face higher operational and compliance costs without corresponding financial support. The result is mounting economic pressure at the front end of the post-consumer textile system. “Social economy actors are pioneers of the circular economy, reusing goods instead of destroying them. Today, we can’t afford to pay for the consequences of global overproduction,” said Eve Poulteau, Chief Executive of Emmaüs Europe. “Producers and marketers must accept the consequences of their actions and economically support our actions.” Material quality and export market uncertainty Quality is another structural challenge. As more textiles enter separate collection streams, the share of low-value or non-reusable items increases. That material must still be sorted, documented and handled in line with waste legislation, even if it cannot easily be resold or recycled at scale. At the same time, export markets for used textiles are becoming more uncertain amid ongoing debates over waste classifications, shipment controls under the Waste Shipment Regulation and tightening environmental standards in importing countries. For operators who depend on international resale channels to finance collection and sorting, this adds another layer of regulatory and commercial risk. Sequencing of reforms creates transitional strain RREUSE does not question the goals of mandatory separate collection or textile EPR. Instead, the coalition argues that the sequencing of reforms is creating strain. Collection obligations have moved ahead quickly, while financing mechanisms, market outlets and domestic recycling capacity are still catching up. The imbalance leaves local collectors and sorters exposed during a transitional period in the EU’s circular economy transition. The warning also comes at a moment when EU policymakers are tightening rules on the destruction of unsold textiles under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and placing greater emphasis on keeping materials in circulation. If inflows continue to rise before sorting and recycling capacity stabilises, pressure on the system could intensify further. For now, the message from parts of the reuse sector is clear. Europe’s textile collection system is expanding rapidly under new EU waste rules, but the economic and logistical foundations needed to support that expansion are still under construction. About RREUSE RREUSE is a Brussels-based European network representing social enterprises active in reuse, repair and recycling across more than 20 countries. It engages in EU policy debates on waste, circular economy and extended producer responsibility, representing organisations involved in activities such as textile collection and sorting.

Operation Demeter XI marked a shift. For the first time, textiles were treated as a priority waste stream in the World Customs Organization’s global enforcement effort against illegal waste trafficking. The result: 1,176 tonnes of textile waste were reportedly intercepted or returned across 25 operations. But when customs went looking for textile waste, what did they actually find? Customs authorities themselves have flagged a core challenge: many jurisdictions lack clear criteria  for distinguishing between used textiles and textile waste. According to the World Customs Organization’s reporting on Operation Demeter XI, participating customs administrations noted “significant regulatory gaps, particularly the absence of clear national criteria distinguishing used textiles from textile waste.” On paper, the message seems clear. Textile waste exports are presented as a growing compliance problem. Enforcement is tightening. Authorities are responding. But the first textile-focused results raise a more complicated question. What exactly counts as textile waste under current customs and waste law frameworks? Textile waste classification under the Harmonized System Operation Demeter was designed to combat illegal trafficking in hazardous and regulated waste streams. In previous editions, the focus has been on plastics, e-waste and other materials where the economic logic is straightforward: treatment is costly, compliance is strict, and the incentive to externalise disposal costs can be strong. But textiles are different. Used clothing is not automatically a negative-value waste stream. It is also a global commodity, traded in established markets, sorted by grade, priced by quality and resold across continents. Millions of tonnes move annually through commercial channels that depend on resale value rather than disposal. In many importing countries, lower grade clothing is very far from a europeans definition of waste. It is cheaper clothing within an established secondary market. When such a market is examined through a waste enforcement lens, classification becomes central. Under the Harmonized System, used clothing intended for reuse falls under HS 6309. Textile waste and rags fall under HS 6310. In practice, however, the boundary between the two is not always self-evident. It depends on declared intended use, degree of sorting, quality thresholds and, crucially, market context. A garment deemed unsellable in a European sorting facility may still carry value in a different market segment elsewhere. In many importing countries, lower grade clothing is not automatically waste. It is cheaper clothing within an established secondary market. Waste law, by contrast, operates on a binary basis. A shipment must be declared either as goods for reuse or as waste subject to stricter controls under waste shipment rules. What the Demeter XI figures show – and do not show The 1,176 tonnes reported under Operation Demeter XI sound significant. Yet in the context of the European Union’s annual textile exports, which run into the millions of tonnes, the volume represents a small fraction of overall flows. A targeted enforcement operation will by design identify irregularities. What remains unclear from the publicly available information is how many of the intercepted shipments involved deliberate illegal waste trafficking, and how many reflect disputes over customs classification, documentation, contamination levels or quality thresholds. The operation demonstrates that authorities are scrutinising cross-border textile flows more closely under waste shipment control regimes. It does not, at this stage, quantify the scale or nature of systemic illegal textile waste exports. Waste shipment enforcement meets the global second-hand textile trade The tension may lie less in criminal intent and more in regulatory design. Hazardous waste enforcement frameworks assume a relatively clear boundary between valuable goods and unwanted material. The global second-hand textile trade does not operate along such a clean line. It is a graded market, shaped by income levels, repair cultures and price sensitivity. What one market rejects, another may absorb at a lower price point within a functioning resale system. When customs officers are asked to draw a binary line within that spectrum for the purposes of waste shipment enforcement, ambiguity is almost inevitable. Operation Demeter XI may therefore reveal not only instances of irregular shipments, but also the structural difficulty of applying waste law and customs codes to a functioning global resale market. The question now is not simply whether textile waste is being illegally exported. It is whether current waste shipment enforcement tools and textile waste classification rules are capable of distinguishing waste from value in a trade flow that does not fit neatly into either category.

