Libya’s Development and Reconstruction Fund has rejected the outcomes of the economic track emerging from the structured national dialogue, declaring that the recommendations are not binding and reaffirming its commitment to continuing development projects under existing national laws.
In an official statement, the Fund said it had reviewed the meetings held in Tunisia and the proposals issued regarding financial and economic reforms. However, it warned that these outcomes could negatively affect ongoing development efforts, particularly in eastern and southern Libya, where it says construction and infrastructure projects are advancing at an unprecedented pace.
The Fund argued that individuals involved in the economic track do not represent the eastern and southern regions in matters related to development and economic planning. As a result, it stressed that it is not obligated to comply with the conclusions of these discussions, adding that the current framework of the dialogue could hinder Libya’s broader national development agenda.
It further emphasized that its operations are based on clear legal foundations, including Law No. 1 of 2024, which established the Fund, and Law No. 3 of 2025 regulating the development budget issued by the House of Representatives. These laws, it said, serve as the primary framework guiding its strategic projects within a long-term sustainable development plan.
The Fund reiterated its commitment to all applicable Libyan legislation while continuing to implement development strategies aimed at strengthening economic growth, promoting stability, and ensuring that development reaches all regions of the country.
The economic track meetings, held between 8 and 12 February as part of the structured dialogue process, addressed key issues such as subsidy reform, economic restructuring, private sector stimulation, and achieving a balance between state-building and economic justice. Despite these discussions, the Fund maintains that its development agenda will proceed independently of political disagreements.
