Thank you very much that lays the framework for us. Now we have a 40 minutes of time for the panel discussions We start with the questions that are laid on the screen for us there How can green infrastructure take up be fostered to address hydro morphological modifications as well as floods and drought risks? Let's please try to keep our answers to the suggestions that are given in the blueprint and I will start with Xavier Thank you very much You hear me, yeah, okay, that's okay. Thank you very much for giving the floor Hello everybody, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you today and have in the debate at this table about this very important question As I am the representant of hydro power at this table, maybe I don't have the easiest place But I'll try to speak with you about hydro morphological impact of hydro power and the issue of the quality and quantity measurement of water First I would like to say that in my organization and I think now in most of hydro power organization We totally agree with the goal of working in a more and more resource efficient way and in building an economy Sustainable economy regarding water issue It's now understood as a very important issue among most of the people and most of the company in the water field And it's important to say that first For example, we have an international hydro power association EHA We box with which work a lot about the sustainable hydro power and which stress upon this question of hydromorpho morphological question regarding hydro power schemes and last year in Marseille during the World Water Forum We lead it an initiative Around the water what we call the water energy food and animal and environment nexus to deal with this question I think it's very important. It's a very important but also very difficult and tricky issue Quite a lot has already been done in this question in the framework of the first water framework directive River machine management Plantation river morphology restoration has been highly challenged and various requirements regarding the improvement of water morphology have been made across Europe This includes riverbank restoration Our reinforcements remandering where removal Rival dynamics modification and sediment continuity restoration Through both structural and water management measures. It's included of course also fish migration Work such as fish passes and fish lifts which are very important in our in our jobs So and among the solution We have the conviction that green infrastructure and especially a natural water retention measures and the restoration of riverbank And the restoration of sediment continuity are important parts of the solution But even if several things have already been done all this measure require a high level of knowledge of Hydrogeical hydro morphological and geomorphological Processes but also biological and ecosystems Processes and we need to better understand all this knowledge and to better understand the interrelationship between this question and it's a quite tricky issue of course and we feel That there is still lack of knowledge and in the interrelationship between these questions Thus R&D and experimentation is still necessary and this is the first point. I would I would like to stress upon today The second question is prioritization We have probably a lot to do on many river basins in Europe on many river basins in Europe across Europe in many countries probably in all countries in Europe on this question and the way To prioritize some measures more than others is in my opinion a very important question First we have a question about cost benefits and the cost efficiency of the measures Of course, we can do a lot But the question of the prioritization I said that and the question of cost efficiency and cost benefit of the measure We've with we start. It's a key question. So I think we have to address This question of X and R&D the question of prioritization and the question of cost benefit and cost efficiency of the measures if we want to succeed and if we want to have Results and good results and good reason for water in a quite couple of years developing technical and scientific collaboration between operators regulators and many stakeholders in sediment research program on experimental basins Where morphological restoration has to be challenged is probably the best way to progress and to fill the gap Between the lack of knowledge and the need to best assess the effectiveness and the appropriateness of the measure That's why we propose that we launch and we select some river basins to be experimental zone and that we launch Medistic order initiative between all the stakeholders of the river basins and of course the regulators and the operators to test and act in a real way in this question of hydromorphological question and Finally, I will finish with concluding remark in fact We are we are speaking of green infrastructure and we are convinced that green infrastructure is part of the solution an important part of the solution But we can also look at this question at this issue in another way and we could wonder whether classical infrastructure Can be used and seen in a greener way, but used in a greener way That means integrated in the river management River basins management system that could permit and allow to use classical infrastructure in a more greener and more respectful way regarding water Saying that I think about of course Multipurpose hydro scheme, which were not always designed at the beginning to be multipurpose hydro skin But can be used as multipurpose hydro skin were good good integrated in the river basins management plans and they have a lot of use and Benefits to bring Regarding water for our environment water for agriculture and every needs about water and of course water for our environment And that's and of course they can use big use also for droughts management plans So I think we have part of the solution in green Infrastructure of course and we are part of the solution in using in another way classical infrastructure. Thank you very much Thank you very much Xavier Each of our panelists are practitioners in different areas and so we'll