Last week, media reports indicated that East Africa Community (EAC) partner states were all issued with a stern directive by the bloc’s Secretariat.

The directive was to begin phasing out the importation of second-hand clothes and shoes – best known in Rwanda as Caguwa, with a view to end importation of such items by 2019.

According to a regional newspaper, the phasing out of these imports is subject to all member states agreeing to a common industrial policy.

The EAC Secretariat hopes that the move to phase out the trade worth millions of US dollars to exporters and an equally significant amount to importers will encourage nearly all East Africans to buy locally made textiles and shoes – a prospect that would boost local textile manufacturing and ultimately add to economic growth of member states. 

Despite this reasoning, the EAC directive has been met with scepticism in some quarters, especially among importers and consumers who ask: are imported second-hand clothes bad for our economy?

The answer to this question is a very tricky one. This is because the answer has to be prefaced by two words: it depends. But it depends on what exactly? Sure, it may depend on a lot, but in my opinion, it all depends on who you ask.

First of all, if you are a second-hand clothes trader whose entire business was built on this type of trade, chances are, you will argue that the ban does not help your cause, because for you, the business which you have perhaps ran for the past five years has helped put a roof over your head, put food on the table for your family, helped send your kids to school, and got your family the much needed Mutuelle de Santé.

As a trader, dealing in Caguwa is your way of cementing your dignity in your community, and your means of contributing towards making Rwanda a better place by paying your fair share of taxes.

Thousands of second-hand clothes dealers will reason this way.

Secondly, if you are one of many Rwandans who buy second-hand clothes because you believe that the local textile manufacturers, tailors, and dealers of brand new clothes are still a long way from meeting your quality and/or pricing expectations, for you, the answer to the original question is a no-brainer; more often than not, both second-hand clothes and shoes meet your expectations whether in terms of price or quality.

But, assuming that policymakers at the EAC took all the above arguments into consideration, why is it that they decided to go ahead with this policy change?

In my opinion, the answer can be found in a speech given on March 3, 2016 by Tanzanian President John Magufuli at the launch of the construction works for the Arusha – Holili/Taveta road to connect Central and Northern Corridors.

President Magufuli asked: "We (East Africa) produce cotton, wool and leather which are used for manufacturing clothes and shoes. I don’t see why our people should be wearing second-hand clothes and shoes. Why should we export leather as a raw material and then import poor quality shoes which wear out within three to four days?”

Clearly, if you are one of the people I mentioned earlier, you may beg to differ with President Magufuli’s view.

However, at close examination, Magufuli is right to wonder why we as East Africans continue to import the very items we export raw materials for!

Why is it that we are comfortable to export raw materials at a cheap price only to turn around and buy the end products at hefty prices or settle for second-hand when it is absolutely conceivable to establish mechanisms to produce raw materials and also manufacture end products for our own consumption?

For example, why should we produce both cotton and wool, export them abroad, receive little money for them, then turn around and use the little money and some more to buy back items that were made by the very materials we exported in the first place?

Why should we settle knowing that we can do better than paying hefty prices for brand new clothes or being comfortable with wearing what others have partied with?

A no-brainer, I believe, would be to produce enough raw materials necessary to manufacture clothing, make them available to local manufacturers, offer technical and financial support to local manufacturers and tailors to improve on levels of quality processing, establish a ban to discourage consumers from importing cheap clothing, then watch as local production increases due to added local demand, and quality improve as a result of added technical and financial incentives to local manufacturers and tailors.

In the same way, consumers would get to enjoy affordable prices due to increased competition in local markets as various players enter for a share of the pie.

We cannot downplay the impact cheap imports generally have on locally produced goods. In particular, second-hand clothes are so cheap in our local markets that local textile manufacturers and tailors find it incredibly difficult to compete – which can lead to inadequate investment in process improvement, stagnation, or a complete shutdown. 

Ultimately, maybe the question to the original question shouldn’t be judged from a singular point of view.

Perhaps, what we need is to understand the need to forego our current short-term comforts in order to build and sustain a long-term future for our industries.

If, in fact, it is true as indicated by the UN Comtrade database that, in 2013, Tanzania alone imported $59m worth of used clothes from both Canada and South Korea, and Kenya imported $42m worth of used clothes from the UK alone, imagine if all that money had gone into our local economies?

This would be money shared amongst our local textile manufacturers, tailors, and dealers of new clothes. What we shouldn’t do is hope that our industries will progress while we sabotage them with cheap products they can’t realistically compete with.

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk