From policy concept to practical experiment: the EU is testing automated systems that pay consumers to return used clothing, linking collection directly to reuse, recycling and upcoming regulatory frameworks. The European Commission has launched a multi-year pilot project testing automated collection and sorting systems for post-consumer textiles in Spain and Finland. The project, known as TexMat and led by Finland’s VTT Technical Research Centre together with partners in seven EU countries, uses “smart” drop-off bins that scan garments, assess their condition and automatically sort them for reuse or recycling. Consumers are rewarded based on the estimated second-hand value of the items they return. Crucially, the system is designed to integrate with forthcoming EU policies, including extended producer responsibility schemes for textiles and digital product passports. Returned garments can be tracked, valued and directed toward reuse before being classified as waste. The pilots, running from October 2025 to March 2029, aim to address one of the textile sector’s core challenges: ensuring that separately collected clothing actually finds viable downstream outlets. As the EU moves closer to mandatory textile collection, the project offers a glimpse of how financial incentives, digital tracking and sorting infrastructure could reshape the economics of reuse.

Beyond headlines about geopolitics and agriculture, the EU–Mercosur trade agreement is set to alter competitive dynamics in the global textile and apparel sector, with implications for sourcing, sustainability strategies and circular business models. Following the political agreement between the EU and Mercosur countries Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, textile and apparel actors are beginning to assess how the deal may affect global markets. The agreement will gradually remove tariffs on more than 90 percent of bilateral trade, with textiles and apparel among the sectors expected to benefit most. Industry association EURATEX has described the deal as a “strategic diversification lever”, particularly for exporters of sustainable, circular and industrial textiles. Analysts suggest the agreement could rebalance trade flows by strengthening South American suppliers while increasing competitive pressure on Asian exporters. Rather than cost alone, trade diplomacy, regional integration and supply-chain resilience are likely to play a growing role in sourcing decisions. For European brands, the deal may also intersect with circular economy ambitions. Easier access to Mercosur markets could influence material sourcing strategies, production footprints and long-term investment decisions at a time when regulatory pressure on textiles is intensifying within the EU.

As regulators move to tighten controls on global textile waste, the recycling and reuse industry is pushing back. At the centre of the dispute is a deceptively simple question with far-reaching consequences: when does a used garment become waste, and when is it still a product? The Basel Convention and the classification of used textiles The Basel Convention, the UN’s cornerstone agreement governing transboundary movements of hazardous and other waste, is once again becoming a flashpoint in the regulation of used textiles and textile waste. In January, the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), representing more than 30,000 recycling companies worldwide, submitted formal comments to the Basel Secretariat as part of its consultation on the classification of used textiles and textile waste. The message was clear: current classifications risk undermining legitimate reuse and recycling markets. Industry pushback against Basel code B3030 At issue is Basel code B3030, which governs the international classification of “used textiles”. According to BIR, the code no longer reflects how the sector actually operates. Instead of a single category, the organisation argues that regulators should formally recognise three distinct streams: unsorted used textiles, textiles sorted for recycling, and textiles sorted for reuse. “Failing to distinguish between waste and goods risks disrupting functioning global reuse systems,” BIR warned in its submission, calling on the Secretariat to align regulatory language with on-the-ground practices. Reuse markets, trade flows and the risk of regulatory bottlenecks The distinction is far from merely technical. For reuse operators, exporters and importing countries alike, how textiles are classified determines whether shipments move freely, face administrative hurdles, or are blocked altogether. For many markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America, second-hand clothing is both a major source of affordable apparel and a significant employer. Environmental groups, meanwhile, have long warned that exports can externalise waste problems to the Global South. The Basel process is now trying to navigate between those concerns and the practical realities of reuse markets that already exist. The second-hand sector has many times pointed out that narratives about exported textile waste from the Global North are highly exaggerated. What is clothes waste and when is it reusable? Women att a sorting center in Turkey sorting second-hand clothes. Implications for EU textile EPR and separate collection The debate also directly intersects with European textile policy. As the EU rolls out extended producer responsibility schemes for textiles and prepares mandatory separate collection across member states, downstream outlets for collected garments are becoming a critical bottleneck. If reuse exports are increasingly treated as waste, collection systems risk backing up precisely at the point where garments are intended to leave Europe. Industry groups argue that this would be counterproductive to circular economy goals. “Global reuse and recycling infrastructures are essential to advancing textile circularity,” BIR stated, cautioning against rules that conflate low-value waste with reusable goods. With further guidance and potential revisions expected, the outcome of the Basel discussions could reshape textile trade routes, affect EPR economics in Europe, and determine whether reuse is treated as a solution or a liability in global regulation. For the textile sector, the question is no longer whether regulation is coming, but whether it will recognise the difference between disposal and circular trade.

