Ukraine’s largest poultry producer, Myronivsky Hliboproduct (MHP), has received over a billion dollars in loans from international development banks since 2010 and has significantly expanded its operations. Local communities and environmental advocates argue that the company has failed to adequately address concerns regarding its environmental impact. This analysis examines the environmental issues surrounding MHP’s Vinnytsia Poultry Farm, focusing on water quality concerns and what appears to be insufficient environmental monitoring, to highlight what many stakeholders perceive as an urgent need for enhanced oversight of large agribusiness operations in Ukraine. 

What will be the price for integration in European and global markets?  

After sacrificing its people and bearing up to USD 524 billion in recovery and reconstruction needs, including USD 55.5 billion in agriculture alone, Ukraine deserves lasting peace and the opportunity to develop and rebuild fairly and sustainably. Will international public finance offer solutions and relief?

More than ten years of war in Ukraine have overshadowed the predicament of rural communities suffering from export-fueled industrial crops and meat production. With President Trump’s negotiators openly discussing access to Ukraine’s natural resources as part of ‘peace’ talks, now is an appropriate moment to examine the concerning pattern of exploitation affecting Ukrainian lands and communities. MHP, a giant agrifood corporation, has received over a billion dollars in loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation. While this financing has enabled MHP to double its production capacity, reports from affected communities indicate the company operates without adequate baseline environmental and social data to assess local impacts properly. 

Missing baseline data: critical gaps in environmental monitoring of Ukraine’s leading poultry producer 

In 2018, a complaint was filed with the independent accountability mechanisms of the EBRD and IFC. It alleged that the Environmental Impact Assessments were substandard and fragmented, lacking comprehensive and cumulative impact evaluations for all the facilities associated with the Vinnytsia Poultry Farm. Notably, there were no baseline studies on the state of the environment in the area, neither at the beginning of operations nor were there any updated environmental data available when the company initiated its expansion in 2015, which aimed to double the facilities in the area. To adequately assess the overall state of the environment, particularly regarding water quality and availability, it is essential to collect data alongside other critical indicators. These assessments are necessary to fully understand environmental conditions and the potential impacts of new developments on local communities. 

Local communities have a right to a safe environment, including access to safe drinking water. Implementing comprehensive environmental monitoring systems and ensuring transparent information disclosure to residents represent essential first steps toward developing sustainable agricultural practices. These measures and meaningful public participation are vital for safeguarding community health and environmental integrity. 

 Vinnytsia Poultry Farm: scale and community impacts

Vinnytsia Poultry Farm, the biggest poultry factory in Europe, was constructed in Ukraine with loans and support from development banks. In less than a decade, the 2010 greenfield project grew into nearly two dozen chicken-rearing facilities housing over 25 million chickens at any given time. It also established processing infrastructure to support fodder production in several rural communities in the Vinnytsia region of Ukraine. This poultry factory is the flagship operation of MHP, the largest agricultural giant in Ukraine. Nearly 30% of all poultry meat exported to Ukraine comes from this farm.  

According to international lenders’ standards, an operation site of this size and capacity should have undergone a proper environmental and social risk assessment to prevent potential harm to the environment and local populations. Residents in the areas adjacent to poultry operations began to feel the impact on their communities as early as the first stage of the construction of the poultry factory. Foul odours, soil degradation, water depletion and pollution, and damage to infrastructure from heavy machinery passing through were experienced by surrounding communities. However, little has been done to monitor these impacts, and the lack of a baseline assessment significantly hinders any subsequent attempts to quantify the effects caused by MHP’s operations.  

The affected communities have persistently sought dialogue with MHP and demanded environmental and health impact data from the company and national authorities, leading to numerous information requests, protests, and court cases. Despite minimal progress in addressing these issues, individuals who publicly express concerns have faced increasing intimidation—a pattern that local activists directly attribute to their outspoken advocacy. In 2018, members of local communities submitted complaints to the independent complaints mechanisms of the EBRD and IFC with the hope of obtaining information and solutions for the community’s problems. Throughout the 2.5-year dispute resolution process, including formal mediation sessions, complainants were consistently denied access to comprehensive environmental impact data affecting their communities. Consequently, the complaints were forwarded to the EBRD and the IFC compliance review mechanisms. Through this process, the lending institutions will be evaluated on how well they have enforced the company’s compliance with bank policies. 