get some responses from The panel members will run down the panel now with about two or three minute responses Obviously a big call for R&D now, but in some cases I think some of the people on the panel might say we've we've done a lot of analysis on existing river basins Yeah, thank you very much and as was said at the outset. I'm not Marcus Samona and He represents an institution very different than the one that I represent which is the International Commission for the Protection of the Daniel River But it's not so different in the sense of what we would say and in fact I read the statement that he would give here. He comes from the navigation sector the waterway Administration in Austria, which also has responsibility under what is called the Danube strategy for the promotion of navigation in your region the Message that I would give is going to be the same because we've had a very intensive dialogue process together for the last six seven years Where representatives from the environment sector and the hydro are sorry the navigation sector have discussed together how? improvements in navigation can come about at the same time as in improvement of the environmental conditions and As you see from the statement that Marcus has given in the written statement in the Meeting documents is it is possible to have win-win scenarios. It is possible for sectors to be integrated It is possible to achieve green infrastructure Infrastructure that is developed to improve navigation at the same time improves the Environmental conditions and meets the the goals of the water framework directive the process that we have undertaken led to a Document called the joint statement on guiding principles for development of inland navigation and environmental protection and the main elements of that were it had to involve the all the actors and Basically agreeing with one another on what were the principles under which development can happen how can these kind of win-win scenarios be developed and Critical about that is it is a process that involved all stakeholders There are very very important examples in the Danube region where this has been applied An area just downstream of Vienna where I live where the improvements in navigation are actually funding the restoration of the National Park The river restoration Activities because of the deepening of the riverbed is not good for navigation And it's not good for the National Park because a floodplain forest is drying out the measures proposed are ones that should achieve both This process I think is one that is possible over a variety of sectors We've initiated now a similar process and now I'm not speaking for Marcus But with the hydro power sector the similar kind of dialogue And if I could give one sort of plea at the end of this statement It is that I think one of the critical things that has been needed It is people from the water sector To make sure that the other sectors know you have a river basin management plan and to make them aware of that and to allow Them to integrate it as was said earlier in the integration discussion into their thinking and their activities this green Infrastructure will only happen if they have from our side the water side the Statement of what is important to us what needs to be achieved and I can say from the dialogue with the navigation sector That has been very positively received that information and we have very good examples in countries such as Romania, which is represented here Croatia, which is also here and also non EU member states such as Serbia Which are now doing those activities to integrate together But the critical element was to go to them with the river basin management plans so that they can adjust their plans to what we need in terms of the water quality I Just have a very quick follow-up question. What kind of policies would promote this type of dialogues? This is what we're discussing now Now the the policies are The ones in place is the river basin management plan exists the the critical thing I think is the point that mr. Hoitzvat made earlier is that the funding schemes at the EU level have to be Recognizing the river basin management plans have to be not Contradicting with those and quite frankly the biggest challenge that we had in the Danube region related to this was to ensure that DG Regio DG environment and DG move we're talking to one another. It's actually not such a major policy initiative needed It's a simply a matter of establishing relationships between people who need to talk with one another Very good. Elster Thank you Well, it's quite strange for me to be here today as I don't normally work at this sort of policy level But at an implementing level trying to implement a lot of these policies on the ground And I think that's quite interesting for you to hear some of the problems that we have and I'd like to start off with a Response really to some of Xavier's comments about hydropower and I'd certainly like to add my voice to the to the call for for more knowledge in this area and it's very interesting to hear that coming from the energy sector because You know despite a lack of knowledge the development of hydropower across Europe Progresses as an alarming rate and You know the industry acknowledges this as you've heard and particularly the the March of micro and mini hydropower with questionable sustainability and We find that this permanently compromises our ability to deliver good ecological status on the ground So we do need to find a way of properly assessing these projects And looking at the real-cost benefits in terms of communities and society at large before continuing this and of course this is this is further Supported by the problems in bringing together the different policies of energy and carbon with those of water which have already been mentioned this morning and we often find that the people talk about win-wins in terms of navigation and Hydropower, but often those those win-wins are rarely that they they're always compromises for the ecology So we do need to invest more time in properly looking at the true ecosystem value of our natural processes in rivers And I would also like to say that