A few days ago, rumblings were being heard again in Kenya about ending the importation of second-hand clothing. The chairman of the Kenyan Revenue Authority was quoted in a news article as saying that Kenya should ban the imports since second-hand clothes or “mitumba” as they are called in that country have caused a lot of harm. He advocated for the promotion of local textile industries.
There is no mystery as to why the issue, first raised by a group of East African nations in 2015, is once more on the forefront. This is the year that Rwanda’s complete ban on the importation of used clothing is expected to take effect. Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, all part of the initiative by East African nations to stamp out what they have said was effectively the dumping of old clothes in their countries, primarily by the US, the UK and Canada, stepped back after they were threatened by the US that their exports to that country would suffer. Rwanda held its resolve. As things stand now, Rwanda is on the verge of losing its duty-free access to the US market under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), designed under the Clinton administration in 2000 to boost trade and investment in qualifying African countries – specifically those that are landlocked.
But AGOA is a two-way street and a route through which second-hand clothing from the US found its way to East Africa. In fact, according to a complaint filed with the Office of the US Trade Representative by an organisation called the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association, the second-hand clothing ban would impose “significant economic hardship” on America’s used-clothing industry. The organisation estimated that it could cost 40,000 US jobs and US$124 million in exports. A study by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) found that in 2015, around 67% of the population in East Africa purchased at least a portion of their clothes from used clothing markets.
In March last year, miffed by its unyielding stance on the second-hand clothes ban, the US gave Rwanda 60 days notice that it would suspend its AGOA privileges. And while Rwanda has been exporting to the US, ironically, it was revealed that American designer brand Kate Spade manufactures its handbags cheaply in Rwanda and exports them to the US, reportedly under AGOA. There could very well be other American ‘brands’ doing the same.
But while Rwanda and other countries are touting the re-emergence of their own textile industries, there is another fly in the ointment – China.
The Asian country is not one of the top exporters of used clothing in the world, but the same USAID study mentioned above also revealed that China is currently exporting US$1.2 billion in cheap, ready-made clothes to East Africa.
Furthermore, many African countries have welcomed Chinese manufacturers with open arms. Currently, China is Africa’s leading trade partner, outdistancing America with its US$198.5 billion to the US’s US$99.8 billion since 2012. In Rwanda, specifically, Chinese manufacturers are flourishing, and some of them are holding courses for Rwandans and teaching locals how to sew, cut material, inspect production lines and manage clothing factories. This can lead to growth, but there is also a downside.
African fabrics face increasing competition from cheaper material imported reportedly by the Chinese. In Ghana, for example, the country’s famous Kente fabric, a blend of silk and cotton, has been liberally replaced by cheap copies. Much like what happens elsewhere, even the logo of the original African manufacturer is falsified and placed on the fabric. The Ghanaian government was forced to set up a task force to find and remove the fake fabric and the African manufacturers are looking at using technology: placing a code on original Kente fabric. Whether this permanently takes care of the problem remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, many in the developed world are eschewing fast fashion – cheap clothes that are in many instances copies of expensive designer wear – and moving towards buying vintage or used clothes, renting clothing and other means of sustainability. This is because millions of cast off clothing ends up in landfills, accounting for some 10 percent of global carbon emissions. The fact is that fast fashion items are often worn only a few times before they end up being discarded due to lack of quality. These cheap clothing items, many of which include plastic microfibres in their makeup, shed these fibres and they eventually end up in the oceans, causing pollution and also entering the food chain.
In addition, cotton, widely used in the clothing industry, uses billions of gallons of water while being grown, in the face of a dwindling in the world’s water supply. Furthermore, many cotton growers use chemicals, like pesticides which also impact the environment negatively.
The answer to protecting the earth obviously does not lie in developed countries dumping their unwanted clothing in poorer countries, nor does it lie in allowing cheap, ready-made garments to take the place of old ones. Perhaps a move towards ending fashion for profit and embracing it as art, while celebrating sustainable clothing would prove to be a healthier choice for posterity.