Libya spent close to one billion dollars on animal-feed imports in 2025. The figure was striking not only because of its size, but because it was comparable to the state’s combined foreign-currency spending on several major diplomatic, educational and health commitments.

The original analysis compared the feed bill with approximately $320 million for embassies and overseas missions, $120 million for Libyan students abroad, $90 million for treatment overseas, $250 million for medicines and medical equipment, and $120 million through small-trader cards. Together, those categories came to roughly $900 million.

Feed imports alone were therefore said to cost as much as that entire group of external obligations. At the same time, Libya imported meat worth more than $385 million — close to another half-billion dollars.

Two bills that need to be read together

An economy can legitimately import both feed and meat. The coexistence of the two bills does not, on its own, prove abuse. But spending at this scale should correspond to a measurable livestock base, domestic production and a clear food-security policy.

If the country maintains enough livestock to require feed imports approaching one billion dollars, the public should be able to see the size and distribution of that livestock, the volumes produced locally, and the effect of imported feed on domestic meat and dairy output. If domestic supply remains insufficient, policymakers should explain why the feed bill has not reduced dependence on imported meat.

The picture becomes still harder to interpret when local feed production and locally produced meat are added. Without a reconciled dataset, the public cannot determine whether the import structure reflects genuine demand, weak agricultural productivity, price distortions or failures in the allocation system.

$1.38bn+

was the approximate combined value of feed and meat imports cited in the original 2025 analysis.

The accountability test for import credits

The official approvals also placed relatively young companies among significant feed-import beneficiaries. That fact is not evidence of wrongdoing, but it makes due diligence and disclosure more important.

The Ministry of Economy, commercial registry and Central Bank should publish the incorporation date, beneficial ownership, financial capacity and import history of companies receiving large allocations. Customs records should then confirm the quantity, value and arrival of the goods financed through those credits.

The decisive question is not whether a company is new. It is whether the allocation was supported by real capital, a verifiable commercial record, competitive criteria and documented delivery into the Libyan market.

A registry that can follow the money and the goods

Libya’s commercial registry needs more than new stamps and paper procedures. It needs a connected digital system linking company records to banks, regulators and customs data.

For every large import credit, the state should be able to match four things: the legal entity that received approval, the bank that processed it, the supplier that invoiced the goods, and the customs record proving their entry. Public reporting can aggregate commercially sensitive details while still showing concentration, delivery and compliance.

Until those links are visible, the public will continue asking whether Libya has a livestock economy whose scale justifies the spending — or an import-credit system whose economic logic cannot be independently tested.

The first task is to separate the feed basket

A billion-dollar feed headline can include barley, maize, soybean meal, concentrates, premixes and inputs used by poultry, dairy and red-meat producers. These products have different unit values and serve different herds and production cycles. The total should therefore be rebuilt by commodity code, weight, origin and end-use sector.

Only then can analysts test implied prices and quantities. A dollar value alone cannot establish tonnes delivered, animals supported or domestic output produced, while a comparison with unrelated state programmes illustrates opportunity cost but does not make those programmes economically interchangeable.

Measure conversion from imported feed to local food

The economic test is a conversion chain: imported feed per animal or flock, mortality and productivity, domestic meat, milk and egg output, and the share reaching formal markets. If feed financing rises while verified output does not, the explanation may lie in herd data, losses, diversion, pricing or inefficient production.

This is not an argument that imported meat proves feed failure. Seasonality, disease, drought, breeding cycles and consumer preferences can justify both flows. It is an argument for measuring whether the two import bills form a coherent food-security strategy.

Young companies require evidence, not suspicion

A recently incorporated importer may be competent and well capitalised. Age becomes relevant only when it is assessed alongside paid-up capital, beneficial ownership, supplier history, collateral, warehouse capacity and previous customs performance. The same standard should apply to established companies.

Banks should record connected exposure and confirm the economic substance of suppliers. Ministries and customs should verify licences, product standards and arrivals. No single indicator—including company age—should substitute for this file-level assessment.

The dashboard Libya needs

A public food-security account should publish financed value and quantity for feed, meat, dairy and poultry; domestic livestock estimates; slaughter and milk output; wholesale prices; and stocks. Definitions and survey dates must be clear because an old livestock estimate cannot explain a current dollar allocation.

At transaction level, authorities can preserve commercial confidentiality while publishing applicant, bank, commodity code, value, execution and customs reconciliation. That would show whether the billion dollars purchased productive capacity, consumption, inventory or an unresolved gap.

Editor’s note: This edited translation preserves the argument of the original Arabic article while distinguishing questions raised by the data from findings of wrongdoing. The Arabic version cited the Central Bank of Libya and Ministry of Economy as its underlying sources.