Should communities bear the burden of proving water contamination? 

Unable to obtain information about environmental conditions in Olyanytsia, Kleban, and Zaozerne, residents of these communities participated in the citizen science in rural areas water testing initiative by Ecoaction, which incorporated both field measurements and analysis of water samples sent to certified laboratories. Ground and surface water samples were tested in 14 rural communities in 10 regions of Ukraine. 

Among wells and water supply points tested, the villages of Olyanytsia, Kleban, and Zaozerne were highlighted for their alarming nitrate levels, posing serious risks to health and the environment. The nitrate pollution levels in this area were notably higher than in other rural communities that were part of the Ecoaction water screening initiative of 2021. Nearly half of the 20 wells and boreholes tested in 2021 were close to or exceeded the safe-for-drinking limit of 50 mg/l for nitrate content. Some of the highest nitrate readings in the study came from wells in these villages, including numerous wells with recorded levels up to three times higher than the threshold and one as high as 200 mg/l, recorded in Olyanytsia.  Follow-up tests conducted in 2023 confirmed persisting nitrate pollution issues. Of 14 repeated well samples, 10 exceeded the safe limit, with one well showing a nitrate concentration of 190 mg/l. In 2024, repeated testing showed that previously problematic wells still contain high nitrate levels with minor seasonal and year-to-year variations. 

Though some villagers now have access to piped water, many communities close to MHP production sites still rely on the wells for domestic water needs and gardening. Groundwater is notably vulnerable to contamination from agricultural sources, particularly fertilised fields and livestock facilities. The water quality for wells (upper layers of groundwater) and deeper boreholes is of concern in the area where MHP operates. Water extracted from depths of 40 meters or greater typically contains lower nitrate concentrations, making these deeper boreholes more suitable sources for piped community drinking water systems. However, water for several households in Olyanytsia is sourced through a pipeline from a borehole that shows nitrate levels close to the maximum safe threshold of ~35-40 mg/l, with minor variations in samples collected in 2021, 2023 and 2024. Studies have shown nitrate ingestion through drinking water is associated with many adverse health outcomes, including colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and neural tube defects. have shown nitrate ingestion through drinking water is associated with many adverse health outcomes, including colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and neural tube defects. 

As part of the community water monitoring exercise, the team also conducted tests on the South Buh River, where the discharge point from the Vinnytsia poultry factory’s wastewater treatment plant is located. The water samples were collected in several spots upstream and downstream from the water discharge. Both tests conducted in 2021 and 2023 indicated worse results downstream of the discharge point, with elevated ammonia, nitrates, and phosphates levels. This raises the question of whether MHP’s wastewater treatment plant adequately cleans the water to prevent impacts on the local ecosystem. The April 2024 testing, however, revealed even more disturbing results: extremely elevated levels of ammonia (20-30 times higher than normal levels) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) all along the river.  

The 2024 results showed dramatic deterioration compared to the previous year’s measurements. Despite this escalation, eutrophication from agricultural runoff and other nutrient pollution sources had already become a significant environmental concern in the region. As MHP operates the area’s largest agricultural enterprise, managing extensive cropland for chicken feed production, their potential contribution to this environmental degradation warrants thorough investigation. 

Environmental information disclosure by MHP 

In 2024, the company released environmental information related to the Vinnytsia region’s water, air, dust, and soil quality on MHP’s corporate website. The scanned documentation is dated starting from 2019. However, it has never been publicly disclosed or shared with complainants despite multiple direct requests for information during the mediation process under the complaint mechanisms of the EBRD and IFC, which lasted from 2019 to 2021. 

Our analysis of the disclosed documents on MHP’s website, specifically those related to water quality, prompted questions and revealed gaps in data.  