A coalition of European industry organisations, including EURATEX, Landbell Group and the Global Fashion Agenda, has issued a joint statement raising concerns over a growing shift in some EU Member States toward state-run Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) within new and emerging Extended Producer Responsibility schemes. The signatories argue that moving responsibility away from producer-led governance risks weakening core EPR principles, reducing incentives for investment and eco-design, and creating fragmentation across the Single Market. They also warn that blurred boundaries between regulators and operators could undermine transparency, and that EPR fees may increasingly be treated as public revenue rather than a policy tool grounded in the polluter-pays principle. The statement highlights a widening governance debate as textile EPR systems take shape across Europe: whether responsibility should remain primarily producer-driven, or increasingly be administered through state-controlled structures.

Europe’s debate over textile waste and circularity is increasingly framed around responsibility: what happens to unwanted clothing once it leaves EU borders, and who bears the economic and environmental cost of overproduction. Yet the countries most often placed at the centre of this debate are not European. They are Kenya and Ghana. From Accra’s Kantamanto market to Nairobi’s Gikomba, second-hand clothing flows have become highly visible symbols in a discussion driven largely by European policy choices, including fast fashion volumes, upcoming textile EPR schemes, and growing pressure to regulate exports. African markets have become the battleground for Europe’s circular economy credibility. Competing narratives and limited evidence on second-hand clothing exports Gikomba, one of the largest second-hand markets in the world. Recent media coverage around Nairobi Fashion Week illustrates how sharply these flows are framed. Some reports describe Kenya as being overwhelmed by imported clothing, portraying the country as a dumping ground for the Global North. Others highlight the same markets as essential economic infrastructure, sustaining livelihoods and supplying material for reuse and upcycling. What is often missing is verification. Claims that second-hand clothing exports primarily constitute waste dumping remain widely contested by both industry actors and academic research in textile reuse and trade. While quality challenges and waste management pressures exist, evidence consistently points to mixed-quality streams, functioning resale markets, and significant local value creation. The narrative, in other words, is far from settled. Reuse News has covered this issue in several articles. Here is one of them: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Accra, Ghana: What from a distance look like textiles is actually plastic Europe’s textile policy and its impact on second-hand clothing exports This matters because Europe is entering a decisive phase on textiles. Extended Producer Responsibility systems are being rolled out across the EU, while exports of used textiles are moving higher on the regulatory agenda through Basel Convention–related discussions and tighter waste classifications. In this context, Kenya and Ghana become more than destinations. They become arguments. Images from African markets are increasingly used to support policy positions in Europe, either to justify export restrictions or to defend the legitimacy of second-hand trade. Second-hand markets as active economies, not waste endpoints Markets like Kantamanto and Gikomba are not passive endpoints of European waste. They are active second-hand economies, deeply embedded in local consumption, employment, and repair systems. Reducing them to a single waste narrative risks obscuring key structural drivers upstream: overproduction, declining garment quality, and Europe’s limited domestic capacity for textile reuse and recycling. As the EU seeks to assert leadership on circular textiles, the legitimacy of second-hand trade will be one of the most contested issues ahead. Kenya and Ghana may sit at the centre of the story. But the debate shaping their future is, fundamentally, a European one.

