3.1.2. Application of the Methodology in Business Interactions

In 2011, En+ Group/EuroSibEnergo Company, the largest private hydropower producer in Russia, announced plans to build a Transsibirskaya (Shilkinskaya) hydropower dam on the Shilka River. The company sought to diversify its business, which was primarily focused on aluminum production, and develop energy projects targeting the Chinese market and investors. The local population, as well as regional scientists and environmentalists, strongly opposed the proposed construction of a dam on the Shilka River, partly because this project had previously been proposed in the 1990s and its environmental impact assessment had shown significant negative impacts. WWF-Russia and other CSOs assisted local Russian stakeholders in developing a basin-wide campaign to communicate the potential effects and solicit feedback from civil society and local authorities in the five provinces of Russia along the Amur River [58]. To manage the conflict, the company decided to start a dialogue with civil society about sustainable hydropower options. In 2012, WWF-Russia and the En+ Group launched a research project to look into the potential for hydropower development in the Amur basin. The ultimate goal of the strategic assessment was to identify hydropower dam location options with the fewest environmental impacts for the whole Amur basin and the maximum social and economic benefit to the region. A list of 43 possible dam locations in the basin was determined, and potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the development on the region were analyzed.

The environmental part of the research assessed the condition of freshwater ecoregions, and one finding was that preservation of the unaltered Shilka ecoregion is essential for sustaining the ecological health of the Amur basin. The Transsibirskaya dam proposed on the Shilka River would increase the negative integral impact on the basin by 16% (see "Scenario actual, add Transsibirskaya" in Figure 6). In comparison, two additional dams on the Zeya and Bureya rivers would generate 20% more energy than the Transsibirskaya dam, but add only 4% to the integral impact on the Amur basin (see "Scenario actual, add low" in Figure 6). The assessment findings demonstrated that the increase in potential negative environmental impacts may differ by more than 10 times for development scenarios with the same additional electricity production. Dam location is the most decisive factor defining cumulative impacts on a basin scale. The best mitigation is to choose sites by using strategic assessments of the basin-wide plan and avoiding, at all costs, the development of sites that result in substantial basin-wide impacts. Existing high-impact dams severely limit the opportunities for further low-impact hydropower development and sustainable integrated water resources management.

The socioeconomic part attempted to assess the economic efficiency of the project: average prevented flood damage, macroeconomic budget efficiency, changes in employment, number of people resettled, changes in navigation conditions and turnover, losses to architectural heritage and archaeological sites, changes in fisheries, flooding, and economic flooding of objects. The socioeconomic part found that the existing Zeya and Bureya hydropower plants provide the biggest socioeconomic benefits compared to the other possible options. Among those possible dams, the Transsibirskaya dam along with the hydropower dam on the Lower Zeya and the Upper Bureya was listed as the next best option. However, the En+ Group stated that the joint assessment showed that the Transsibirskaya dam is an unbalanced/unsustainable option [44], and the company has not pursued this dam development any further.

According to the NCEA, this group is the first team of researchers and practitioners to document the process and outcomes of an SEA-like exercise carried out in real-life situations in partnership with a commercial company, without major involvement and mediation from state authorities. This makes the case study unique when compared to several other hydropower-related SEA cases that have been documented to date [11].

#### 3.1.3. Interaction with Other Stakeholders and Further Policy Dialogue

The draft WWF&En+ Group basin-wide strategic environmental assessment report was subjected to a thorough review by local experts and representatives of various agencies. Their written comments and recommendations on the draft report were compiled and published with response matrices as an intrinsic part of the final assessment document. Besides the immediate value for the study and confirmation of its appropriateness and technical validity, such reviews played an important role in legitimizing, in the eyes of policy-makers, the results of an environmental assessment that had been initiated between an NGO and a private company and not sanctioned by authorities or academia. The company opted not to subject the economic part of the assessment to a similar review procedure, but published it with comments only from the members of the environmental assessment team.

At the same time, WWF-Russia and the En+ Group decided not to subject the report to public consultation with the local population because of the immense complexity of organizing it over the whole basin, which covers five provinces in Russia. Since the report was prepared in the Russian language, there was no formal involvement of stakeholders from China in its review either. The Rivers without Boundaries Coalition developed a summary of findings in English and shared it with relevant potential investors, including the China Yangtze Power and China Three Gorges corporations [59].

The same methodology of basin-wide hydropower assessment was applied to communicate with Russian and Chinese actors the potential impacts from a plan to develop 5–8 flood-control hydropower dams that had emerged in the aftermath of catastrophic flooding in the Amur basin in 2013. The CSOs argued that the proposed reservoirs had limited value for flow augmentation in comparison to existing natural floodplains [60], while the cumulative environmental impact from their development would be quite substantial [61]. By 2019, none of these flood control dam projects had progressed, and they are unlikely to re-emerge in the near future.

This was the first SEA-like methodology applied to basin-wide hydropower planning in Russia that received societal acceptance from various stakeholder groups, thus creating an important basis for future use of SEAs in water resources management in the country. To the best of the team's knowledge, this was also the first assessment focused on transboundary basins shared by China, and (although they did not actively participate) Chinese corporate stakeholders informed us that they used its results to inform their investment decisions.

#### *3.2. Establishment of the Wildlife Refuge in the Area of Proposed Hydropower Development*

In parallel with the basin-wide assessment described above, the local government, WWF-Russia, the Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, and scientists undertook assessments and negotiations to establish a wildlife refuge. In 2015, the Verkhneamursky (Upper Amur) Wildlife Refuge, with an area of 239,639 ha, was established along the Shilka, Argun, and Amur rivers [62], covering three sites previously identified as suitable for the construction of large hydropower reservoirs. One of the proposed sites was the Transsibirskaya dam, as shown in Figure 7.

The new protected area covered the potential dam building sites on both the Shilka River and Upper Amur River, and specific regulations for this wildlife refuge establishment made the future planning and development of water infrastructure illegal. To open these sites for development, the provincial government would have to undertake specific painstaking bureaucratic procedures (e.g., assessments, public consultations) to modify the legal protection regime or boundaries of the protected area, which may also serve as an additional deterrent for potential investors.

Unlike strategic environmental assessments, the procedure of creating a wildlife refuge in Russia includes mandatory public consultations with local communities. Such discussions were held in the Mogochinsky District of Zabaikalsky Province in 2015 and resulted in modification of the intended protection regime to accommodate specific traditional uses by local communities, such as hunting and fishing. Given strong opposition against dam construction on the Shilka River among local people, as well as fears of forest devastation as a consequence of the Chinese-built Amazarsky pulp mill [63], the idea to establish a vast nature reserve along the major rivers gained wide popular support.

**Figure 7.** Map of the Verkhneamusky (Upper Amur) Wildlife Refuge and the potential Transsibirskaya dam site. © WWF-Russia.
