What is at stake?

The debate over textile waste often focuses on environmental risks. Less attention is sometimes given to what existing reuse systems already deliver.

Every year, large volumes of used clothing are collected, sorted and redistributed through international second-hand markets. These systems provide affordable clothing to consumers, create economic activity and extend the life of products that might otherwise be discarded.

Research has consistently shown that extending product lifetimes can reduce environmental impacts compared with replacing garments immediately with newly produced alternatives.

The sector also supports substantial employment. Estimates suggest that more than two million people in both Ghana and Kenya depend directly or indirectly on second-hand clothing markets through sorting, repair, transport, wholesale and retail activities.

For many consumers, second-hand markets are not a lifestyle choice but an economic necessity.

Supporters of stricter regulation argue that stronger controls are needed to prevent environmental harm and improve accountability. Those concerns are legitimate and increasingly influential in policy discussions.

The question is whether policymakers can distinguish between waste that should be controlled and products that remain valuable and usable.

If they succeed, regulation could strengthen confidence in reuse systems. If they fail, policies intended to promote sustainability could unintentionally reduce reuse, increase demand for newly manufactured clothing and weaken an important source of livelihoods and affordable goods.

That is why the current debate matters far beyond the textile sector itself. It is ultimately a test of how circular economy policies balance environmental protection with economic and social realities.

The Geneva meeting last week of June did not settle the question of how used textiles should be treated under the Basel Convention. Instead, the process now moves into a new phase. Parties and observers have been invited to submit another round of comments by 30 November 2026, before the issue is taken forward towards COP18 in April 2027.

That makes the coming months important. The focus is now likely to shift towards technical guidance, definitions, classification, traceability, inspection tools and the unresolved question of how officials should distinguish reusable textiles from textile waste.

For the second-hand sector, this distinction is crucial. Future rules could include instruments such as prior informed consent, new Annex entries, certification requirements or closer alignment between Basel rules and customs codes. But without clear evidence and workable definitions, such measures risk treating functioning reuse markets as waste flows by regulation.

The next phase should therefore not only ask how textile waste can be controlled. It must first answer a more basic question: what exactly is the problem, how large is it, and how can regulators act without damaging legitimate reuse?