this this whole question of green infrastructure And being able to use green infrastructure to address hydro more morphological Modifications is not a simple one It's not just a case of taking a bunch of green infrastructure projects and throwing them at a map of a river It's not a simple if issue and if we don't do this correctly At best we will not deliver on our promises and waste a lot of money But at worst we could actually add to flood and drought problems It this requires technically competent people working on the ground in watersheds engaged in Accurate identification of key ecosystem processes and those those processes which do support society and economy And development of paid ecosystem services roots for actually funding Landowners communities local authorities to change their practice for the benefit of society at large Thank You David Well, we've heard quite a bit about How to progress with ecosystem restoration, which of course is very important But I would like to highlight another aspect and that is to maintain the green infrastructure that we still have and This is why we is a wwf but also together with other NGOs We are promoting a strategic approach for example for hydropower planning where we first map and assess those Areas those sections of the rivers and parts of the freshwater ecosystems that play an essential role for the overall system For example that are still supplying bad load for River sections and further down maybe that that hosts some endemic species Where we have to really maintain this this area so but also of course to to take into consideration Areas that are already highlighted and for the ecological importance such as high ecological and stages river stretches, but also Fresh water natural 2000 areas So once we have mapped those areas that are really important for the overall system for biodiversity for ecosystem services For maintaining or for achieving and the objectives of the water framework directive Then we can identify those areas where we think Hydropower development should not take place simply because the risk is too high These are areas that are too precious to to to put at risk This is by the way Also a call that that we already heard in May 2010 coming from the you water directors They called for the designation of no-go areas or exclusion zones So we think that is very important, but of course besides those no-go areas We should also identify river sections that still deserve special Protection even if they are not maybe completely to be kept free of of hydropower development. So this is Something we believe is the only way really to cope with this pressure that is coming from development It was just mentioned especially from from small and hydro small and micro hydropower Projects that are in the pipeline. It is simply impossible. We believe for authorities to evaluate Each of these projects individually. So by by having this so nation in place decisions will be we will be become much easier and We will have a much higher chance to achieve the the the objectives that that we have that that the water framework directive has said but of course also other biodiversity Policies of the European Union. That's by the way something that we are missing a bit in the in the blueprint. This is sort of highlight also just the The need for for efficiency reasons to integrate better objectives of of birds and habitats directive But also of the the EO biodiversity strategy. We just talked about Restoration flat-burn restoration river restoration that can really help us to to Come closer to the goal of of restoring 15 percent of of ecosystem So why not why not better integrate those objectives and of course also implementation plans? About funding alignment. We are very happy to see that that focus in the blueprint Maybe just to highlight. This is not just about the direct payments Not about the it's it's when you talk about the common agricultural policy It's it's both about the first and the second pillar. So how to spend direct payments be believed that that water framework Directive objectives need to be become part of of the cross compliance But of course as was already men pointed out also sufficient funding and from from the the second pillar And maybe as a as a last thought We are glad that the the lack of application or proper application of the article 4.7 Is mentioned the blueprint? We also believe that if there's better Application we we would have much less problems But of course the question is how to achieve that and this is where we we think the Blueprint leaves us with a big question mark There is it is mentioned that transparency is is one way of Must be part of the solution and just to give you an example In the in the den you base and I mean first of all we also surprised about how little Projects actually are being Are undergoing are being announced to undergoing? Article 4.7 assessment, but even if they do we don't have access to the information So I mean how can we how can we get an impression? What are the weaknesses of such a study of article 4.7 assessment, but also how can can countries? Learn from each other how to improve the the the application In order to to make this article really working and do what it is supposed to do and that is doing in some Very well-grounded cases to allow for for an exception But many cases also just to to to show to make clear that other options are there and then To promote this this other path Yeah, thank you Thank you very much. We spent quite a bit of time on the first question, but that's the largest question I think in the interest of time We will combine the last two questions because they're both on abstraction and ecological flow, so Is implementing the notion of ecological flow have to deal with the over abstraction problem and what about illegal abstraction? Maybe we start from the center and start with Alistair Yes, just a quick few comments on ecological flows and it's I think the notion of protecting ecological flows, you know, it's not not a particularly new one We've been using hands-off flows and other terms for this for quite some time but Referring to it in the blueprint and so on is very