The Real Face of the Secondhand Clothing Trade: Not a Developing World Dumping Ground, but a Livelihood for Millions

A recent study financed by British development funding—based on the itemized analysis of over 244,000 garments—refutes the most widespread accusation against the industry: the vast majority of secondhand clothing arriving in Africa is not waste, but wearable apparel. At the same time, the report highlights how China has become the dominant supplier in the sector and underscores the high stakes surrounding upcoming regulations.

The global secondhand clothing (SHC) trade is frequently depicted as a one-way street where wealthy countries dump unwearable textile waste onto poorer regions. However, a report published in April 2026 under the Sustainable Manufacturing and Environmental Pollution (SMEP) program—funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in cooperation with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)—uses empirical field data to nuance this picture. The research examined markets in Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the United States.

Quantitative Refutation of the “Dumping Ground” Narrative

The central finding of the report stems from an itemized inspection of bale contents. A total of 244,500 garments were analyzed in major markets across Uganda and Tanzania, with the results breaking down as follows:

• 96 percent of imported secondhand clothing is in wearable condition.

• 2.9–3.2 percent falls into the “rags” category—discounted items that still retain some resale value.

• Only 1.1–1.3 percent qualifies as actual textile waste.

The classification aligned with definitions from the German development agency (GIZ), and data collection was carried out in collaboration with local academic partners to reduce response bias. A slight variance was observed between the two nations: the waste rate fluctuated between 1.3–1.5 percent in Tanzania, while it hovered around 0.9–1 percent in Uganda.

Why Do Traders Have an Incentive to Minimize Waste?

The report offers an economic explanation for the low waste rates. It argues that both exporters (sorting plants) and importers have a strong commercial interest in minimizing unusable items within the bales, as unsellable pieces incur real costs without generating revenue.

Importers must pay for shipping containers, clear customs, transport the bales to the market, and quickly recover their costs to finance the next order. According to data from 53 surveyed importers, 83 percent import Grade A bales, 15 percent import Grade B, and only 2 percent import Grade C—clearly indicating a demand for higher quality.

Trust serves as a crucial market mechanism. Since buyers cannot see the exact composition of a bale before opening it, repeat transactions, predictable quality, and responsiveness to complaints build long-term relationships. Ninety percent of importers reported that product quality improved after providing feedback to their suppliers.

Rising Chinese Dominance

A striking finding of the study is the restructuring of the supplier framework, with China capturing a dominant position in both destination countries:

Simultaneously, the market share of the United States fell from 13.9 percent to 9.1 percent in Tanzania, and dropped from 8.2 percent to 2.5 percent in Uganda.

According to the report, the interesting aspect of China’s expansion is that it cannot be attributed to the lowest price. In Tanzania, Chinese goods cost $1.96 per kilogram, compared to $1.67 for American and $1.66 for Pakistani goods. The advantage of Chinese suppliers lies in flexible payment terms; some importers pay only 50 percent upfront, with the remainder due upon receipt of the goods. The report notes that these flexible payment methods allowed importers to procure “two containers for the price of one.” Furthermore, Chinese sorting plants form joint ventures with local businesses to secure material flows.

Trade Cost Structure and Friction

The report provides detailed cost data. In 2023, a 28-ton container filled with secondhand clothing cost $47,954 in Tanzania (a 5.6 percent increase compared to 2022) and $57,080 in Uganda. Import taxes and duties constitute a substantial portion, making up 61.4 percent of the CIF value in Tanzania and 77 percent of the total cost in Uganda.

Freight costs surged in 2024: the shipping fee for a 28-ton container ranged between $6,000–$7,000, and peaked as high as $13,000 due to geopolitical and logistical constraints. Out of 54 surveyed importers, 62 percent identified long lead times as their biggest obstacle.

The Socio-Economic Importance of Secondhand Clothes

The report emphasizes that secondhand clothing is indispensable for low-income households. In Uganda, where the average daily income is $2,68, a new piece of clothing can cost up to six days of disposable income, whereas a $2.70 secondhand garment equates to 1.56 days of income. Forty-seven percent of Uganda’s population experiences multidimensional poverty, and 21 percent lives in monetary poverty.

The sector is also vital for employment. Regarding gender distribution, 66 percent of the businesses are male-owned and 34 percent are female-owned in Uganda and Tanzania. Crucially, 69.5 percent of female owners operate as retailers—a positive indicator since retailers typically generate higher incomes and require greater capital investment. The market offers social mobility, enabling traders to progress from bale carriers all the way to importer positions.

In Tanzania, retailers earn 400,000–600,000 Tanzanian Shillings ($148–$222) per month, while street vendors earn 200,000–400,000 Shillings ($74–$148)—representing a 50 percent increase in income upon becoming a retailer.

Regulatory Dilemma: The Basel Convention and EAS 356:2024

The timeliness of the report is driven by current regulatory changes on the agenda. The classification of textiles is not harmonized: code HS 6309 categorizes secondhand textiles as “worn clothing,” whereas code B3030 of the Basel Convention can classify them as “waste” if they are contaminated or unfit for reuse. National interpretations also diverge; Germany, for example, treats all domestically collected textiles as waste, while Finland does not apply this designation to textiles from charity collections.

The East African Community already operates a strict standard (EAS 356:2024), which mandates Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVoC), third-party testing, fumigation certificates, and precise defect classification criteria. If inspectors find new clothing or a mix of new and used clothing, the entire shipment is rejected.

One specific policy recommendation from the authors is that pollution caused by synthetic fibers should be managed at the source rather than through the Basel Convention—meaning the responsibility for microplastic pollution should be placed on original manufacturers during the design and production phases.

Conclusion

The main takeaway of the report is that the secondhand clothing trade is not a waste-exporting system, but a value chain governed by commercial and reputational discipline that rewards reliable quality. The authors urge caution regarding regulation: poorly calibrated environmental measures could disrupt functioning reuse systems, undermine affordability, and shift global procurement toward other markets.

The recommended approach is “circular economy sequencing”—meaning that reuse, repair, and resale systems should be strengthened first, before introducing interventions focused primarily on recycling and disposal.

Official Sources and References:

• Source: Trade in Secondhand Clothing – Analysis of markets in Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania and the United States of America (Wang, J. and Wang, R., SMEP Programme / UNCTAD / FCDO, April 2026). Data is compiled from the report’s field surveys, UN Comtrade, the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), Full Cycle Resource, and WasteAid analyses.