The Swedish automated textile-sorting facility Siptex, widely regarded as the world’s first large-scale industrial plant of its kind, is now being offered for sale, its owner Sysav has confirmed. The decision marks a significant shift for the project, which was originally developed to help close the loop in textile recycling through advanced sorting technology. Launched as part of a research and innovation initiative and later transitioned into full operation by Sysav in Malmö, Siptex uses near-infrared and visual spectroscopy to automatically sort post-consumer textiles by fibre type and colour — a critical step toward high-quality material recycling. Siptex, one of the worlds first and largest plants for recycling textiles Sysav’s board unanimously decided to sell the facility after ongoing operational difficulties. Despite its innovative design and potential to enhance circularity in the textile value chain, Siptex has faced long periods of inactivity due to a lack of ready markets for sorted textile output and the bankruptcy of key industry partners. As a result, roughly 1,200 tonnes of unsorted textiles  remain at the plant with no buyer lined up. Sysav CEO Malin Dahlroth said to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the initiative was “an important and bold investment,” but acknowledged that the market and regulations have not evolved as quickly as needed since the facility’s inception. Beyond the specific circumstances of this closure, the case highlights broader weaknesses in today’s fiber-to-fiber market. Large-scale textile sorting depends on stable downstream demand, predictable material flows, and pricing mechanisms that reward recycled fibers, conditions that are still largely missing. As long as recycled fibers struggle to compete with virgin alternatives, sorting facilities remain exposed to market volatility. The shutdown therefore raises questions not only about one plant’s viability, but about whether the current system is structurally capable of supporting fiber-to-fiber recycling at scale. The sale process will seek a buyer who can make use of the facility — potentially beyond textile sorting — but the future of the stored material remains uncertain if no buyer emerges. Sources: Sysav Aftonbladet

On 12 December, EU member states agreed to introduce a flat €3 fee per small parcel imported from outside the EU, primarily affecting low-cost platforms such as Shein and Temu. While formally a trade measure, the decision has direct implications for material flows, waste volumes and the functioning of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems. The fee will apply to consignments valued below €150 – a category that now accounts for billions of parcels annually , mostly originating from China. The EU argues that the sheer volume has overwhelmed customs authorities, undermined product safety enforcement and distorted competition, while simultaneously driving large flows of short-lived products into European waste systems. From a circularity and EPR perspective, the decision is significant. By raising the cost of ultra-low-value imports , the EU is addressing the inflow of products that typically have low durability, poor traceability and weak or absent producer responsibility. In practice, the fee functions as an indirect tool for steering material flows – where trade policy begins to operate as waste policy. The move also highlights a structural tension: without control over inflows, EPR systems are left to manage the consequences of excessive volumes, rather than addressing the upstream drivers that generate them. Fees on ultra-cheap imports - Why this matters now: This is the first time the EU has agreed on a general per-parcel fee in response to e-commerce volume pressures, signalling a shift from circularity rhetoric toward material-flow governance grounded in trade and enforcement realities.

Two closely linked EU decisions are set to reshape the competitive landscape for Europe’s textile and apparel sector. Together, they signal a more assertive approach to market supervision at a time when circularity ambitions risk being undermined by fast-growing ultra-fast-fashion platforms. In November, EU finance ministers agreed to remove the €150 duty exemption for small parcels — a loophole heavily exploited by Shein, Temu and others. From 2026, all parcels entering the EU will be subject to proper customs duties and declarations, closing a gap that has long favoured low-cost imports. Just weeks later, EU institutions approved the reform of the Union Customs Code (UCC), introducing a more harmonised and data-driven customs system. New digital tools, including the EU Customs Data Hub, are designed to strengthen coordination between national authorities and make enforcement more consistent across the Single Market. A clearer shift for Europe's textile market emerges The sequence is telling: stricter rules will only matter if the EU has the capacity to enforce them . Ending the small-parcel exemption removes the legal loophole; the updated UCC provides the operational backbone needed to detect and act on non-compliance.For Europe’s emerging circular textile systems — from eco-design to future EPR schemes — this combination is critical. Without effective border controls, compliant producers risk being undercut before circularity can scale. So this is a clearer shift for Europe's textile market, Fashion industry responds Director General Isabelle Maurizi, European Branded Clothing Association The latest decision has been well received by European apparel brands. In a statement, the European Branded Clothing Association ( EBCA ) called the UCC reform “a significant step toward a more effective and modern customs framework.” According to Director General Isabelle Maurizi, greater harmonisation and digitalisation will help enforce upcoming sustainability requirements while offering companies a more predictable regulatory environment. EBCA also underlines that customs reform must align with broader EU legislation on products, sustainability and consumer protection to secure a genuinely level playing field. EBCA Pressrelease:

The EU has approved the reform of the Union Customs Code (UCC), introducing a more harmonised and data-driven system aimed at tightening market surveillance and improving coordination between national customs authorities. The updated framework is designed to support upcoming sustainability requirements and ensure more consistent enforcement across the Single Market, particularly as textile and apparel markets face rapid growth in cross-border e-commerce. This clearly strengthen EU market oversight The decision comes only weeks after the EU moved to abolish the €150 duty exemption for small parcels — a reform expected to further reshape the conditions for fast-fashion imports. An extended article of both decisions is available here .

Does second-hand clothing really undermine local textile industries in African countries such as Ghana and Kenya? It is a claim that has been repeated for decades. But when we look at what the evidence actually says, the picture becomes far more nuanced. The idea that second-hand imports “kill” local textile production rests on an intuitive logic: if cheap used garments flood the market, domestic producers cannot compete. The claim has been used by political leaders, advocacy groups and even international institutions. But very few of these arguments have been grounded in empirical research. Recent studies from the World Bank, International Trade Centre (ITC), RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, and several African universities point to the same conclusion: second-hand is not the primary reason for the decline of domestic textile industries. 1. Domestic textile production had already collapsed before second-hand imports increased In countries like Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, local textile industries went into decline in the 1990s and early 2000s due to structural challenges: high energy prices, outdated machinery, lack of investment capital, unstable trade policy and competition from cheap Asian imports. In most cases, the industry was weakened long before second-hand volumes became significant. Second-hand market in Gikomba, Nairobi 2. The real competition is ultra-fast fashion from Asia Multiple trade datasets show that consumers in African urban markets do not choose between “local production” and “second-hand”. They choose between: new, ultra-cheap imports from China, India, Bangladesh and Turkey, and second-hand clothing from Europe and North America. Local producers simply cannot match the price levels of these new imports. Even if second-hand vanished overnight, the domestic industry would still face the same competitive pressure from low-cost Asian manufacturing. 3. Second-hand often fills a market gap, rather than replacing local manufacturing Field studies in Kenya and Ghana show that second-hand garments are consumed by segments that local producers do not serve: low-income households that need durable clothes at very low prices. This suggests that second-hand and domestic textile production operate in different market segments. 4. What we cannot  conclude This does not mean second-hand is without impact. Local traders in new clothing may feel competitive pressure. Some manufacturing niches could be affected. And the environmental cost of low-quality fast fashion—whether new or reused—remains a concern. But the broader claim that second-hand imports “destroy local industry” is not supported by current evidence. Does second-hand clothing undermine local textile industries. Evidence says no. Based on the best available studies, second-hand imports are not the main driver of weakened textile industries in Africa.  Structural economic factors and competition from ultra-fast fashion play a much larger role. Second-hand remains one of the most resource-efficient ways to meet consumer demand—and a significant part of the real circular economy. Written by Thomas Lundkvist This article is based on a synthesis of well-established research and international analyses on second-hand markets and the development of textile industries in Africa. The sources listed below are representative studies and reports  in this field and reflect the broader evidence base that informs the article’s conclusions. World Bank (2020, 2019); ITC (2021); RISE (2023); Frazer (2008, Economic Journal); KIPPRA (2021); Ghana Statistical Service (2022); UNCTAD (2020); UNEP (2022); Staritz & Whitfield (2017).

