Ghana View / Politics of Waste / PART IV Interview

Spotlight: Politics of Waste

UNEP Textile Waste Definitions Risk Overlooking Ghana’s Role in Circular Economy

As policymakers seek to standardise global rules on textile waste, African traders find themselves contending with definitions that could reshape their markets. Atobrah Edward Brinkley, Secretary of the Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association, argues that lived realities of reuse and repair deserve equal recognition within sustainability frameworks largely framed by institutions far removed from their economies.

Subir Ghosh

13 November 2025

7 minutes

Long Story, Cut Short

Ghanaian traders call for equal participation in defining textile waste, citing risks to jobs and existing circular economies.
UNEP needs to base policy on verified data and market realities rather than imported assumptions.
The debate highlights the need for inclusive frameworks linking environmental accountability with socioeconomic inclusion across the Global South.

Ghana’s used clothing traders argue that UNEP’s evolving definition of textile waste overlooks the realities of existing circular economies, threatening livelihoods and distorting how reuse markets are understood globally.

Ground Realities Ghana’s used clothing traders argue that UNEP’s evolving definition of textile waste overlooks the realities of existing circular economies, threatening livelihoods and distorting how reuse markets are understood globally. AI-Generated / Reve

texfash: Should UNEP—a global environmental authority—be the one defining what counts as “waste,” or should those engaged in the trade of used clothing have equal standing in shaping that definition?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: The issue of a harmonised legal definition for textiles is complex. While UNEP may be attempting to craft a technical definition, the determination of "waste" is a question of utility, economic value, and market demand.

We, the traders in Africa, are experts in textile circularity. We are actively engaged in transforming what the Global North labels as disposable into a valuable resource, creating livelihoods and providing affordable clothing. Therefore, those of us engaged in the trade, especially in the Global South, must have equal standing in shaping a definition that reflects the circularity already being practiced in our markets.

If items are destined for disposal or end up in landfills without any further reuse or economic value, they can be counted as waste. Any attempt to introduce further complex or arbitrary metrics is unacceptable. The only determinant must be the immediate presence of utility and market demand.

Ghanaian traders claim only around 4% of imported clothing ends up as waste, while UNEP-affiliated research cites figures closer to 40%. How can policy be credible when the statistical foundation itself is so disputed—and when key data sources remain undisclosed?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: When the numbers are so drastically different, we must have complete transparency about how the data is collected, analysed, and verified to ensure the policy foundation is credible. Also, it is not just our research figures; other studies confirm that the true level of waste from second-hand clothing imports is low.

If the true issue policymakers want to address is end-of-life solutions, then let's focus resources there. All clothing eventually reaches its end-of-life, whether it's produced locally, imported new, or imported used. So let us focus on end-of-life solutions for all textiles. We must not allow misleading numbers to create a false narrative that destabilises a well-established and vital trade.

Ultimately, this fight over “waste” is a fight over power—who decides what’s valuable and what’s disposable. Do you see this as part of a larger pattern where the Global North controls definitions that shape trade rules to its advantage?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: This is a new space for us, the Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association has not traditionally been involved in global policy processes like this. But we’re quickly realising how much power lies in who gets to define the terms. The way “waste” or “value” is framed isn’t just a technical matter - it shapes who can trade, under what conditions, and ultimately, who benefits.

In the case of the secondhand clothing trade, these definitions risk sidelining the knowledge and experience of those of us who actually turn these goods into economic opportunity and social benefit. African traders are not passive recipients of the world’s waste - we are active participants in a thriving circular economy.

The Or Foundation, UNEP’s local research partner in Ghana, receives $15 million in funding from Shein—a company often blamed for accelerating textile overproduction. How can UNEP justify depending on a partner financially linked to one of the industries most responsible for the crisis it seeks to regulate?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: We believe UNEP engaging with independent research bodies or universities that did not have a long-standing advocacy agenda would have established greater credibility from the start of the project.

Critics argue that such collaborations let fast-fashion giants buy moral legitimacy under the banner of “circularity.” Do you think this partnership inadvertently turned UNEP’s initiative into a vehicle for corporate greenwashing rather than accountability? UNEP’s authority depends on being seen as neutral and science-based. After this controversy, do you think its credibility among Global South stakeholders has been permanently damaged?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: We understand that UNEP’s intention is to promote sustainability and transparency, and that partnerships with a variety of actors can be part of that effort. However, when an ultra-fast-fashion brand is a substantial funder of a partner, it naturally raises questions about balance and credibility.

We see this as a critical moment for reflection and recalibration. To maintain trust, UNEP must ensure that its processes are inclusive and representative of the full value chain.

When policymakers in Europe or Geneva talk about “waste,” they often picture environmental harm—not employment. Shouldn’t circularity frameworks explicitly recognise informal reuse work as an integral part of the global sustainability chain?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: Global circularity frameworks must start by recognising the world as it is - not just the world we aspire to create. While it’s important to aim for improved

outcomes like closed-loop recycling systems and formal employment with social protection, we cannot ignore the realities of today’s economies. For us, used clothing is not merely an environmental issue; it is a livelihood issue.