Kenya’s President William Ruto stated on Tuesday that the country will not ban the import of second-hand clothing, known locally as "mitumba". This was more than a domestic reassurance to market traders, it was a clear political signal in a global debate increasingly framed around textile waste, trade justice and industrial development. SHORT SUMMARY Kenya’s decision not to ban second-hand clothing imports challenges dominant narratives that portray reuse as a waste problem or a threat to local textile industries. Instead, it highlights the role of second-hand markets in livelihoods, affordability and circular economies, while exposing the need for more evidence-based trade and waste policies. From “textile waste ” to functioning second-hand clothing markets In recent years, second-hand clothing exports to African countries have frequently been described in policy and advocacy debates as a form of waste dumping. Critics argue that unwanted garments from Europe and North America undermine local industries and leave importing countries to manage unusable leftovers. Kenya’s position complicates that narrative. Mitumba is deeply embedded in the country’s economy, supporting millions of livelihoods across import, sorting, repair and retail activities. It also provides affordable clothing for a large share of the population. Speaking at State House in Nairobi, President Ruto made the government’s position explicit. “We cannot ban mitumba,” Ruto said. “It is an important source of clothing for many Kenyans, and it supports millions of jobs. Our responsibility is to manage the sector properly, not to destroy livelihoods.” For trader representatives, the statement was long overdue. Teresiah Njenga , chairperson of the Mitumba Consortium Association of Kenya (MCAK), has repeatedly argued that second-hand clothing should not be conflated with waste. Second-hand import and trade will not be banned in Kenya, President Ruto confirmed on Tuseday “Mitumba is not rubbish,” Teresiah said. “It is a product with demand, value and an entire economy around it. The problem is not reuse, but poor-quality exports and the lack of responsibility earlier in the value chain.” Do second-hand clothing imports undermine local textile production One of the most persistent arguments for restricting second-hand imports is that they undermine domestic textile industries. Yet research over the past decade has consistently failed to establish a clear causal link between second-hand clothing imports and the decline of local manufacturing. In many African countries, textile industries began weakening long before second-hand markets expanded, due to high production costs, unreliable energy supply, lack of investment and competition from low-cost new garments produced elsewhere. In Kenya, second-hand trade today coexists with both local manufacturing and export-oriented garment production. Ruto’s emphasis on balance rather than prohibition reflects this reality. “We want a fair environment where local production can grow, but without punishing traders and consumers,” he said. Trade policy, textile waste and global responsibility Kenya’s decision also has a strategic trade policy dimension. As both an importer of second-hand clothing and an exporter of garments under international trade agreements, an outright ban would have risked diplomatic and economic repercussions. At the same time, international discussions on textile waste, extended producer responsibility and export controls are accelerating, particularly in Europe. Kenya’s stance positions the country not as a passive recipient of waste, but as an actor calling for more realistic and evidence-based approaches to reuse. For MCAK, the message is clear. For MCAK, the message is clear. “If exporting countries are serious about sustainability, they must fix overproduction and quality at the source,” Teresiah said. “Banning second-hand in Africa does not solve the problem. It just hides it.” A broader policy signal beyond Kenya Kenya’s announcement does not resolve the structural challenges of the global fashion system. But it does challenge simplified narratives where reuse is framed as an obstacle to development. Instead, it points to a more complex truth. Second-hand markets are not a temporary failure of the system. They are a central part of how clothing circulates, delivers value and extends product life. In that sense, Kenya’s refusal to ban mitumba is not just a national policy choice. It is a reminder that solutions to textile waste must address the entire value chain, not just where clothes end up after their first owner.