helpful But I'm concerned that that my understanding or an ecologist's understanding of environmental flows is different from those of decision-makers and engineers They often just want to them me to give them a number Which we can start to negotiate around our understanding of ecological flow requirement Requirements limits our ability to properly set standards minimum flow is only part of the story for ecology Ecology also needs high flows and they need proper timing of flow and that changes with man-made infrastructure and natural variability Ecological flows are often enshrined in inflexible political and legal agreements Which will cause difficulties with the changing needs of society and ecology Rivers on the other hand are dynamic and we need dynamic management to reflect this The setting of ecological flows now with water resources and their ecology already highly impacted reinforces the shifting baseline rather than aspiring to improve ecological status for future generations which is critical to the implementation of European and international legislation and agreement on sustainability and Finally the use of ecological flows often contradicts the biological understanding that we need to restore natural processes in our environment For the long-term sustainability of natural resources which impact fisheries agriculture flood and coastal management So I think it's great that we are seeing Environmental flows being proposed quite widely But we must remember that the use of this tool is a compromise and not a solution to facilitate facilitate increased development My question then to the other panelists as well as is this a good compromise I mean we we know we've all said that we don't know enough about ecological flows So is this a compromise that needs to be made in order for Action to happen immediately. So I give it to you Renan Well, I mean the question is what what what do how do we identify action? I mean, it's clear that in order to really achieve Ecological flow we we have to embark on a long process. I mean the first step, of course is The the to deploy scientific knowledge Expertise to define what is the ecological flow at a certain Location, but then of course we we also need then to the countries need to identify How to to actually implement that together with stakeholders also here A thorough stakeholder involvement process is important also that takes time then how to to integrate it in into the the current Policy framework some countries they they have traditionally historically given very long term Permits, so how to change how to adjust that so it's it's clear that what is most important is to have the political will To have a clear roadmap and then to take it step by step The the cross-border aspect is certainly also important here That's maybe something that that is sometimes forgotten also that of course needs needs time needs space I'm too to negotiate ecological flows across borders and Well, should I also know we talk about the the over obstruction is well when I'm just talking because I'm yeah over abstraction Was there another question to be discussed? I'm afraid I have to Turn to the the classic classical example of Spain simply because the the database here is quite good I mean just to to remind the audience what we are talking about about one-sixth of the irrigated area in Spain Is actually irrigated with with water without permits There are about half a million Illegal wells in Spain, so this this is a mind-boggling dimension and also that is clear that that we cannot solve that over night Using applying gmes is certainly a very important part of the solution, but without political will to to then also enforce legislation and and also come up for example with with with Punishment system that that really bites We will probably I mean the just having earned an increased knowledge about where illegal abstractions taking place is not enough so also that is a is a comprehensive process and Preferably should should also be complemented with other Measures and such as a labeling system that shows consumers which products have been grown with water where Proper permit was in place We in Europe we have a growing awareness among our consumers So let's let's also give consumers the choice and and give the the right incentives Thank you You're in it Phil huh Yeah, thank you very much these the issue of Ecological flow as I think has been said earlier is a political process. It's not a One that involves the necessity of having people dialogue together But there is the the first step in that that is needed is the water balance understanding the system and I think the hydropower Presentation you heard earlier Indicated that there is research needed Quite frankly I was a little bit shocked at how many river basins didn't have adequate monitoring systems in place without an adequate monitoring system You can't begin to do this work and there seems to be some Necessary groundwork that needs to happen on a variety of different river basins and in the different circumstances and the Monitoring of the system getting a water balance is absolutely critical to being able to take the next step Which I agree is a a political decision But I would certainly advocate that from the water side. We need to define what is Ecologically possible and able to be done within some sort of degrees of magnitude in order to decisions to be made by other actors The important thing here is that the hydropower sector needs this water balance It also needs this information the navigation sector needs it the same way We have a combined interest I think in making sure that this research and this information is available and we have an interest in coming together to determine how the allocations and the mechanisms of deciding how the flows are to be Utilized can be be undertaken This is a process that has to be combined certainly my own sense from the issue of sediments We the issue of sediment management is also one that is again affecting Hydropower it's also an important part of the ecological processes and these two issues are areas where there seems to be a great deal of Groundwork that needs to be done that can