There’s a fine line between preventing dumping and killing trade. How can global rules distinguish between exploitative waste exports and legitimate reuse without punishing the livelihoods built on them?
Teresiah Wairimu Njenga: The distinction is already built into our supply chains that have developed over decades. Kenya’s Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVoC), whereby sorting centres undergo checks before export, ensures that only reusable clothing is shipped here. UNEP could highlight these practices as examples for other countries to learn from.
Problems arise when guidelines are simultaneously vague—leaving room for misinterpretation—and overly restrictive, attempting to dictate market demand and socioeconomic needs. Clothing markets are governed by supply and demand, not rigid rules. For instance, while some assume Kenya only requires clothing for warm weather, there is still demand for coats and jackets during colder months, for those at higher altitudes, or for travel. Circularity frameworks should recognise these realities rather than attempt to regiment dynamic markets that already function efficiently.
Are there examples of locally driven models — perhaps in Ghana, Kenya, or Pakistan — that UNEP could learn from instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all global standard?
Teresiah Wairimu Njenga: Yes—Kenya’s PVoC system is a working model. It combines private-sector certification with government oversight and has achieved compliance levels that many developed countries struggle to match.
But unfortunately, it is a misdiagnosis to suggest that transboundary movements of secondhand clothes need to be regulated. The real issues lie within global overproduction of textiles, specifically the manufacturing of ultra-fast-fashion, and building and developing waste management and recycling infrastructure not just in end market countries in the Global South, but globally.
UNEP doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel—the supply chain already works in Kenya.
From a policy standpoint, how can UNEP address the moral contradiction of rich nations claiming progress while poorer nations shoulder the physical and financial burden of their discarded textiles?
Teresiah Wairimu Njenga: First, we need to recognise that the secondhand clothes trade is a legitimate trade in products of value. Even when described as “discarded textiles,” these garments are valuable to millions of customers in Kenya, providing affordable, quality clothing while supporting livelihoods. There is nothing moral in stripping millions of Kenyans of the dignity of a job or access to affordable clothes.
The moral contradiction is stark: rich nations continue to consume without restriction, and large corporations produce freely, yet poorer nations are to be criticised or restricted from accessing affordable clothing simply because the trade is portrayed negatively in Western media. This framing focuses on appearances rather than the realities of supply, demand, and livelihoods in the Global South.
We must acknowledge where responsibility lies—at the point of production, not reuse. The cost of overproduction should be internalised by the brands and retailers that profit from it through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees, with funds raised helping to invest in the collection, sorting and reuse supply chain, and for building general waste management infrastructure in the Global South and for building recycling and waste management infrastructure in the Global South — because the problem is not second-hand imports, it’s fast-fashion overproduction and poor waste management systems.
Some activists argue that environmentalism has become the new language of control — that “saving the planet” often means regulating the Global South. Do you think the textile debate exposes that tension?
Teresiah Wairimu Njenga: Yes, it does. When policies made in the Global North start to restrict livelihoods in the Global South under the banner of “sustainability,” that’s not environmental justice—it’s environmental colonialism.
We fully support circularity, but it must be inclusive and fair. True sustainability empowers communities; it doesn’t criminalise their survival.
The secondhand clothes trade is circularity in action. We are the ones extending the lifespan of garments that would otherwise go to waste. We are firefighters of the global textile overproduction. It is astonishing how much the narrative has shifted away from the overproduction of ultra-fast fashion.
Readers from across the globe must stop and question why we are focusing on reusable textiles rather than the overproduction of ultra-fast fashion. They must also ask themselves who gains from that discussion.
For consumers in the Global North, secondhand clothes are a trendy luxury, but in the Global South they are a necessity - a lifeline for millions.
If circularity is to mean justice, not just efficiency, what systemic change—financial, political, or moral—would have to occur for the Global North to truly share the costs of its consumption?
Teresiah Wairimu Njenga: If circularity is to be about justice, not just efficiency, the Global North must take responsibility for the full lifecycle of the products it consumes. We are in support of EPR fees that fund reuse, and recycling infrastructure in the Global South.
It also requires political change - genuinely including Global South stakeholders in the design of standards, definitions, and regulations, rather than imposing rules from afar.
True circularity is achieved when the costs and benefits of production, consumption, and reuse are shared fairly, and when the systems of reuse that already exist in the Global South are supported and respected, rather than penalised.
