Waste or reuse?

Who draws the line — and how?

After the Basel Convention’s OEWG 15 meeting in Geneva, the formal process on used textiles and textile waste is moving forward. The work ahead will focus on definitions, guidance and possible future steps — with one question now at the centre: how should reusable clothing be distinguished from textile waste?

For many actors in the second-hand sector, this question should not be part of the Basel Convention at all. They argue that reusable clothing is a traded product, not waste, and that importing countries already regulate what can enter their markets. But whether the issue belongs in Basel or not, the process is now under way — and the distinction between reuse and waste is becoming decisive.

The difficult question is who should make that distinction, and how.

Is a garment waste because it is low quality? Because it is damaged? Because it is unlikely to be resold in Europe? Or only when it cannot realistically be reused, repaired, recycled or sold in the receiving market?

That judgement is complicated because value is not fixed. A piece of clothing that has no commercial value in one market may still have value in another. What looks unsellable to an exporter, inspector or policymaker may still be traded, repaired, downcycled or used in a local market with different price levels, needs and sorting systems.

Today, much of that judgement is made by the trade itself: buyers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers decide what is worth paying for. Replacing that market judgement with a regulatory test would require clear criteria, reliable inspection systems and evidence that the current system is failing at scale.

The next challenge is therefore not only to define waste. It is to decide who should make that judgement, at which point in the trade chain, on what evidence — and with what consequences for a global reuse system that still appears to work at scale.