U.S. exporters of used textiles have been granted a welcome, if short-lived, reprieve. In mid-January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a one-year extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, temporarily preserving duty-free trade with eligible African partner countries. The decision offers immediate relief, but also highlights how fragile the global conditions for reuse and circular textile flows remain. AGOA and the Trade Framework for Used Textiles Introduced in 2000, AGOA was designed to strengthen trade relations between the United States and countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Over time, it has become a key pillar for the U.S. textile reuse industry, particularly for exporters of used clothing. Large volumes of secondhand garments are shipped each year to African markets, where items are resold, repaired, sorted or recycled. Without preferential trade terms, many of these export-dependent business models would quickly come under pressure. Political Uncertainty in Secondhand Clothing Trade The extension passed the House with strong bipartisan support, but its one-year duration leaves little room for long-term planning. For collectors, sorters and traders across the reuse value chain, stable trade rules are essential for investment decisions and operational continuity. “AGOA plays a critical role in preserving duty-free access for U.S. exports, including secondhand clothing,” said Jessica Franken, Vice President of Government and External Affairs at the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association, following the vote. Her remarks underscore how dependent the sector has become on political decisions made far from the sorting floors and resale markets they affect. AGOA plays a critical role in preserving duty-free access for U.S. exports, including secondhand clothing,” says Jessica Franken from SMART. At the same time, trade in used clothing has grown increasingly contentious. Several African governments have, at different points, sought to restrict imports of secondhand clothing, often citing concerns about domestic textile industries or waste management. The United States has responded by signalling that such measures could jeopardise AGOA benefits, turning the agreement into a tool of trade diplomacy rather than a neutral framework. African Markets and the Consequences of Shifting Import Rules Seen in this light, the one-year extension reflects a broader uncertainty. While textile reuse is frequently promoted as a cornerstone of the circular economy, it continues to occupy an uneasy position in trade policy. Depending on perspective, secondhand garments are framed as commodities, waste, or development challenges. For African markets, shifting trade rules are not an abstract policy issue. The secondhand sector supports millions of livelihoods in retail, repair and logistics. Sudden changes in import conditions can have immediate effects on income, access to affordable clothing and local market stability. Trade Policy as a Constraint on Circular Textile Flows Similar tensions are visible in Europe, albeit through different regulatory instruments. There, debates focus on extended producer responsibility, waste definitions and traceability rather than tariffs. Yet the underlying questions are comparable. Who bears responsibility once textiles leave their original market, and how can cross-border reuse be governed in ways that are both environmentally and economically viable. The AGOA extension offers temporary stability, but leaves the long-term future unresolved. For the global circular economy, it serves as a reminder that reuse depends not only on environmental ambition, but on political frameworks capable of supporting material flows over time.

Industry associations EuRIC and FEAD have jointly called for immediate support measures for the EU’s post-consumer textiles sector while Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are phased in under the revised Waste Framework Directive. Though the planned EPR regime is expected to shift management costs to producers, its long implementation timeline means collection, sorting and recycling operations face severe financial strain today. The groups propose temporary funding mechanisms, tax breaks and infrastructure investment to prevent the loss of reusable and recyclable textiles and safeguard circular value chains ahead of full EPR activation. Source: EuRIC & FEAD position paper, Mid-Jan 2026 reporting 

A coalition of European NGOs and reuse operators, including Emmaüs Europe and RREUSE, has issued a joint statement highlighting mounting pressures on the EU second-hand textiles sector. Oversupply of low-quality fast fashion, rising operational costs and market saturation are squeezing social enterprises that collect, sort and resell textile goods. The policy paper urges urgent regulatory action such as fair Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, interim financial support, and policies that prioritise local reuse and waste prevention ahead of incineration to sustain jobs and circular flows across reuse networks. Without decisive intervention, key parts of the ecosystem risk collapse. Source: Emmaüs Europe / RREUSE statement, published Jan 2026 (news release) 