Second-hand clothing is not only a question of consumption or charity, but increasingly of trade governance: who gets to define what counts as a product, what becomes waste, and which textile flows are allowed to move across borders. Right now, one of the most important bottlenecks for circular textile trade sits in something as technical as a customs number. HS6309. It is the global Harmonised System (HS) code used for second-hand clothing in international trade. The problem is that it effectively bundles everything into the same category: wearable garments, low-quality exports, textile waste, and even clothing intended for repair, resale, or upcycling. The result is that circular textile flows are forced into a trade system built for linear goods. HS codes as a blind spot in the trade infrastructure A recent article in Vogue Business  highlights how today’s HS framework lacks the resolution needed to distinguish between very different textile pathways. A garment imported as second-hand and later exported again as a redesigned or upcycled product is often classified under the same code as when it first entered the market. Customs systems are not equipped to recognise the difference between waste, reuse, and value-creating circular products. The trade code that define the future of second-hand trade This is not a minor administrative issue within customs administration. It shapes investment decisions, business models, and the ability to build functioning secondary markets. Basel, UNEP and the trade boundary between goods and waste Reuse News has previously followed how the Basel Convention and EU waste legislation are moving toward sharper boundary-setting between “waste” and “goods” in textile trade. What is becoming clearer now is that customs classification sits at the very centre of the same conflict. UNEP is expected to publish recommendations in the coming months on how revised HS codes could better account for circular products. At the same time, both the World Customs Organization and the Basel process are exploring potential amendments that would make it possible to better distinguish between: – textile waste – worn but wearable clothing – materials destined for recycling – products intended for reuse and resale This shift could have far-reaching consequences, especially as the EU prepares to roll out Extended Producer Responsibility systems for textiles and tighten rules around exports. Second-hand clothing and the geopolitics of trade classification Trade classification is not only technical. It is political. In countries such as Ghana and Kenya, second-hand clothing flows have already become a contested space between: – livelihoods and local jobs – waste pressure and “dumping” narratives – domestic markets and global overproduction As the EU expands textile EPR and faces increasing scrutiny over the legitimacy of exports, the way these flows are defined internationally becomes decisive. If second-hand textiles are automatically treated as waste, circular markets risk being closed off. If everything is treated as goods, dumping practices may continue unchecked. HS6309 now sits directly inside that tension. Why HS6309 now shapes circular textile trade The circular economy debate is often framed around design, collection systems, and recycling infrastructure. But this is a reminder of another reality: circularity also requires a trade system capable of recognising the difference between waste and value. With UNEP, Basel, and customs authorities beginning to move at the same time, the classification question is no longer peripheral. It is structural. And it may become one of the most consequential regulatory reforms for global reuse and resale in the years ahead. Sources: UNEP work on sustainable textile value chains (policy overview) World Customs Organization Harmonized System information Basel Convention official site (textiles & waste) Vogue Business: article on HS code issues for second-hand textiles ITC (International Trade Centre) on HS classification and trade facilitation

Update (9 February 2026): The European Commission has announced new rules under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) aimed at stopping the destruction of unsold textiles and footwear. The policy shift is designed to increase transparency and introduce a targeted ban on destroying surplus goods, turning what has long been a hidden practice into an enforceable regulatory issue. There is something uniquely maddening about the idea of a product being thrown away before anyone has even used it. Not worn out, not broken, not obsolete. Just unsold. Yet this is happening at scale across Europe’s consumer economy, across multiple product categories. A new study from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) puts numbers on the problem. It estimates that around 21 percent of textiles placed on the EU market are left unsold, and that roughly half of those unsold textiles are ultimately destroyed. In other words, a large share of brand new clothing never reaches a wearer, and a significant portion ends up treated as waste anyway. The study also covers electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). There, the share of unsold goods is lower, around 1.3 percent, but the report still highlights destruction as a real outcome in some channels, shaped by returns, logistics and commercial incentives. This is not only a moral issue. It is also an environmental one. The emissions, water use and chemical impacts of making these products have already happened. When the products are destroyed, the damage remains, but the value is lost. Why do companies destroy unsold products? The JRC points to a set of structural drivers. Overproduction is one. High e-commerce return rates are another. Then there are the practical barriers: testing, repackaging, storage costs, complex internal decision making, and regulations that can make disposal feel simpler than reuse. For many businesses, unsold stock is not treated as a resource. It is treated as a liability. And once a product is labelled a liability, the system is built to remove it quickly. ESPR: what the EU plans to do about the destruction of unsold products The JRC study directly supports the EU’s new regulatory push under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) . The regulation is best known for product design requirements, but it also reaches into what happens after products fail to sell. The EU’s strategy now has two connected parts. First, transparency through disclosure requirements Under Article 24 , companies will be required to disclose how many unsold consumer products they discard, and what happens to them. This matters because the problem has long been driven by a lack of public visibility. Without reporting, destruction can stay hidden. Second, restrictions through a targeted destruction ban Under Article 25 , the ESPR introduces a ban on destroying unsold textiles and footwear, and gives the Commission a pathway to extend that approach to other product groups over time. The logic is simple. If companies can no longer destroy surplus quietly, they will need to plan differently. They may produce less, manage stock more carefully, and take secondary channels more seriously. What the ESPR could mean for consumers and return systems Most people will never see the warehouse decisions behind unsold stock. But the policy shift could still affect daily life. Return systems may become stricter. If managing unsold goods becomes more expensive, the era of effortless returns could face pressure. More surplus may flow into outlets, resale, or donation channels, depending on how companies restructure logistics and incentives. That could mean more discounted goods available, but through different routes than traditional retail. And if reporting works, consumers will gain a clearer picture of how much waste is built into the modern shopping model, even before a product has lived a single day. When “unsold” goods enter resale: implications for second hand markets The EU’s immediate focus is on unsold goods, not second hand trade as such. But the two worlds touch. If destruction is restricted, more never used products will need somewhere to go. Some will end up in discount channels. Some may enter resale markets. And that could reshape the public meaning of second hand itself, not only as a reuse culture, but as a safety valve for overproduction. The JRC study does not settle that broader debate. But it makes one thing harder to deny: Europe’s economy is producing so much surplus that even brand new products can become waste. The EU is now trying to turn that absurdity into enforceable rules. Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), Study on the destruction of unsold consumer products in the EU  (2024). Related policy: European Commission announcement on ESPR destruction ban for textiles and footwear (9 Feb 2026).