allow these Decision-making processes on ecological flow to take place But the implementing of the notion seems a positive step, and I think the blueprint advocating for that is a good thing Whether it solves the over obstruction problem or not I can't say but it certainly will be a step in the right direction and as far as the last issue of to tackle illegal Obstractions if it's illegal it shouldn't happen period, but there's not much to discuss. I think about that and to make sure that it actually The enforcement takes place Yeah, maybe a short word about the ecological flow. Of course, it's an important issue a good very important question It has been said in many Commentation of many countries in Europe. It's a number We decide in this river. We we need to to to have a X cubic meter per second, and it's the geological flow. Of course, it's not relevant Of course, it doesn't correspond to the needs of ecosystems And of course it doesn't come from a scientific approach and a multistakeholder approach So we first need to have this scientific and multistakeholder approach to to appreciate What is the ecological flow and it has to do with water management? Of course, it can't be a single number It depends on the season. It depends of the ecosystem needs. So it's not a single number It's it's something to be integrated in water management. I'm convinced about that And I think it could be connected with an initiative we took last year We took the initiative to elaborate what what we call at this time It's not maybe the correct name the water footprint of Electricity generation and we take the initiative to elaborate the water footprint for electricity generation and to to measure and manage it And it won't be a single number also. So we're not interested in knowing how many how much water we use we know that so it's not a question of volume, but it's a question of Knowing what is the impact of electricity generation on water quality? It's knowing the impact on scarcity It's not the same to store water when you have water and to release it when we are you are in a scarcity period Than to do the the reverse So we want to build a water footprint who would be relevant regarding seasonal arrival of water and quality of water and I think An approach of ecological flow could be connected with this water footprint approach would could lead in Indicators and means to approach the question of flow release in for the ecosystem in river Basin management plans Thank you. I think it's time now to open it up to the floor for discussion You've heard from our our panel members So we'll start a discussion about a 40 minutes discussion from the floor Please when you ask a question or make a statement, please state your name and the where you are from and Try to concentrate on the question of are the policy measures in the water blueprint enough Are they a step in the right direction or what else needs to be added to the blueprint? Thank you Hello, my name is Michael Bender. I'm from general NGO Gruny Liga and also today here for environmental Bureau and First make a general comment on the blueprint environmental NGOs are very much welcoming the findings of the blueprint in general and It's we also identified the issue of the policy coherence as one of the major obstacles for WFD implementation and this of course is Commentals of the European Commission through European Parliament and the member states as a voice of the member states is heard in the council decisions And I want to make a more concrete comment on the first question And that is of course We have to make sure that natural water retention measures like buffer strips wetlands Restored floodplains must be included in the ecological focal areas in cap Pella one and Not only in pillar two We only included in pillar two then we end up with a few positive pilot projects whereas the whole situation as a Is does not improve or is even deteriorating so in terms of budgetary pressures we need to ensure that public money supports public goods. Thank you Thank you very much for the comment So cap pillar one and two should be included not one or the other Further questions or comments David. Hi David Zetlin from Vaca Degun University I'm sorry that the Spanish representative has left us But perhaps I don't know Marta someone else can explain this to me And I'm gonna say Spain as a representative country because we have statistics with Spain But we know that this is the over abstraction is happening in other countries, but I'm quite curious about why The Spanish government the regional governments are so good at tracking subsidies in terms of receiving income But so bad at tracking water consumption, and I'm wondering if the departments of accounting can maybe switch staff to To to to reconcile this discrepancy and and more pointedly. I'm wondering and I brought this up to other people before You know this there's a subsidiarity question and this conference is probably going to be balancing on that question quite a bit But if Spain won't and I'm using Spain again as a representative country There are other countries if Spain won't meet their obligations under the water framework directive Is that the EU's? obligation to step in and and essentially do manage Spain's business and if that's so is it possible to link the money that Spain and Spanish farmers are getting from the cap to Meeting the obligations of sustainable water management. I know this is a political question, but This is a political conference, right? So when is this going to happen and If we have the third and fourth of these meetings and it never happens and it never happens because Spain doesn't have enough money I'm not quite sure if this ever going to get resolved. So how do we go about this? Thank you. I think that's a good question for us to ponder and that's one of the one of the questions That's being considered with the cap one and cap two proposals of the integration So let's we can consider that for a while too, please Thank you, your job guy from a global water partnership Hungary. I would like to refer to to Phil's comment that No illegal connection illegal water abstraction Should be made or or