Evidence under pressure

Strong rules need strong evidence.

After Basel’s OEWG 15 meeting in Geneva, the debate over used textiles is moving further into formal policy work. That makes the evidence behind the claims more important than before.

The central question is whether there is reliable evidence that large-scale exports of unusable clothing are driving a waste crisis in receiving countries, and whether that evidence is strong enough to justify new international controls on second-hand trade.

This is where the policy process faces a difficult test. Much of the current debate is built around concern over waste, dumping and weak sorting. But concern is not the same as evidence. If reusable clothing is increasingly treated as a waste-risk category, regulators will need to show why the existing trade-based system is not sufficient, where it fails, and at what scale.

Reuse News’ own reporting has repeatedly found a gap between some of the strongest claims made in the debate and the evidence available to support them. In several receiving markets, used clothing is not simply dumped after import. It is bought, taxed, sorted, traded, repaired, resold and used through complex commercial systems.

Poor quality goods, illegal shipments and genuinely unusable material should be addressed, if it exists. But if new rules are built on unclear definitions or weak data, there is a risk that regulation aimed at waste could also restrict legitimate reuse.

The next phase of the Basel process should therefore raise the evidentiary bar — not only for the second-hand sector, but also for policymakers, NGOs and researchers. If global rules are to be developed, the evidence should be strong enough to answer a basic question: what problem is being regulated — and how large is it?