In Africa, informal and formal reuse work sustains millions of jobs and adds real value within the global sustainability chain. Circularity frameworks that overlook this are incomplete. They must explicitly acknowledge and protect the economic participation, skills, and expertise that already make circularity a lived reality across much of the Global South.

And fundamentally, we need to move away from this waste narrative. The secondhand clothes trade does not trade in waste, we import goods with value and we import because there is a demand. People need clothing. All clothing will ultimately reach its end-of-life, so let us focus on end-of-life solutions.

Atobrah Edward Brinkley

General Secretary

Ghana Used Clothing Dealers Association

Global circularity frameworks must start by recognising the world as it is - not just the world we aspire to create. While it’s important to aim for improved outcomes like closed-loop recycling systems and formal employment with social protection, we cannot ignore the realities of today’s economies. For us, used clothing is not merely an environmental issue; it is a livelihood issue.

The UNEP guidelines could make exporting used clothing more restrictive and costly. Have policymakers adequately calculated the social and economic fallout if these restrictions were applied — from job losses to rising clothing prices for low-income consumers?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: We understand that many policymakers are motivated by a genuine desire to address environmental challenges and reduce waste. However, much of the current debate around used clothing exports has been shaped by fear as a result of an overstated narrative that equates all secondhand trade with dumping. People want to do the right thing, but the story has become oversimplified.

So far, we haven’t seen an adequate assessment of the broader social and economic implications potential trade restrictions could have. The focus tends to remain on Europe’s waste management goals, without sufficient attention to how such measures would affect livelihoods and affordability in receiving countries. Across Africa and other regions, millions of people along the value chain depend on this trade for income. Not only this, but the void that the drop in secondhand clothes trade creates will need to be filled. In the face of less secondhand clothes imports from Europe, I can only see the market demand being filled by cheap, fast-fashion imports from Asia.

If policies are crafted on a one-dimensional understanding of “waste,” the outcome could be devastating.

What would a truly fair version of circularity look like — one that combines environmental accountability with the right to economic participation for traders, sorters, and recyclers in the Global South?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: In short yes. A fair circular economy must link environmental accountability with economic inclusion. There’s huge potential to grow the green economy in the

Global South, but that means looking beyond restrictions and toward real investment in sorting, repair, and recycling facilities in importing countries.

We also need to start at the beginning of the chain. If clothing were made better and designed to last, it would retain more value when it enters the secondhand market. That supports both sustainability and livelihoods.

Europe celebrates its recycling achievements, yet much of that “recycled” material is simply exported to Africa and Asia. Do you see this as a case where the Global North has externalised its sustainability problem under the guise of circularity?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: As mentioned earlier, there’s huge potential to grow the green economy in the Global South, but that means looking beyond restrictions and toward real investment in sorting, repair, and recycling facilities in importing countries.

The UNEP project is funded by the EU—the same region drafting its own “end-of-waste” criteria for textiles. Does this overlap amount to policy capture, where European funding effectively shapes global standards in its own interest?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: The UNEP project is funded by the EU Commission and it stems from the same concerns about waste dumping mentioned earlier. We understand that policymakers want to do the right thing and reduce environmental harm which they perceive to be a result of the secondhand clothes trade. But any global guidelines must be grounded in reality. We need a full assessment of both socioeconomic and environmental impacts.

If trade with the EU is restricted without considering market dynamics, flows could simply shift in other directions, like more imports from China, while jobs and livelihoods in the Global South are lost. A credible circularity framework must recognise how the trade actually operates, protect the people who depend on it, and balance environmental goals with economic realities.

Extended Producer Responsibility schemes in Europe collect funds from brands to manage waste, but little of that money reaches the countries managing the aftermath. Should UNEP advocate mandatory financial transfers to importing nations as part of its global framework?
Atobrah Edward Brinkley: Yes, as I’ve mentioned, there’s huge potential to grow the green economy in the Global South. This is possible with EPR funds reaching importing countries where we can invest in sorting, repair, and recycling facilities as well as end-of-life management.

Defining Waste Fairly

Ghanaian traders insist that utility and market demand should determine whether textiles qualify as waste.
Local studies indicate far lower waste levels than UNEP figures, revealing a serious credibility gap.
Policymakers are urged to assess social impacts alongside environmental objectives before imposing restrictions.
The dispute exposes how data opacity and funding links influence global rule-making.
Traders warn that redefining used clothing as waste would damage livelihoods and disrupt reuse economies.

Circularity And Equity

Edward Atobrah Binkley calls for Extended Producer Responsibility funds to reach importing nations.
UNEP’s partnership with a Shein-funded organisation prompts questions about independence and balance.
Restrictive export policies risk job losses and rising clothing prices for low-income consumers.
Without local investment in sorting and repair, fast-fashion imports could increase.
Genuine circularity must include informal workers and recognise their role in sustainability chains.

Subir Ghosh

SUBIR GHOSH is a Kolkata-based independent journalist-writer-researcher who writes about environment, corruption, crony capitalism, conflict, wildlife, and cinema. He is the author of two books, and has co-authored two more with others. He writes, edits, reports and designs. He is also a professionally trained and qualified photographer.

Full Bio