In two recent articles in the Financial Times they highlight the critical issue of fashion and textile waste. And, as a society, we must tackle the environmental damage caused by the fashion industry’s relentless overproduction. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is an important tool to hold brands accountable for the full lifecycle of their products. As a representative of the second-hand clothes trade in Ghana, I support the idea that EPR funds should “follow the flow of garments”. But EPR schemes in the EU and beyond must reflect the realities of global textile reuse and support what already works. The second-hand clothing trade is the most established and scalable solution to textile overproduction and waste, and this is as true in Ghana as anywhere else. Global reuse keeps garments in circulation longer, reduces demand for new production and stops clothing from being sent to landfill or incineration too soon. Europe generates far more used clothing than it can reuse domestically and, in countries like ours, demand is very strong for these goods. In Ghana, this trade not only meets essential clothing needs but also directly supports the livelihoods of approximately 2.5mn people, especially benefiting women and youth through job creation and entrepreneurship. Policies that treat exports as waste by default, or restrict the flow of reusable clothing, risk undermining both environmental and social benefits. Policymakers, brands and consumers must embrace the global value of reuse and ensure garments continue to flow where they are both needed and valued. This isn’t just about cutting waste — it’s about making circularity work in the real world, from Brussels to Accra. Edward Atobrah Binkley General Secretary of the Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association, Accra, Ghana  “Solving fashion’s waste problem”, Report , FT Weekend, May 31 “Fast fashion stuck in production-consumption rut”, Special Reports , May 22

When I was tasked a year ago with delving into whether the export of second-hand clothing to African countries is, in fact, dumping of textile waste, I could never have dreamed what I would uncover. Right from the start, it sounded a little odd. Why would anyone pay tax and customs to import goods that can’t then be sold? And what forces in Europe would benefit from transporting waste to another continent when it would be far cheaper to incinerate it? It is undoubtedly a fraught issue—at least in those parts of the textile industry and environmental movement engaged with questions of waste management, circularity, and the climate crisis. It is sometimes described as a debated issue. But it is clear that the narrative “Europe is dumping its unwanted clothes in African countries” dominates the conversation. Countless stories in major international media and the haunting images of clothes washed up on Ghana’s beaches have seared themselves into the minds of many Europeans and also in African countries. As a journalist, it’s hard to let go of the question once it takes hold of your mind. What is really going on here? So we did what one should do: We tried to trace the reports and statistics back to their sources, then assess the quality of those sources and the evidence behind their claims. We reviewed the academic research in the field. What does it say, and can we draw any clear conclusions from it? Finally, we decided to travel to the places where these images originate—to assess for ourselves, with our own eyes, what is actually going on. All in all, it quickly became clear: There is no evidence that the import of second-hand clothing into Ghana is generating the volumes of textile waste claimed There are academic studies that paint an entirely different picture When we were on the ground ourselves, we were struck by how much waste there actually is—and how much of what appears to be textiles is in fact not So how has the situation come to this? One reason is that many issues in life are often more complex than they appear at first glance. What, after all, is the definition of textile waste? And surely textile waste is a problem in many countries—that no one can deny? We will attempt to answer these questions and more in our upcoming reports on “The Elusive Truth Behind the Second-Hand Export Debate”. Stay tuned! Thomas Lundkvist Managing Editor Reuse News Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate

"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