simply Bending illegal water abstraction. It is it is a bit more complicated problem because very often people Create illegal wells not because they simply want to steal water, but because of over complicated legislation and and issuing the permits see are usually and not not so simple also because of Non-awareness of of the of the harm they they create. So I think that the What is written in the blueprint about? about about water accounts and Also education awareness raising can help to solve this problem. There are many many facets of this problem That's I want To point out. Thank you And your response Phil Yeah, I think it's I stand by what I said earlier if it's illegal. It's illegal and there has to be a mechanism to Yeah, ensure that what is illegal is simply not done period regardless of whatever the reasons behind it It may be that programs need to be developed to to support ensuring that that's the the case but the Acknowledgement that it is illegal should be the first I would say to step in that process Okay, we have two questions in the back Far the back there. Yep. Yeah, please Um, I'm conchita Marquillo from FedEx Spain and I'm sorry to be here maybe I Have no political position Here because I don't think it's a the political issue is Wednesday. I think Well, what are the actors meet but I can Tell something about this statement in the in the communication from the Commission It was quite surprising because I think that the Spain is not the only problem in the blueprint apart from not having reported the plans, but it's the question of problems of The water planning are much more in Europe rather than illegal abstraction of Spain And as the global water water partnership said the the question of the does well it's a question of legal enforcement and to have a legal Probably to have for the legal points on the table. I mean there are some Permits that have to be Issued I think in the right time so it's a think more much more a question of enforcement and Taking a streamlined with all the legal provisions for water abstractions And I would very welcome to a discussing these over extraction problems the question of metering Enforcement of metering in other basins enforcement of metering in in other water issues uses agricultural and Urban water as well so This is my point Just one minute does anybody want to respond on the issue of over abstracting anybody from the panel want to respond and The over abstraction issue and whether the monitoring mechanism that's been proposed is enough I think on a legal abstraction If we all consider that this is one of the problems that we have to tackle perhaps Let's say we need to see how we tackle because it's very Easy to say well it shouldn't exist and that's it but perhaps it's good to know why in Certain areas it has arrived a situation that a legal extraction is spread out Why this has happened which are the mechanism behind this and then try to solve the problem analyzing this Because in many situations this a legal extraction is not overnight I mean this is practices that have been happening for decades in some areas so Very spread out the gates Normally is areas where you have let's say social problems. Let's call this way. So Let's analyze all the prep all the prep behind this Areas that in some cases there is cap funds, but in some areas there are not cap funds behind this So I think analyzing this we will be able to provide some solutions because Normally in areas where there is a legal extraction is not that easy to change this tendency from one day to another We should change these tendencies So it's important that we analyze why we arrived to this and which are the mechanism that could be put in place in order to Account the EU's nature directives and they use by diversity strategy because if we don't see integration on that also for what concerns restoration of ecosystems and And and a push also from the Commission throughout the policies that it will be very difficult to meet the objectives of these directives as well and a small point on water obstruction and political will political will Comes very difficulty on issues that are well established and have been the best practice for a very long time or the bad Practice if you wish, so I think the the European Commission has a very clear role there in in actually pushing member states to Put the practice and enforce the directly the directive like they should and it's not just a case of discussing and analyzing some at some point we have to Stop analyzing and just make sure we enforce the law and Another point is that also clear from the panel today Like the water framework directive Also the blueprint seems to take and to discuss a lot more about countries that have big river systems lots of water and looks less at countries like Cyprus for example that has Water systems that are often seasonal We don't have hydropower. We don't have navigation But we do have many ecosystems that depend on water and these are often starved from water because Practically all the rivers have been downed in Cyprus in this very little water ending up in the sea So I think these are elements that also have to be looked at from a European perspective because they are true problems that that countries in the south and Drought area counters have to face and Finally for what concerns the the ecological flow. Yes It's important to know more and I absolutely agree with them with a Gentleman from the rivers trust that we have to know when to let the ecological flow the timing is important The ecological conditions are important, but at the same time we should not use the fact that we don't know Everything to postpone action forever on this thing because there are ecosystems that really need this water And we have to take the action to let the water through. Thank you Thank you. I have a line up of four more questions somebody from the middle on the on this side was No, no more Okay, then up here on the front Thank you. I said gamer roses. My name. I'm also from WWF and just a quick comment and Question to the panel The comment we and this is referring to the legal abstraction that we were talking about and I understand it's