High volumes of clothing sales [<\/span>2] <\/span>in Europe mean more items are being discarded and faster. Soaring amounts of surplus product with low resale value is driving textile collectors and sorters to breaking point [<\/span>3].<\/span><\/p>\n The newly-revised Waste Framework Directive (WFD) mandates Member States to set up Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes to cover the costs associated with so many textile products being discarded, and allows them to modulate the fees paid by producers based on volume and ecodesign criteria [4].<\/span> “The Commission must walk the talk about curbing fashion’s detrimental impacts. EPR schemes must represent real incentives for brands to change how they operate. We must act now to tackle the never-ending stream of fashion items with no resale value flooding the global second-hand textile market.\u201d<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pierre Condamine<\/b>, Overproduction Campaigner, Friends of the Earth France, said:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>The French proposal is a unique opportunity to truly tackle the harmful model of overproduction in the clothing industry. France and the EU have to be role models by ensuring the swift adoption of the legislation in its most ambitious version.<\/span><\/i>\u201d<\/span> <\/p>\n (1) NGOs’ open letter to the Commission<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n (2) The true number of garments produced each year is not known due to a lack of transparency in disclosing production volumes. Just 17 out of the world\u2019s 200 largest and most influential fashion brands disclose their production volumes; their combined annual production rate alone totals<\/span> 4.3 billion items<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>The French law would go further, giving EPR rules for textiles more teeth through fees that penalise the commercial practices that power overproduction in the fashion sector. <\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>However, the European Commission has questioned [<\/span>5] <\/span>whether the draft law is consistent with the WFD.\u00a0 <\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Civil society groups are countering this argument by highlighting that the WFD does give Member States the possibility to set the rates and criteria for eco-modulation rules in national legislation. If it is only left to the Producer Responsibility Organisations who run EPR schemes, there is little incentive for them not to settle for the lowest level of ambition.<\/span> [6]<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Emily Macintosh<\/b>, Senior Policy Officer for Textiles at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNotes to editors<\/span><\/b><\/h4>\n
\n\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>
\n(3) <\/span>Policy Paper: Addressing the second-hand textiles crisis<\/span><\/a>, RREUSE<\/span><\/p>\n