If published on the corporate-level website, the documentation would ideally reflect environmental monitoring across all facilities in Ukraine. If the focus is on the Vinnytsia region, at the very least, it should provide substantial monitoring data for that specific site to address the complainants’ concerns. However, the scanned documentation covers only a fraction of MHP’s operations: a single poultry facility (#22) in Chetvertynivka out of approximately two dozen of such poultry rearing facilities; the biogas plant processing chicken manure on Zaozerne community lands; and some records concerning a meat processing facility in Poltava region of Ukraine which is notably in a completely different region and not part of the Vinnytsia Poultry Farm facilities. These Poltava records suggest the website is intended for company-wide environmental disclosure rather than being limited to the VPF operations subject to community complaints. 

MHP operates production facilities across 12 regions in Ukraine, utilising 360 thousand hectares. Consequently, the selection of information regarding environmental monitoring appears arbitrary and unrepresentative, both for the totality of MHP’s operations in Ukraine and the Vinnytsia Poultry Farm.  Examining the Vinnytsia region’s environmental monitoring data sample reveals substantial deficiencies in MHP’s environmental oversight and community disclosure practices. The monitoring framework requires significant enhancement to track environmental conditions and inform local populations. Notably, community members report never receiving access to the information now published on the website. 

For instance, water monitoring records are available for only three wells near poultry rearing facility #22. In several protocols, the locations of monitoring wells are not identifiable, and other wells, which have readable coordinates, show different locations in protocols from various years. On average, water samples were analysed for 12 to 13 basic quality parameters. However, some protocols from certain years include irrelevant parameters typically used for assessing surface water characteristics, such as chemical oxygen demand (COD). It is concerning that none of the protocols from any year indicate any issues with nitrates or other nitrogen compounds in the groundwater. Given the selectivity of the sampling locations, they cannot be regarded as sufficient for monitoring or providing a comprehensive illustration of the water situation in the communities. 

The company’s monitoring documentation for the biogas plant area, where large-scale volumes of manure are stored and processed, includes protocols of water analysis for four wells among the scanned documents for some of the years available. Similar to the files on the poultry rearing facility #22, the location of the groundwater sources tested is unclear. A few of the first protocols available show nitrate pollution (above 50 mg/l) or levels close to that margin. Thus, more comprehensive monitoring is needed near the biogas plant.    

Consistent monitoring and a representative network of water testing sites are crucial for comprehending the overall environmental conditions and trends in the operational area over time. This understanding enables adjustments to practices based on existing challenges and needs. The water quality data currently offered by MHP for seven wells in the Vinnytsia poultry farm region is insufficient. This area includes over two dozen poultry rearing and related facilities, spread across nearly a 30 km radius, along with an even larger area of fields used for fodder production. 

Unsustainable agricultural practices, including improper use of agrochemicals and inadequate manure and waste management systems, primarily cause nitrate pollution of water. The EU estimates that livestock production produces 81% of agricultural nitrogen input to water bodies. Despite hosting Europe’s largest poultry production facilities, Ukraine lacks comparable nitrogen pollution data. 

Complainants in the Vinnytsia region never saw the baseline assessment of environmental conditions (including levels of nitrates) in the MHP poultry factory’s area before this massive greenfield project began in early 2010. Additionally, they have not seen how environmental indicators have changed due to MHP’s developments. However, the citizen science initiative on water testing indicates that nitrate pollution is widespread in the area. Solutions to the problem have been anticipated for more than ten years. 

The EBRD’s Independent Project Accountability Mechanism will issue a report detailing findings related to the complaints from local people in the Vinnytsia region and the management action plans for the financial institution to address the noncompliance identified. Additionally, another independent recourse mechanism, the Compliance Appraisal Ombudsman of the IFC, recently published the Compliance Appraisal of the IFC Project MHP Corporate Loan in Ukraine, confirming its decision to conduct a compliance investigation regarding IFC’s performance related to the community complaint raised in 2018.  

With the EBRD and IFC having committed nearly USD 350 million in new loans to MHP since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, these financial institutions now face a critical accountability moment. These investments must not perpetuate a decade of environmental negligence but drive transformative change. International lenders must leverage their financial influence to ensure MHP implements comprehensive environmental monitoring, addresses documented water contamination, and prioritises community health over unchecked expansion. As Ukraine rebuilds, the standard for international investment must elevate beyond mere profit to embrace genuine environmental responsibility and restore rural communities’ fundamental right to a clean environment.