Shein’s leadership is set to appear before the European Parliament and has recently held meetings with the European Commission after heightened regulatory pressure across the bloc. The developments come shortly after France considered temporary restrictions on the platform’s operations, triggering concern among lawmakers over transparency, product safety and compliance with EU rules. Several members of the European Parliament have called for stronger enforcement rather than continued dialogue, signaling growing political impatience with ultra-fast fashion platforms. The hearings are expected to focus on consumer protection, environmental impacts and the application of existing EU regulations on online marketplaces. The move reflects an intensifying focus in Brussels on how global digital platforms selling large volumes of low-cost textiles align with European standards on product information, sustainability and fair competition. The outcomes could influence how authorities across member states oversee fast fashion business models in the coming years.

For several years, textile policy has been framed as a question of urgency. Waste volumes continue to rise, recycling rates remain limited, global trade in used textiles is under growing scrutiny, and the environmental footprint of fashion remains high. What now distinguishes the period ahead is that many of the political responses designed to address these challenges are set to converge within a short timeframe. From 2025 onwards, EU textile policy moves from strategy into phased regulatory implementation. Short summary Over the coming years, several key reforms in EU textile policy will be introduced at the same time. Extended Producer Responsibility, rising expectations for textile recycling and tighter global regulation of used textiles are all intended to accelerate the shift towards circularity. This article examines how these policy tools interact, and the risks that arise if regulation is built on simplified assumptions about how textile systems actually function. Key takeaways: Multiple reforms are rolling out in parallel, making policy alignment critical. Second-hand markets risk being constrained despite a limited evidence base. Recycling is expected to deliver faster and at greater scale than current capacity allows. Producer responsibility may improve products, but risks mainly redistributing costs. EU decisions have direct impacts on global textile markets and livelihoods. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for textiles are being introduced or prepared in multiple EU Member States. Expectations around textile to textile recycling capacity are increasing. At the global level, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Basel Convention are continuing their work on how used textiles and textile waste should be classified and regulated across borders. Individually, each of these processes is rational and grounded in legitimate concerns. Taken together, their combined effects may prove decisive. The central question is no longer what policymakers aim to achieve, but whether the different policy instruments now being deployed will reinforce each other or risk pulling the system in conflicting directions. EU textile policy under simultaneous pressure The European Union has made no secret of its ambition. Textiles are identified as a priority product group in the Circular Economy Action Plan, and the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles sets out objectives around product design, durability, reuse, recycling and reduced environmental harm. At the same time, policymakers are under pressure to deliver visible progress. Textile recycling is expected to scale rapidly. Producer responsibility is expected to correct structural market failures. International regulation is expected to reduce environmental harm associated with global textile flows. What remains less clear is whether the assumptions behind these expectations fully align with how textile markets actually function in practice. As UNEP itself has noted, “the fashion and textile sector isn’t just about style; it is also the frontline against the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution”. Reuse, recycling, waste management and global trade do not operate as separate policy or market systems. They are deeply interconnected. Decisions taken in one policy arena inevitably reshape outcomes in another. The years leading up to 2026 are likely to be when these interdependencies become increasingly difficult to ignore. Four questions that will shape the period ahead 1. Is second hand trade an asset or a problem to be controlled? Second-hand clothing has moved from the margins to the centre of the textile policy debate. For some, it represents one of the most effective forms of circularity, extending product lifetimes, reducing demand for new production and providing access to affordable clothing across many markets. At the same time, a dominant narrative has emerged in which exports of used clothing to the Global South are increasingly framed as large-scale waste dumping, often presented as a primary environmental problem in itself. This framing has gained strong traction in media coverage and advocacy, despite the fact that the empirical evidence underpinning it remains limited and contested. While there is a notable lack of comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating systematic dumping through established second-hand trade channels, the academic research that does exist tends to describe more differentiated realities, including functioning reuse markets, multi-grade sorting systems and significant employment effects. This gap between narrative certainty and available evidence has prompted growing