Reflections on the proposed takeover of the Spanish company UVESA by the Ukrainian conglomerate MHP

I'm delighted to share on my blog, 'The CAP Pills' these joint reflections that my friend Christophe Hamon, a veteran agricultural expert and well-versed in the Brussels corridors, and I have developed in the wake of the arrival of a Ukrainian giant in Spain. But our thinking goes beyond this specific operation to ask ourselves what kind of agriculture we want in Europe.

MHP, a leading international company in the agri-food sector, announced on March 20, 2025, the signing of a share purchase agreement for 91,77 % of the share capital of UVESA. The Spanish government has authorized the transaction. 

What can be said about the takeover value of the UVESA Group, which rose from €275 million to €430 million in a few weeks, with the share price increased from €150 to €225 or even €246, apparently to compete with the two other buyers who are also said to have expressed interest, the Spanish Grupo Fuertes and the Portuguese Lusiaves?.

To understand its importance, it is worth considering what both UVESA and MHP represent. 

The UVESA Group is a leading Spanish company in the agri-food sector that, for over 60 years, has established itself as one of the main producers of poultry and pork, in addition to manufacturing pet food for domestic use. 

Although its exact position may vary depending on criteria (production volume, turnover, etc.), UVESA is said to be the third largest Spanish meat company, behind Campofrio and Grupo Fuertes, with an annual turnover of around 1 billion euros and more than 2,000 employees across its farms, factories, and offices. 

MHP (Myronivsky Hliboproduct) is one of the largest agro-industrial companies in Ukraine and a major producer of chicken meat worldwide. Founded in 1998 in Myronivka, it reportedly produces (pre-war figures) over 600,000 tons of meat and has over 30,000 workers. It owns, or controls, 370.000 hectares in Ukraine, of which 15,000 are believed to be located in the Russian-controlled areas of Donbass and Kherson. 

For example, 'Myronivska Poultry Farm', dans la region de Tcherkassy,is a closed-cycle enterprise (from the production of day-old chicks to broiler meat). It includes an incubator and a poultry station with a capacity of 185 million eggs per year; 27 production sites with 432 chicken coops, with a total capacity of approximately 24 million heads, and a broiler processing complex with two slaughter lines with a capacity of 14,000 heads per hour each, which also includes a technical products workshop and its own biological processing facilities. In 2021, 157 millions de chickens were raised at the poultry farm 281 thousand tons of poultry meat were produced and it employed more than 3,000 people.

Youri Kosyuk

Yuriy Kosyuk is the founder and main shareholder of MHP, along with part of his family and a few minority shareholders and is one of the richest men in Ukraine. According to Forbes (2024), his fortune is approximately $1 billion.

Like all major business leaders in countries that experienced major waves of privatization after the end of bureaucratic socialism, Yuriy Kosyuk has maintained close ties with the new political establishment. Before Zelensky's election (2019), Kosyuk had ties to previous governments, notably that of Petro Poroshenko and, before that, Viktor Lanoukovy. He kept his distance during the Revolution of Dignity, the massive protest movement that took place in Ukraine between November 2013 and February 2014, in response to then-President Viktor's decision Lanoukovy to suspend the signing of the Association Agreement with the European Union (EU), choosing instead to move closer to Russia.

His relationship with President Volodymyr Zelensky is said to be a mix of pragmatic cooperation and tensions. In 2021, Zelensky passed a controversial law aimed at curbing the power of oligarchs, but Kosyuk was not officially included on the list.

The company is also listed on the London Stock Exchange. In 2022, MHP reported a 30% drop in revenue due to the war, although it partially recovered in 2023.

European aid

MHP has been a major beneficiary of European Union policies toward Ukraine, particularly in terms of food security financing and preferential trade access. In 2022, the EBRD provided MHP with an initial loan of $50 million to ensure food security and maintain chicken and grain production during the war, and in 2023, an additional loan of €30 million to compensate for logistical losses and convert factories to renewable energy (biogas).

In 2013, the European Investment Bank granted it a loan of 100 million dollars "to support the expansion and diversification of the group." Without specifying the final use of the funds, the EBRD noted in the same press release the acquisition of "an agricultural group located in the Voronezh region, in central Russia. Voronezh Agro owns 40,000 hectares of land, most of which belongs to the company, and operates grain silos with a total storage capacity of 200,000 m³." 

