May 17, 2016
While rates of textile recovery are still unacceptably low, the issue is gaining prominence and textiles recovery is on the increase around the world. Significant volumes of textiles collected in this country are shipped to overseas clothing markets for resale.
However, the shipment of recovered textiles to developing markets is not without controversy. In February of this year, the East African countries of Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda announced during the 16th East African Community Heads of State summit that they are considering a ban on the importation of used clothing and shoes. The stated intent of the proposal is to boost regional East African domestic textile manufacturing.
According to the textile trade association, Secondary Materials and Recycling Textiles (SMART), however, those who work in the used clothing business in East African countries are not the same as those who make or market new clothing. SMART also states that eliminating the import of secondhand clothing will “reduce the availability of affordable clothing to those who need it most” and result in illegal used clothing markets in those countries, leading to losses in tariff revenues for the East African national governments.
The clothing worn by much of the population in East African countries originates in Western nations, and the used-clothing trade, known in Swahili as mitumba, is a huge industry in East Africa. According to the Economist, Mitumba trading is a significant employer in the region. In Kenya, which imports about 100,000 tons of recovered textiles a year, most of the work is in the informal labor market; there are an estimated 65,000 traders just in the Gikomba open-air market in Nairobi. Wholesalers in east Africa buy bundles of used clothing imports and then sort the contents by type and quality. Retail traders then purchase the used clothing for their own stalls to sell to ordinary Kenyans.
Selling clothes is a a fairly profitable undertaking in countries like Kenya, with traders making as much as 1,000 shillings in profit a day in a region where many people struggle to survive on much less. According to the Economist it is also skilled work, as traders have to learn the business and know which items will sell and for how much.
In the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of people worked in east Africa’s clothing manufacturing sector. As the debt crisis during the 1980s and 1990s hit the region’s economies, local manufacturing could not compete with growing international competition. Of course, building up manufacturing again in the region could boost local clothing production. But for the ban to work effectively, the borders of the east African countries would have to be sealed from clothing imports. An unlikely possibility given the size of the region and the strength and impact of the existing used clothing market. Moreover, there are other economic policies and infrastructure issues in the region that would likely hamper substantial growth in local clothing manufacturing.
Certainly the influx of so much used clothing into developing nations over the past several decades has had an impact on local domestic clothing production. The extent of this impact, and its pros and cons, will have to be the subject of another article. However, in today’s world markets—from agriculture to furniture—trade has an impact in all countries. It can be argued that some impacts are positive, others negative, but there are always social and economic impacts.
Second-hand clothing is not dumped in developing countries; importers and traders buy the items. Globalized markets also mean changing tastes on the part of consumers in the economies of developing nations. Again, one can argue the merits of this, but nonetheless the impact is not likely to go away no matter which bans are in place.
Those in the textiles world will be watching closely as debate over the proposed East African ban continues.
By Athena Lee Bradley
Comments (0)
Add a Comment