push-back from actors with direct operational and research experience. Jessica Franken warns that policies built on mischaracterisation risk undermining systems that already deliver environmental and social value. In open communications to UNEP and the Basel Convention, industry organisations and researchers have cautioned against treating used textiles as waste by default. Jessica Franken, Head of Government Affairs at the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association (SMART), has argued that “used textiles are not waste — they are the backbone of the global circular economy,” warning that policies built on mischaracterisation risk undermining reuse systems that already deliver environmental and social value. Concerns have also been raised about the data foundations of current policy discussions. In an open letter submitted to UNEP in late 2024, a group of organisations and academics cautioned that regulatory conclusions risk being shaped by incomplete datasets and poorly substantiated assumptions. As UNEP and the Basel Convention continue their deliberations, the question is therefore not simply how to prevent environmental harm, but how to ensure that policy decisions are grounded in robust evidence that reflects how second-hand trade actually functions in practice. The outcome will signal whether reuse is recognised as an evidence-supported circular strategy, or increasingly constrained by regulation driven by contested narratives. 2. Can textile recycling realistically carry the burden placed upon it? Fibre to fibre recycling is widely presented as the future backbone of textile circularity. Policy targets, investment strategies and public narratives increasingly assume rapid scale up over the coming decade. Progress, however, remains uneven. Technical challenges persist, feedstock quality varies significantly, and many recycling solutions are still capital intensive and limited in geographic reach. According to European recycling industry assessments, less than one percent of textile material is currently recycled back into new clothing, underlining how far current systems are from meeting rising expectations (EuRIC Textiles Manifesto). If reuse channels are restricted while recycling capacity does not expand as anticipated, a gap emerges. That gap risks being filled not by circular solutions, but by increased incineration or disposal. The question for the coming years is whether policy expectations are calibrated to technical maturity and market realities, or whether they are running ahead of what existing infrastructure can deliver. 3. Will Extended Producer Responsibility change products or mainly redistribute costs? Extended Producer Responsibility schemes for textiles are now moving from policy design into early stages of implementation in several European countries. In principle, well designed schemes can shift incentives upstream by rewarding durability, repairability and recyclability. Poorly designed schemes, however, risk functioning primarily as cost recovery mechanisms, with limited influence on product design, production volumes or material choices. As EPR systems roll out, their interaction with reuse markets, collection systems and recycling infrastructure will be critical. Whether they meaningfully steer behaviour or mainly add administrative and financial friction should become clearer as schemes mature. 4. Who sets the rules and on whose terms? Perhaps the most sensitive question is also the most structural. Global textile flows connect producers, consumers, collectors, traders and recyclers across continents. When rules governing these flows change, the distribution of costs, risks and decision making power also shifts. Policies developed in the Global North, even when driven by environmental objectives, can reshape markets in the Global South in profound ways. Whether this leads to environmental improvement, market disruption or unintended social consequences depends on how inclusive, evidence based and context aware those rules are. This tension between preventing environmental harm and respecting economic and social realities is likely to sit at the centre of global textile governance debates in the years ahead. When well intended policies collide There is a growing risk that policies which appear coherent in isolation may work against each other in practice. Restricting reuse while relying heavily on recycling. Promoting circularity while increasing administrative barriers to circular trade. Targeting waste outcomes without adequately addressing overproduction upstream. None of these outcomes are inevitable. Avoiding them requires a willingness to test assumptions, question simplified narratives and align policy tools with how textile systems actually operate. The period around 2026 is unlikely to be decisive because of a single regulation or technological breakthrough. It is more likely to be decisive because the cumulative effects of multiple policy choices begin to materialise across markets, infrastructure and livelihoods. A period that demands scrutiny rather than slogans The textile sector does not suffer from a lack of ambition. It faces the risk of oversimplification. As strategies translate into binding rules and intentions into obligations, the margin for error narrows. What matters now is not how forcefully problems are framed, but how carefully solutions are constructed. This makes the coming years a period that demands close scrutiny of data, assumptions and power dynamics, rather than quick conclusions. In the coming period, Reuse News will examine these developments in depth. Because when everything is expected to be fixed at once, getting the fundamentals wrong can be costly. Written by Thomas Lundkvist