In the debate around second-hand clothing and the circular textile economy, many myths and half-truths persist. This article aims to separate fact from fiction — exploring what really happens with donated clothes, how much is recycled, the impact of overproduction, policy changes, and the global imbalances in the used-clothing market. So here is True and false about second-hand clothing 1. Do the clothes I donate really help? True.  Donation is not the end of the line — second-hand is part of a well-developed global system. Your donated garments are sorted, graded, and either sold locally or exported. The proceeds from reselling these clothes fund collection, sorting, and transportation, ensuring that many of these garments get reused rather than discarded prematurely. Also a significant part of the second-hand industry has long been run by charitable organisations, which means that the clothes you donate not only find new use around the world, but also that much of the revenue they generate goes to aid work. 2. “Nearly half of donated clothes end up as waste” — Myth or fact? False.  The common claim that 40% or more of donated clothing becomes waste lacks credible evidence. There are no robust, peer-reviewed studies supporting this figure. In fact, many in the industry have pushed back against this narrative, seeing it as harmful to the legitimacy of reuse as a climate-positive strategy. Reuse News has covered this topic in many articles. You can read them here 3. Oversupply of new clothes: the root problem True.  One of the biggest challenges is not just what happens after clothes are used, but how many new garments are produced. European production and import volumes are massive: according to the European Environment Agency, the EU consumes an average of 19 kg of textiles per person per year. eea.europa.eu This overproduction fuels waste: clothing consumption is high, but reuse and recycling capacities are not keeping up. Zero Waste Europe Moreover, some garments never even reach consumers — studies estimate between 4–9 % of clothes sold in Europe are destroyed before use. circulareconomy.europa.eu The scale of overconsumption, especially fast fashion, is a fundamental barrier to creating a truly circular textile system. Zero Waste Europe 4. How much of clothing is actually recycled? Unfortunately, very little.  Only a very small share of used textiles is recycled back into new clothes. According to EU data, about 1 %  of used textiles end up being recycled into new garments. European Commission Recycling is technically and economically difficult: many clothes are made from mixed fibres, have complex constructions, or contain elastane, trims, etc. As a result, most recycled textiles in Europe are downcycled into lower-value products like insulation or industrial rags, rather than being made into new fashion items. 5. Why new sorting legislation in Europe? Policy ambitions — and unintended side effects. The EU is rolling out stricter rules for how textiles should be collected and sorted to promote circularity. European Commission However, these well-meaning regulatory changes have increased costs for organizations that collect used clothes. This has made it harder for many non-profits to sustain their operations, as they must comply with more rigorous sorting requirements. eea.europa.eu In some cases, these regulations might even discourage reuse, because meeting the new standards is expensive — threatening the second-hand infrastructure that depends on sorting and redistribution. 6. Glut of second-hand clothes in Europe Yes, there is an oversupply. Currently, Europe is experiencing a surplus of used clothing. This is driven by several factors: key export markets (such as Russia and Ukraine) have contracted significantly, and new EU sorting rules have increased the volume of clothes delivered to collection centers — including lower-quality items.The surplus has depressed resale prices, making it economically difficult for second-hand traders to operate. Many collection organizations are forced to pre-sort more aggressively before selling onward, raising their costs and undermining their business models. 7. Classification of second-hand clothing as waste A controversial policy debate. There is an ongoing process — notably within UNEP and under the Basel Convention — about whether used clothing should legally be classified as “waste.” If second-hand garments are officially labeled as waste, it could trigger stricter export controls, more bureaucracy, and higher costs for trade. Many in the reuse sector oppose this shift, arguing that it would hamper circularity by making reuse operations less viable and slowing down cross-border trade in second-hand clothes. Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: Used textiles not "waste" True and False about second-hand clothing - Why all of this matters The textile sector’s circular transformation is more complicated than many believe. Second-hand clothes often do have a second life, and donations support a broad, global system — but persistent myths about waste risk undermining that system’s credibility. Meanwhile, recycling remains underdeveloped, and policy changes, though well-intended, can harm reuse infrastructure. Most critically, the underlying problem is overproduction — we are simply making too many new garments, many of which never get fully utilized.If we want a truly circular textile economy, we need honest discussions, smarter regulation, and a realignment of incentives — toward reuse, better design, and lower material throughput. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: Used textiles not "waste" Read more: How EU:s textile strategy may fuel Chinese ultra‑fast fashion Read more: "Is this what they wanted? To nearly collapse the system for collecting clothes?"