complicated But things really need to be done and one of the particular tools at our disposal is common agricultural policy reform That is being discussed at the moment and one of the very clear Recommendations one of the clear tools there is Including some of the provisions like having a permit to abstract water legally into the cross-compliance regime This is exactly what it is designed for and that's one of the mechanisms that can help enforce And unsolved some of the impossibility together with other measures as well but it can be a very useful mechanism as well including this in the cross-compliance and then the the Pressure that we are getting The discussion level of discussion in the council and in the parliament for example on this Worrying sort of also to sound the earlier discussion we had in the first panel. So it's really not clear We have a very clear tool that can help But the decision-makers are really not Agreeing to take it forward. Thank you Okay in the back over here part of the back. Yes me. Yeah My name is Jeremy Biggs. I'm from the NGO pond conservation I'm also here from the European Environmental Bureau. I Would like to raise one general policy issue, which is that of small waters Small waters by which I mean headwaters small streams small lakes less than 50 hectares ditch systems and the millions of ponds across the continent are largely Ignored in the directive at the moment in water policy yet. They are fundamental as you can read European environment agencies report There's a box on page 66 of their report They are fundamental for freshwater biodiversity and we know there's a crisis in freshwater biodiversity and They're also fundamental for ecosystem services So I'd like to suggest that we need to look at the directive and the blueprint in that context at ways of improving the policy for small waters The policy to answer your question the policy measures are not yet good enough for that I'd suggest we need some guidance on how best to tackle small waters which would operate at the European level and This is very interestingly appropriate just to the Cyprus comment We had a moment ago many of the Mediterranean countries also have a lot of small waters Which are very important for biodiversity, which are not well considered in the directive and We also need in policy terms some demonstration measures of what works to protect these waters Because our knowledge of the effectiveness of measures generally All measures is really rather poor at the moment and research I think many of you would be shocked by the lack of research evidence of measures which we're talking about in this room as effective Those research data are far weaker than you might imagine. That's true for small waters, but for many others, too And I'd also echo with respect to small waters the need to integrate water-framed directive policy and Habitats directive policy at present biodiversity policy and water policy often are not well integrated Thank you. Thank you very much very good suggestions. I had a question ran the front in the right here Yeah Yes, thanks. Hello, be out of any from the European environment agency and thanks to the to the colleague just speaking Yes, I would like to ask a little bit being shot on the ecological flows because this is really one very central part in terms of Focusing on an ecological target in a wider sense Close to that. I think it is not only about The ecological flow the minimum flow the volume it is about the whole flow regime So I haven't heard the word flow regime and when we are talking about flow regime. We are close to green infrastructure and the respective measures as well now I'm wondering as question now to the to the audience and How can we make sure that this flow regime is really in sense of a good ecological status covered in our further implementation of the water framework directive and Following the blueprint because I think this ecological target is absolutely important, but we need to take care. What is the Regional difference and the special specialities in the eco regions Do we maybe need some kind of intercalibration process? There's still a lot of science to be done as well How can we tackle that from your perspective as a river trust or as an NGO having experience in the Danube or with some of that rivers? Thank you And it's very important by the way for our session for because this is exactly the target we need for the allocation. Thanks I'll respond a little bit although. I'm not sure if I can help on the scale of the Danube the I Think hope when I was answering the question initially why by talking about timing of flows and size of flows and so on that I was sort of talking about flow regimes But and the other things we have to consider of course is with with hydrological flow There's also due more logical flow and bed load movement and so on what I'm really concerned about is constructing some kind of Equation for the engineers that says at this period in the month We need X amount of flow and so on so we start creating these artificial flow regimes that very quickly become detached from the actual ecological signal that we're trying to Ecological result that we're trying to produce how we get to that point. I don't know it's it's very difficult to see how green infrastructure can tackle some of the really big Dam issues that we have which you know completely obstruct a river or waterway Because you're always going to be disconnecting that bed load movement and so on so I don't have the answers I'm afraid but I do understand the issue so I think maybe me Maybe just just a short comment. I think we have Also a question of scientific approach and we need More investigation in the scientific field to understand what's going on But we also need to integrate it in in water management But not only in in books and so on we need to integrate in in water management and in the in the dialogue between the stakeholder of the in around the river and especially I would say between the people from hydro power navigation and so on and the people from the UNG or the people who know the river and who know the the operational ecological status of the river at this