North Africa’s dependence on imported food becomes especially dangerous whenever the shipping routes connecting the region to global suppliers are disrupted.
The latest pressure is coming from instability around the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. These routes carry food, fuel and fertiliser, meaning disruption affects both the immediate supply of essential goods and the cost of producing them in the future.
The consequences are already visible. On 8 September, the World Food Programme warned that rising transport and fuel costs were placing additional pressure on vulnerable markets. In Sudan, the cost of a basic diet has risen by almost 40 percent since February, driven partly by higher fuel prices. The WFP said its own shipping costs had increased by approximately 20 percent, while aviation-fuel costs were up by around 35 percent.
Russia and Ukraine still account for roughly a third of global wheat trade, making the region particularly vulnerable to any disruption affecting the movement of grain. Meanwhile, approximately 12 percent of global trade passes through the waters off Yemen.
The WFP’s warning is primarily humanitarian, but it also raises a broader industrial question: how can import-dependent countries reduce their exposure to shipping disruptions they cannot control?
The Risks of Importing Finished Food
North African countries cannot produce every commodity they consume. Imports will remain essential, particularly for markets with limited water, agricultural land or domestic production capacity.
But there is an important difference between importing basic ingredients and depending on finished food products that must travel thousands of kilometres before reaching consumers.
That dependence becomes especially risky when refrigeration is involved. A delayed shipment of grain can often still be stored and used. Refrigerated dairy products and other perishable goods leave far less room for error. Delays, equipment failures, port congestion or longer shipping routes can damage an entire consignment.
Importers then face several costs at once: more expensive fuel, higher freight rates, increased insurance premiums and the risk that products will spoil before reaching the market.
Countries cannot eliminate these risks, but they can reduce their exposure by processing and packaging more food locally.
A New Plant in Benghazi
A new project in eastern Libya illustrates what that approach could look like.
Zulfa Food Industries, a subsidiary of Alushibe, is developing a food-processing plant in Benghazi in partnership with Tetra Pak Egypt Area.
Published project details describe a greenfield facility covering approximately 140,000 square metres, with a first-phase investment of around €14 million. The plant is designed around an integrated L3 system incorporating mixing, pasteurisation, UHT treatment and three production and filling lines. Milk and juice are expected to be its initial product categories.
UHT treatment and aseptic packaging allow products to remain stable at room temperature for months before opening. That matters in markets where electricity supplies, refrigerated transport and international shipping routes cannot always be taken for granted.
The project is chaired by Libyan businessman Ahmed Gadalla. His food-trading company, Al Mored Oasis, already connects North African markets with suppliers in countries including Brazil and Vietnam.
Those international supply corridors will remain important. The purpose of local processing is not to end imports, but to change what is imported and where value is added.
Instead of relying exclusively on finished products shipped from distant factories, companies can import suitable ingredients, process them closer to consumers and produce shelf-stable goods within the region. Locally sourced raw materials could also be incorporated where supply and quality allow.
Processing Capacity Is Strategic Infrastructure
Food security is often discussed almost entirely in terms of farming: how much land is cultivated, which crops receive support and whether domestic harvests can meet demand.
Agriculture is essential, but it is only one part of the supply chain. A country also needs the industrial capacity to process, package, store and distribute what it grows or imports. A food-processing plant should therefore be viewed as more than an agricultural facility. It is part of a country’s strategic infrastructure.
Ports allow goods to enter. Roads carry them to market. Processing plants determine whether raw materials and ingredients can be converted into products that consumers can store and use.
This is particularly important in North Africa, where supply chains cross some of the world’s most politically sensitive waterways. Governments cannot reopen a closed shipping route, shorten a diversion around a conflict zone or force insurers to reduce war-risk premiums. They can, however, support domestic capacity that makes their food systems less vulnerable when those disruptions occur.
That means making reliable electricity, water, transport links and financing available to food-processing projects. It also means treating manufacturing capacity as part of national resilience rather than as a secondary concern within agricultural policy.
Preparing Before the Next Disruption
The Benghazi plant will not solve North Africa’s food-security challenges by itself. Nor can local processing insulate the region completely from higher commodity prices or interrupted trade. But it represents the kind of investment North African economies need more of.
The choice is not between complete self-sufficiency and complete dependence on imports. It is between importing nearly every finished product and developing enough domestic capacity to process, package and store a greater share of the region’s food closer to its consumers.
The current disruption will eventually ease. The underlying vulnerability will remain. North African countries should use this moment to expand the industrial capacity that will determine how well they withstand the next crisis.