A report from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute highlights both the promise and the fragility of today’s international textile reuse system. While the study documents a well-organised value chain linking used-clothing collections to thriving second-hand markets, it also underscores that regulatory, logistical and political pressures in Europe risk undermining one of the few proven circular models that actually works. The report highlights how used textiles collected in Sweden are routed through specialised sorting centres and then exported for reuse in markets where demand is strong. In the case study following Humana Lt’s operations, approximately three-quarters of all collected garments were suitable for reuse, with only a small fraction classified as waste. In Kenya, these garments generate jobs, support small businesses and extend the lifespan of clothing that would otherwise be downcycled or incinerated. "There is a well-functioning value chain for reuse. Clothes that we cannot find a market for in Sweden today are given a longer life in a new market. The sorting facilities have developed specialised expertise in sorting by both quality and product categories, with the value increasing at each stage", says Mathias Gustavsson at IVL. The IVL Report contradicts claims that Europe is dumping its textile waste in Africa Contradict waste narrative These findings directly contradict a widespread narrative portraying second-hand exports to Africa as “waste dumping”. The economics simply do not support this claim: exporting low-quality, unsellable textiles is financially irrational for collectors, who face both sorting costs and significant import duties in receiving countries. Instead, the report shows that the global reuse trade is driven by market demand and quality controls—not the disposal of unwanted waste. European policies destabilising Yet, the study also warns that new European policies risk destabilising the system. Mandatory separate textile collection, now being rolled out across Member States, often fails to distinguish between reusable garments and true textile waste. When these streams mix, contamination increases, quality declines and fewer garments can be resold—threatening the viability of reuse both domestically and internationally. Amanda Martvall, textile expert at IVL, says: "Collection should be designed to avoid mixing these two types of textiles. This will improve the quality of both textile streams, enabling clothes to be reused in the first instance, and other textiles to be recycled in a cost-effective manner once the technology is in place". At the same time, political resistance to second-hand imports in parts of East Africa, coupled with growing global scrutiny of textile waste, places additional pressure on exporters. Without clear differentiation between reuse and waste management, European legislation may inadvertently funnel more textiles into recycling and incineration—even though reuse remains far more climate-efficient. A well functioning reuse system might undermined by incoming regulations Why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations The IVL report therefore lands at a critical moment. It shows that a working, economically viable reuse chain already exists and delivers significant environmental and social benefits. But it also makes clear that this model is not guaranteed to survive the next wave of regulatory reforms unless policymakers adopt more nuanced approaches. For the circular economy to live up to its promise, Europe must protect and strengthen the reuse value chain—not disrupt it. And that begins with acknowledging what the data shows: the export of used clothing is not a dumping problem, but one of the most effective reuse systems we currently have. This is why a well-functioning reuse system might be undermined by incoming regulations. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Full IVL-Report Read more: True & False about second-hand clothing Read more: "Is this what they wanted? To nearly collapse the system for collecting clothes?"

The suspension follows a petition claiming Kenya signed the deal without properly consulting its East African Community (EAC) partners. The Kenyan government has now moved quickly to contain the fallout after the East African Court of Justice halted implementation of the EU–Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement . Kenya’s Trade Minister Lee Kinyanjui stressed that the EPA remains crucial for Kenyan exporters and essential for jobs across its agricultural and manufacturing sectors. He pledged uninterrupted market access for European partners while Nairobi appeals the ruling. For Europe’s second-hand textile industry, the decision injects a new element of risk into an already fragile global supply chain. Kenya is a key sorting and transit hub for used clothing, and any legal uncertainty around trade frameworks can influence logistics, compliance requirements and long-term investment decisions. The Kenyan government is now seeking to overturn the suspension and is engaging with other EAC member states to clarify regional obligations. The outcome will be closely watched in Europe, where recyclers, sorters and re-use operators depend on East African stability to maintain volumes, meet sustainability targets and navigate increasing regulatory pressures at home. Read more: The Kenya Times

Nearly 50 Swedish and Nordic fashion companies — including H&M, Lindex, Acne Studios, and Björn Borg — are demanding a VAT cut on used clothes. The campaign is being driven in collaboration with STICA  (The Scandinavian Textile Initiative for Climate Action), a non-profit focused on reducing the fashion industry’s climate impact. According to STICA, “low profitability in secondhand sales” is the biggest obstacle preventing circular business models in the fashion industry from competing with traditional linear models. It is pointed out that because each secondhand garment is unique and handling costs are high, turning a profit is especially difficult. Increased profitability would encourage more players to enter the secondhand market, and for existing ones to invest more heavily. The group is urging the Swedish government to include the VAT cut in its 2026 budget. So far, however, no such measure has appeared in the government’s proposal. These demands are coming during a period when the second-hand industry in Europe are struggling to survive, despite the fact that reuse is considered the most important part of a circular economy. One reason for this struggle is new EU-regulations that lead to higher costs for second-hand enterprises.