Germany is preparing new legislation that would introduce a levy on fast fashion brands placing clothing on the German market. The aim is to shift the costs of collecting, sorting, recycling and disposing of textile waste away from municipalities and taxpayers and onto producers and brands. National levy targets fast fashion volumes Under the proposal, companies placing large volumes of low-cost garments on the market would be required to contribute financially to the collection, sorting, recycling and disposal infrastructure for textile waste. According to the environment ministry, the measure is intended to correct a situation in which local authorities currently bear the costs of a rapidly growing waste stream. Germany acts ahead of EU textile EPR framework The initiative comes as the EU is working towards a harmonised extended producer responsibility system for textiles. As part of the EU Textile Strategy and the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, all member states are expected to introduce EPR systems that make producers responsible for the full life cycle of textile products. These requirements include financing collection and treatment and creating incentives for more sustainable design. Full implementation, however, is still several years away and leaves significant room for national approaches in the meantime. Germany’s proposal can therefore be seen as an attempt to operationalise extended producer responsibility principles for textiles before the EU framework is fully in place. By explicitly targeting fast fashion, Germany also signals an ambition to use producer responsibility as a policy tool rather than merely an administrative funding mechanism. Germany acts ahead of EU textile EPR framework Risk of fragmentation in the internal market At the same time, the move raises questions about fragmentation. If member states develop their own levy structures, definitions and fee levels, the internal market could face diverging rules for the same products. For global brands, this could mean higher compliance costs and increased complexity, while municipalities and waste operators may encounter different financing models across borders. For the EU, the German initiative adds pressure to deliver a credible and workable textile EPR system. It shows that some member states are unwilling to wait while the costs of textile waste continue to mount. Whether Germany’s approach becomes a blueprint or an exception remains to be seen. What is clear is that producer responsibility for textiles is moving from policy ambition to economic reality. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Sources: – European Commission, EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles – European Commission, Waste Framework Directive – revision and textile EPR – Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMUV), Germany – European Environment Agency (EEA), Textiles and the environment in a circular economy – OECD, Extended Producer Responsibility – Updated Guidance

The European Union and the South American trade bloc Mercosur have reached a political agreement on their long-negotiated partnership deal. For the textile and apparel sector, the agreement brings concrete and time-bound changes that will shape trade between the two regions. What is new is that tariffs on clothing and apparel, currently ranging from 8 to 12 percent, will be phased out entirely . According to the agreement, tariffs will be reduced in equal annual steps over eight years, with all affected products becoming duty-free by 1 January 2033, provided the agreement enters into force in 2026. Mercosur is a South American trade bloc comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay . Together with the EU, the two regions account for around one fifth of global GDP. For the EU, the agreement is expected to facilitate cheaper and easier imports of new clothing from Mercosur countries, where textile and garment production plays an important role in export industries. The deal also includes a dedicated chapter on sustainable development. The Paris Agreement is defined as an essential element of the partnership, allowing for measures in cases of serious non-compliance. Trade in illegally produced goods is prohibited, and the parties commit to cooperation on more sustainable supply chains. For the EU textile market, the agreement marks a clear shift in trade policy, as reduced trade barriers coincide with ongoing efforts to introduce extended producer responsibility, promote circular economy models and reduce overall material flows. How these objectives will be balanced in practice remains to be seen.

Following the entry into force of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive in October 2025, sector organisations are now turning attention to how mandatory textile EPR systems will be implemented at national level. In recent communications, the Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA) has reiterated the directive’s key timelines, including the requirement for member states to establish textile EPR schemes within 30 months. The focus has shifted from legislation to system design, covering producer fees, governance models and the role of existing collection and reuse actors. For operators across the textile value chain, the coming phase will be shaped less by EU lawmaking and more by national interpretation and infrastructure readiness. Source:   EXPRA sector newsletter (Q4 2025)