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.

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)

When the EU requirement for separate textile collection came into force across member states at the turn of 2024/2025, the ambition was widely shared across Europe: more reuse, less incineration, and a first concrete step towards a circular textile economy. One year later, experiences from multiple countries point in a similar direction. Collection volumes increased faster than systems could sort, allocate, and treat the material. Bottlenecks emerged in several member states, from Sweden to France and Germany. As Europe enters 2026, the immediate pressure has eased in many places. However, beneath this apparent stabilisation lies a deeper structural problem: without sufficiently developed sorting capacity and viable end markets, separate textile collection risks becoming a logistical success but a circular failure. A European pattern in separate textile collection – Sweden as an early indicator Sweden was among the countries where the consequences of mandatory separate textile collection became visible early. When textiles previously discarded as residual waste were redirected into dedicated collection streams, volumes increased sharply, while average quality declined. During spring and summer 2025, several effects became apparent: overloaded collection points, charitable second-hand organisations increasingly acting as de facto pre-sorting units for municipalities, often without formal mandates or full cost coverage, and large quantities of separately collected textiles still ending up in incineration after basic sorting. These developments did not represent a uniquely Swedish failure, but rather an early manifestation of a Europe-wide sequencing problem: regulation moved faster than sorting capacity, treatment infrastructure, and the development of stable end markets. Collection bins in Sweden closed due to overflow and limited funding for collecting and sorting Policy adjustments and partial stabilisation in textile collection systems n Sweden, regulatory interpretations and practical guidance were adjusted in autumn 2025. Certain textile fractions – heavily soiled, badly damaged, or hygienically problematic – were increasingly redirected back to residual waste streams. The intention was to reduce inflows of material with no realistic pathway to reuse or recycling. Comparable stabilising measures, both formal and informal, can be observed across several European textile collection systems: stricter acceptance criteria at collection and sorting points, clearer communication to households, more selective handling further down the chain. The effect has been tangible. Acute system stress has eased. Yet stabilisation should not be mistaken for resolution. Zooming out: the same structural problem across national textile systems France – textile EPR did not prevent system strain France has operated a textile Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for more than a decade. Despite this, tensions intensified in 2025 as collection and sorting organisations publicly warned that compensation levels no longer reflected the real costs associated with higher volumes and declining quality. The French experience underlines a critical point: EPR alone does not guarantee system resilience if financial mechanisms are not continuously adjusted to material realities. Germany – market pressure shifts within the textile value chain In Germany, where textile collection relies heavily on private and charitable operators, falling prices for sorted fractions combined with rising disposal costs have placed parts of the sector under severe financial strain, including reported insolvencies. Here, the challenge is less about the absence of regulation and more about insufficiently robust markets for sorted textiles under increased policy-driven volumes. The Netherlands – textile EPR in force, system equilibrium still forming The Netherlands introduced textile EPR in 2023, with more binding targets entering into force in 2025. While the framework is comparatively advanced, early experience indicates that it takes time for financing structures, sorting practices, and material flows to stabilise. EPR has added administrative and financial structure, but has not yet resolved how medium- and low-quality textiles can be consistently diverted away from incineration at scale. Belgium and Denmark – rising textile volumes, unresolved cost allocation In Belgium, particularly in the Brussels region, and in Denmark, policy emphasis has focused on diverting textiles from residual waste. This has driven up collection volumes, while simultaneously exposing the same unresolved question: who pays for sorting, and where does the material go when reuse is not viable? Entering 2026: less chaos, unchanged systemic risks for textile collection and circularity Entering 2026: less chaos, unchanged systemic risks As Europe moves into 2026, the overall picture is strikingly consistent: separate textile collection is now embedded in law, the most acute bottlenecks have eased, but systems remain far better at collecting textiles than at using them effectively. Three structural risks continue to dominate: Sustained pressure on second-hand actors Across many countries, charitable organisations still function as first-line sorters, often without full cost coverage. This risks undermining the most mature and functional circular segment of the system. Incineration as the default safety valve When alternatives are lacking, energy recovery remains the only scalable endpoint for large volumes, even after separate collection. The risk is not that incineration disappears, but that it becomes normalised and less visible. Recycling technologies constrained by feedstock quality Without early quality separation and stable, standardised flows, fibre-to-fibre recycling remains largely confined to pilot projects, despite strong political ambition. The deeper risk: a “temporary” system that becomes permanent The central danger in the coming years is not renewed acute collapse, but something more subtle: that Europe settles into a prolonged interim state characterised by high collection rates, underfunded sorting, and continued reliance on incineration. If this interim configuration solidifies, both second-hand markets and recycling innovation risk being weakened, even as policymakers continue to describe progress. Conclusion Separate collection was intended as the starting point of a circular textile economy. Experience from Sweden and across the EU suggests it has instead functioned as a stress test for the entire value chain. How Europe manages the sorting and allocation gap in the years ahead – before fully mature producer responsibility systems and end markets are in place – may ultimately determine whether textile policy is remembered as a genuine transition, or as another case of ambition colliding with material reality. Written by Thomas Lundkvist Editorial note This article focuses on textile collection and sorting in Europe. During 2026, Reuse News will also follow developments related to the legal status of second-hand textiles in international trade, including ongoing processes under the Basel Convention.