The pressure on UNEP and Basel Convention is building up when it comes to classification of used textiles. Last week SMART (Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association) has submitted detailed formal comments to the Basel Convention Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), strongly urging them to reject proposals that would reclassify used textiles as “waste,” “hazardous waste,” or “plastic waste.” SMART cautions that such regulatory changes, though likely well-intentioned, would severely disrupt functioning circular-economy systems that keep billions of garments in circulation, support millions of livelihoods in developing economies, and prevent massive amounts of clothing from ending up in landfills. The backbone of global circular economy “Used textiles are not waste — they are the backbone of the global circular economy,” said Jessica Franken, Head of Government Affairs at SMART. She warned that classifying secondhand clothing as hazardous or waste could undermine systems already delivering significant environmental and social benefits. What often is described as textile waste is actually plastic. Here from a beach in Ghana. In its letter, SMART emphasizes that robust, data-driven research consistently shows that 80–95%  of secondhand clothing exports are reused, resold, or repurposed, while only 5–10%  prove unwearable—directly challenging outdated and methodologically weak studies often cited in policy debates. SMART also highlights that these markets sustain millions of jobs in regions such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia, generate government revenues, and contribute meaningfully to global circularity. Furthermore, life-cycle analyses cited by SMART suggest that extending the life of garments through reuse dramatically reduces carbon emissions — by as much as 70-fold compared to producing new clothing. Rejecting the proposed reclassifications, SMART argues, would preserve legitimate reuse and recycling flows. The association urges regulators to distinguish clearly between reusable goods and waste in trade codes, and to focus policy efforts upstream—targeting overproduction and fast fashion via Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measures rather than penalizing reuse. Pressure on UNEP and Basel is building up: used textiles is not waste A couple of weeks ago sixteen organisations published an open letter directed to UNEP regarding concerns over flawed data and non-transparent processes, when it comes to used textiles, second-hand trade and waste. UNEP has not yet given any public answer to this, but the pressure on both UNEP and Basel is now building up regarding correct data and analysis about the second-hand trade and what should be considered facts and verifiable data. Written by Thomas Lundkvist About SMART The Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART)  is a nonprofit international trade association founded in 1932. Its members — companies involved in collecting, sorting, and reusing or recycling both pre-consumer and post-consumer textiles — operate across the globe. SMART advocates for high standards and best practices in textile reuse and recycling, providing a forum for its members to network, educate, and influence policy. Read more: Textile sector’s sharp rebuke: accuses UNEP of flawed used-textile guidelines

The European textile and apparel industry is calling on the European Commission to streamline rather than expand regulations under the forthcoming Circular Economy Act (CEA). In a new position paper submitted this week, EURATEX warns that excessive or fragmented rules could hinder innovation and weaken the competitiveness of Europe’s textile sector. The industry group outlines a clear vision: the CEA should simplify the regulatory landscape , ensure a level playing field across EU member states , and create conditions that encourage sustainable growth. European apparel and textile industry wants EU to simplify, not complicate, regulations. Among its main recommendations, EURATEX urges EU to simplify rules for textiles: Harmonised Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes  to align national systems and reduce market distortions. Facilitating the use of textile by-products , turning waste into valuable resources. Common Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria  to steer public demand towards sustainable textiles. Avoiding new administrative burdens  and overlapping reporting requirements for companies. “A coherent and predictable policy framework is key to helping our industry lead the transition to circularity,” the association said in its statement. “Europe must support innovation, not drown it in red tape.” EURATEX represents the interests of Europe’s textile and clothing manufacturers, a sector employing around 1.3 million people and generating over €160 billion in annual turnover. The group has been a key voice in the EU’s ongoing shift toward a circular and sustainable textile economy. Read more: EURATEX Position Paper

