African organisations accuse UNEP’s Textile Circularity Project of unreliable data and a tainted process
African coaltion warns that proposed global guidelines, built on flawed foundations, threaten millions of livelihoods and the future of textile reuse
A coalition of African organisations, supported by experts from Europe, Asia, and America, has sent a formal letter to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). The letter raises concerns about the reliability of the data underpinning UNEP’s projects for global textile circularity and protests against the credibility granted to entities described as “beholden” to fast fashion giants.
The open letter directly challenges UNEP’s Circularity and Trade of Used Textiles project. This project aims to create global guidelines distinguishing reusable second-hand clothing from waste. The signatories, representing the livelihoods of millions in the sorting, repair, and resale trades, argue that the entire effort is compromised from its foundation. (Fashion Magazine).
African organisations: the letter of accusation
Their core accusations are threefold:
- Unreliable data:
The project relies on unverified figures, such as the frequently cited claim that 95% of textile waste is reusable. A figure that contradicts established industry knowledge and lacks transparent collection methods. - A tainted process:
The coalition describes the consultations as rushed and exclusionary, sidelining the very experts who understand the complex realities of the trade. - Corporate influence:
In Ghana, an NGO funded by the ultra-fast fashion industry led the research. The very entities whose overproduction is the root of the waste crisis — creating an unacceptable conflict of interest.
“What we have observed does not match the objectivity expected from a UN programme,” said Jeffren Boakye Abrokwah, President of the Ghanaian Used Clothing Dealers Association. “In Ghana, UNEP’s research partner is an NGO that already runs a waste campaign. It is funded by the fast fashion industry. This compromises the neutrality of the data.”
However, this sentiment found an international echo. Alan Wheeler, Director General of the UK’s Textile Recycling Association, stated, “UNEP’s willingness to adopt unverified conclusions contradicts its stated commitment to impartiality and undermines public trust.”
But this dispute erupts as the second-hand clothing market faces unprecedented strain. New, low-quality garments flood African markets. While in Europe, collectors are on strike and countries like Sweden are authorising the destruction of unsold clothing. Against this backdrop, the call for credible and impartial solutions has never been more urgent.
Final thoughts
In conclusion, the core conflict is no longer just about data or methodology. It is about who gets to define circularity. The African organisations’ letter exposes a disturbing reality. In essence, the industry itself may shape a UN process meant to regulate the fashion industry’s waste.
So this is not merely a failure of process; it is a hijacking of the solution. Letting fast-fashion entities set the rules, the UNEP project legitimises greenwashing and undermines the circular economy it aims to protect. In other words, the system is not simply being poorly designed. It is being designed to fail, preserving a linear model of overproduction and waste under the guise of sustainability.
The credibility of global environmental governance now hangs in the balance.