In 2014, after the annexation of Crimea and Western sanctions against Russia, MHP ceased its activities. According to Concorde-capital, citing its press releases, MHP announced an exchange with the 60,000 hectares owned by the Russian company Voronezh Agro in Ukraine.

The same source indicates that, following Russia's takeover of Crimea, MH's facilities in the region have come under the control of a Cypriot subsidiary.

In 2017, the EBRD provided a second €80 million loan to finance the modernization of chicken processing plants to meet EU food safety and sustainability standards and to expand grain storage capacity, as well as a further €50 million renewable energy credit line for the installation of biodigesters on poultry farms and for solar energy to reduce dependence on Russian gas. In addition, in coordination with the European Union, it included MHP in emergency food security programs, including debt refinancing, restructuring of previous loans to avoid defaults, and export guarantees. 

Other investments outside Ukraine

In 2015, MHP established a subsidiary in Veenendaal, the Netherlands, in collaboration with the Dutch company Jan Zandbergen. This facility serves as a processing center for products destined for the European market, allowing MHP to control and manage its exports from the EU. The investment was made at a cost of €3.5 million.

In 2018, MHP acquired Perutnina Ptuj , the leading poultry producer in Slovenia, with operations in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and commercial offices in Austria, Macedonia and Romania. This acquisition allows MHP to strengthen its presence in Central and Eastern Europe and its activities in this sector and in animal feed.

In 2024, MHP acquired 7 more poultry farms, this time in Albania and Kosovo. 

Following Poultryworld magazine, MHP would have launched, in collaboration with the FavBet Group, known by the local public for its sports betting business, a large-scale project aimed at building 2 giga-poultry farms in Croatia, with the objective of reaching 90 millions of chickens annually, 200.000 tonnes of chicken per year and 3.500 workers. For the project leaders, it goes without saying that they should be assured of the support of institutional investors such as the EBRD, the EIB or and the Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Some sources are talking about European funding, which could cover 60 % of the cost of the operation.

What kind of agriculture do we want? 

MHP's trajectory and its arrival in Europe raise an important first question: what kind of agriculture do we want in Europe? The MHP model is that of a large-scale agricultural enterprise, undoubtedly profitable, but also more vulnerable to epidemics and supply chain disruptions such as those we have experienced with COVID, the war in Ukraine, or the blockage of the Suez Canal.

In the approval given by the Slovenian authorities in 2018, MHP stated that "the company is taking a strategic step with this expansion... and is committed to improving the quality of Perutnina's production, in order to meet the strictest European standards. This cooperation will benefit local farmers and employees with an impact on the local poultry industry ..."

This is a statement almost identical to the one that MHP representatives have just made in Spain following the acquisition of UVESA. 

Polish and Hungarian farmers, meanwhile, accused MHP of "flooding" their markets with cheap chicken, thanks to tariff exemptions, which led the European Union to impose temporary restrictions on the import of certain Ukrainian products in 2023.

What agriculture do we support with taxpayers' money?

The Spanish government had few tools to oppose the UVESA transaction, even if it involved a majority stake, without there being any risk of a dominant position, and therefore, even less, of abuse of a dominant position.

Rather, one might wonder whether it is wise for public funds, largely European and always insufficient compared to needs, to be invested in companies of this size at the risk of generating overbidding synonymous with unfair competition with already existing European companies. The document containing the results of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture and the European Commission's "Vision for Agriculture and Food" both underline the importance of coherence between the different European policies and the need to strengthen their synergies.

When we talk about supporting Ukrainian agriculture, when we talk about showing our solidarity with the Ukrainian people, do we mean these types of businesses? 

Does a company that continues to export massively, that is able to continue operating and making money despite the closure of the Black Sea ports (later partially reopened with UN approval) and that uses land routes to Europe via Poland and Romania, despite their higher costs, need help from European taxpayers? 

Today we are talking about the EIB and the EBRD. But with Ukraine joining the European Union tomorrow, do we want the 370.000 hectares of MHP to benefit from CAP subsidies?

In a context of budgetary austerity, is it acceptable to reduce aid to today's (mainly family) European farmers to finance these businesses, both through direct aid and investment aid, even if it is to finance compliance with European standards, as the EIB has already done? Isn't it more logical to think that these businesses can self-finance these investments? 

As the European poultry organisation "AVEC" has just pointed out, is it not more logical to prohibit funding for this type of development ?