The European Commission is navigating increasingly complex terrain in the textiles sector — with two apparently contradictory priorities emerging in parallel. On one hand, it is taking aim at ultra‑fast‑fashion imports from China, while on the other it is pressing ahead with policies that could significantly restrict exports of second‑hand clothing to African countries. The combined effect threatens to accelerate the dominance of Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion clothing on the African continent — and raises concerns over unintended environmental and social consequences. Two bold directions Earlier coverage by Reuse News  highlighted how Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion platforms are penetrating global markets and reshaping trade flows of used and new garments. In addition, recent coverage (for example by Euronews) shows that imports of fast‑fashion into Europe rose by 14 % in the first half of 2025 versus a year earlier — with China accounting for an overwhelming share of parcel shipments. Simultaneously, the EU is developing rules under its circular‑economy and textile‑waste agenda that would tighten controls on the export of used textiles (and potentially second‑hand clothing) to third‑countries, citing concerns that large exports end up as waste in countries ill‑equipped to manage it. This EU strategy might fuel ultra-fast fashion, opposite the intentions. A problematic convergence The push to curtail Chinese ultra‑fast imports and the push to limit second‑hand exports are not independent. They converge to create a systemic risk: if European second‑hand flows to Africa are curtailed, and Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion exports continue or increase, then the African market may become even more heavily dependent on Chinese ultra‑fast apparel — with possible ramifications: Reduced competition : Second‑hand imports from Europe have traditionally supplied large volumes of affordable garments to African markets. Restricting these flows may reduce competition and drive more sourcing towards ultra‑cheap Chinese new imports. Increased waste risk : Ultra‑fast‑fashion garments often have shorter lifespans and may be of lower quality. If Africa becomes saturated with cheaper fast‑fashion items rather than used garments with longer real‑use value, the risk of clothes quickly entering waste streams may increase. Social‑economic impacts : The used‑clothing trade supports local markets, sorters and traders in many African countries. A sudden reduction in supply may undermine livelihoods even as ultra‑fast imports dominate, shifting value away from local actors. Mountains of textile waste grows in Europe.  When export of used clothes from Europe is decreased, the textile waste in Europe will grow. Since there is now functioning system for recycling textile fibers, more textiles will go to incineration, which is increasing the negative climate impact. EU:s intention to reduce the negative climate impact from the textile industry might lead to opposite result. Why the EU is acting From the EU’s perspective the arguments driving both directions are clear: The textile industry is a major source of resource use, emissions and waste, and the EU is committed to transition towards a circular economy in textiles. The surge in ultra‑fast‑fashion imports from China and elsewhere is seen as undercutting European producers who must meet higher environmental and social standards. At the same time, the EU has highlighted that used‑textile exports to Africa may lead to dumping of non‑reusable garments and contribute to waste burdens in countries with weak waste‑management infrastructure. A costly gap in this assessment Given the EU’s intention to reduce the textile industry’s negative climate footprint and push the development of a circular economy, the above assessment could constitute a costly mistake. The judgment that exports of second‑hand clothing from Europe largely consist of unusable garments which go straight to waste has in recent times been strongly rejected by actors within the industry ( Textile sector’s sharp rebuke: accuses UNEP of flawed used-textile guidelines ) . A review by Reuse News has also shown that the figures on large volumes of textile waste have no support in qualitative investigations and that the narrative is partly driven by money from precisely those Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion companies that is pointed out as a problem: How deceptive narratives about textile waste fuel ultra-fast fashion Unanswered questions However, the policy mix raises important questions that remain unresolved: To what extent are second‑hand exports actually leading to waste in African countries — versus being a valid route of reuse? Will limiting second‑hand flows without simultaneously controlling ultra‑fast new‑garment inflows simply shift dependence rather than reduce waste? How will Africa’s local economies, which have grown around used‑clothing markets, respond if supply from Europe falls while cheap new imports from China rise? How will the EU ensure that restrictions on one stream (used‑clothes exports) do not perversely drive growth in a higher‑volume, lower‑quality alternative (ultra‑fast fashion)? Summary: How EU:s textile strategy may fuel Chinese ultra-fast fashion The EU finds itself in a strategic double‑bind: tackling Chinese ultra‑fast‑fashion imports on the one hand, while tightening rules on second‑hand clothing exports on the other. Without careful calibration, the result might lead to a textile strategy that may fuel Chinese ultra-fast fashion and a surge of ultra‑cheap new garments into Africa just when access to higher‑use‑value second‑hand garments is restricted. For the circular‑economy goals to prevail, policymakers must guard against unintended consequences and ensure that Africa’s clothing markets, local value chains and waste‑management systems are not left worse off. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Read more: Urgent call: EU must act against ultra-fast Fashion and implement textile regulations Read more: The elusive truth behind the second-hand export debate Read more: Second-hand sector not to blame for textile waste crisis