India’s cotton trade policy has recently shifted, creating uncertainty for textile producers and potentially wider ripple effects across global clothing markets. While the measures were introduced with domestic considerations in mind, their implications could extend far beyond India — influencing clothing prices, fibre choices, and textile waste flows worldwide. India is one of the world’s largest producers and processors of cotton, as well as a central hub for global garment manufacturing. After a period in which imported cotton was subject to standard import duties, the Indian government temporarily suspended these duties in late 2025 to ease pressure on domestic textile manufacturers. The suspension was explicitly time-limited, and as of early 2026 the longer-term direction of India’s cotton import policy remains unclear. The government has retained the option to reinstate duties or adjust them depending on market conditions, domestic farmer interests, and broader trade considerations. For textile producers, this has introduced a degree of uncertainty around raw material costs rather than a stable new equilibrium. India is one of the world’s largest producers and processors of cotton, as well as a central hub for global garment manufacturing. Why India’s cotton import policy matters for clothing prices Cotton remains the single most widely used natural fibre in everyday clothing. Changes in cotton trade policy directly affect input costs for manufacturers, which in turn influence retail outcomes. When cotton becomes more expensive — or when future pricing is uncertain — manufacturers typically respond in one or more of the following ways: Higher retail prices for cotton-based garments, Substitution toward cheaper synthetic fibres, or Cost-cutting elsewhere in the supply chain, often affecting durability and quality. Even temporary policy shifts can contribute to price volatility, particularly in a global industry that relies on long planning cycles and predictable input costs. Implications for reuse, fibre substitution, and textile waste In theory, higher cotton prices could make reused clothing more competitive relative to newly produced garments. In practice, however, past experience suggests that rising or uncertain raw material costs more often accelerate fibre substitution than reuse. This tends to increase reliance on synthetic fibres, which are generally more difficult to recycle and more likely to contribute to long-lived textile waste. As a result, changes in cotton economics can indirectly shape the composition of garments entering second-hand markets, recycling systems, or waste streams in the years ahead. Why the timing of India’s cotton policy matters in 2026 The policy shift comes at a moment when many countries are struggling with fast fashion’s environmental impacts. Even though India’s suspension of cotton import duties was temporary, its effects may continue to unfold during 2026 as producers, traders, and brands adjust sourcing strategies. Small changes in the economics of a dominant fibre like cotton can quietly influence what kinds of clothes are made — and ultimately what kinds of textiles end up being reused, recycled, or discarded.

Following the agreement to introduce a €3 flat fee on small parcels imported into the EU, several policymakers are already questioning whether the measure will be sufficient to curb the surge of ultra-cheap goods entering the European market, particularly via online platforms. EU €3 parcel fee on ultra-cheap imports and fast fashion questioned by EU lawmakers Speaking after the decision, Irish MEP Barry Andrews warned that the fee may need to increase if it fails to slow the flow of low-cost deliveries, particularly from Chinese e-commerce platforms. He has previously argued for a charge closer to €5 per parcel. The debate highlights growing concern within EU institutions that trade measures alone may not be sufficient to address the environmental and economic impacts of ultra-fast fashion business models. Policymakers are increasingly linking the issue to rising textile waste, pressure on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems and uneven enforcement of EU sustainability rules in cross-border online sales. Four billion parcels underline limits of trade measures More than four billion small parcels are delivered to European households each year. With more than four billion small parcels delivered to European households each year, the fee is widely seen as an initial step rather than a final solution. Further action on platform regulation, market surveillance and producer responsibility is now firmly on the political agenda. The debate over the EU fee on ultra-cheap imports and fast fashion reflects a broader shift in EU policy, in which trade instruments are increasingly linked to waste management, producer responsibility and digital market regulation rather than narrowly defined tariff protection.