The January–April 2025 working aggregation put coffee credits at $25.24 million for 8,414 tonnes and tea credits at $16.66 million for 8,331 tonnes. Together, the two categories absorbed approximately $41.9 million.

On those figures, the implied credit value was about $3.00 per kilogram for coffee and $2.00 per kilogram for tea. These were financing values derived from the original dataset, not shop prices or quality-adjusted customs valuations.

$41.9m

was the combined value attributed to 16,745 tonnes of coffee and tea in the four-month snapshot.

Aggregation changes the story

One credit line may appear routine. Rows grouped by product reveal the scale of demand and the commercial ecosystem around it.

The combined figure was not presented as inherently excessive. Libya imports much of what it consumes. The question was whether volumes and unit values aligned with the market, customs records and population demand.

What the ledger does not settle

A credit value does not prove final delivered quantity. Product codes, invoices and customs declarations are necessary to avoid double counting and to distinguish grades, preparations and retail packs.

A defensible audit would separate green coffee, roasted coffee, extracts, bulk tea and retail packaging.

Publish data people can test

The analysis showed why transaction-level disclosure matters. Clean files with stable product codes and transaction identifiers would make the exercise reproducible.

Separate commodities before comparing unit values

The implied $3 per kilogram for coffee and $2 for tea are basket averages. Coffee can include green beans, roasted coffee, extracts and preparations; tea can differ by grade, origin, bulk or retail packaging. One blended price can conceal composition more than it reveals.

A reproducible calculation should publish included tariff codes, remove duplicated or amended entries and report value and net weight by subcategory. Freight, insurance and currency conversion should be treated consistently across every row.

Demand needs a population and time denominator

Sixteen thousand seven hundred and forty-five tonnes over four months sounds large, but meaning requires consumption per person, stocks, re-exports, hospitality demand and seasonal purchasing. Annualising four months assumes a stable flow that may not exist.

Customs arrivals and retail surveys over the same window can test whether financing translated into supply and whether official-dollar access affected prices. A mismatch would create a question for follow-up, not an automatic finding.

Where local value can realistically be created

Libya cannot cultivate all of the coffee and tea it consumes, but it can compete in roasting, blending, packing, branding, distribution and quality control. The relevant industrial metric is domestic value added after imported raw material, not a claim of complete substitution.

Financing data can identify the scale of the addressable market. Policy should then compare the cost and productivity of local processing with imports of finished retail products, while preserving consumer choice and competition.

A commodity dashboard instead of occasional totals

For coffee and tea, publish monthly value, weight, code, origin, importer, bank, supplier country, execution and customs status. Concentration indicators should include the largest and top-three beneficiary shares and related ownership.

Stable files would allow the eight-month tea update to be compared with this four-month snapshot without double counting. Every cumulative release should state its start date and replace—not add to—the earlier overlapping total.

Historical note: The totals and quantities reproduce the calculation published for January–April 2025. They should not be compared directly with later full-year datasets or a broader inclusion rule.