moment and in this dialogue which can be at a Daily or weekly or monthly frequency. I don't know we can speak and exchange views and Adapts our management to the ecological flow of the river and I mean it's more accurate to say Next month we need a little bit more or next month We need a little bit less less because it's important for the the ecological system that to say Every year you put 10 cubic meters a second in the river. It doesn't mean anything. That's what I meant Okay, please Yeah, yeah, my name is Gunnar Noreen. I'm coming from the coalition clean Baltic a network of 22 environmental NGOs in the Baltic catchment I would like to address this with the green infrastructure and something about de-trophication and water When it comes to green infrastructure, I think this discussion is important Of course wetlands and this can can in the agricultural landscape work as nutrient traps All so when this comes to reduction of nutrients, but we also have to see that we have contradicting policies here I know in the Baltic Sea region for example On the national level you give subsidies then to reconstruction of wetlands But you also give subsidies for ditching of wetlands So we have to deal with this first, you know before we can Really find a good green in infrastructure Yeah, on the other component on de-trophication solutions for waters and rivers and Baltic Sea where I on where it's one of the key Problems and that we have then 50% of the load or the nutrient comes from the agriculture sector So all this with solving a part of this again I would last just like to stress on it must be sold then in connection also with it with the cap subs It is on the cross compliance. So we must require a nutrient balanced fertilization We can have limit then for the Neutron surplus and we have one country in the Baltic Sea reading in Germany that put up limit for this 50 to 60 kilo nitrogen per hectare and year. So that's the best practice and Voluntary measures has so far not been working so we need to Work on on the cap subsidies because that will steer the farmers behavior and again Then I just repeat them say public money for public goods and we have to take it that way. Thank you Andrew, please Thank you I'm Andrew Farmer from the Institute for European environmental policy I just want to comment on the use of ecological flows And I fully agree with the complexity that Alistair Outlined but I just want to make a plea that we don't make the best the enemy of the good That In many river basins in Europe. There is very little information about Inputs and outputs to basins of flow Of water uses and what we need to do is start with a basic understanding of what The ecology of rivers How they're dependent on flows now that may be In a very limited way, but it begins the link between quantitative water understanding and Biological response and begins that understanding with the concept of ecological status And it also provides a good link with the objectives of the habitat straight different protection of sites and species under that directive as Information improves then we can become more intelligent in understanding all different aspects of the flow regime, but we need to be careful as the blueprint talks about developing guidance as The response on ecological flows that that guidance allows though those river basins which have a lot of information to take that forward and Use that intelligently to make good decisions on ecological objectives and water users And those which are starting with very little information to make the first steps and begin that process So moving all the different basins forward From the position that they're in at the moment So that I just make a plea That we you know move forward from the bases that we are at Okay, we were one response from the panel Alistair Andrew I do I do agree and I hope but that my comments weren't Sort of negative towards using environmental flows within the within the blueprint Which I think is a really important step forward and I do think that as avias comments on adaptive management are absolutely key that the problem that I see is how do we Integrate adaptive management in the kind of legal documents that always go with with protecting environmental flows You know suddenly you have something that's fixed that you can't then adapt And that I think is the real challenge is is you know how we break through that barrier because adaptive management is the key Okay question back consider Marquello Fedex I will have I welcome the issue on sediments that you've made before the EDF I think Because it's not a minor problem in Especially when there are a high regulated highly regulated rivers in a territory and I think that it is an issue of how this the alteration of the sediment regime affects the hydromophology of rivers and I would like to Make a point on the role that the GMEs could play on following sedimentation Apart from following other issues such as legal abstractions and so on so on but I think that GMEs in the communication Is quite as cute in this In this way of following abstractions when it's good a good potential for following a Trophication in reservoirs the trophication in rivers water quality and also we could have an effort to follow the monitoring of sediments and And also to enhance the capabilities of GMEs in data as a data provider For the water framework directive implementation Great. Thank you for that. We'll take one or two more questions for those of you who have been watching the clock We started about 15 or 20 minutes late, so we will go Another 15 or well, we'll go 15 or 20 minutes, which will take us only about 10 more minutes we have So we'll take a few more questions And then I just warned the panel that I will give them one minute to conclude at the end just to give their impression a little bit of feedback on Does this water blooper now take it take us far enough based on what you've heard and what? Final recommendations would you give so that will be the last few minutes of this session So quest more questions from the audience Thank you Marco and from the European anglers Alliance Everyone on the panel and everyone in the room seems to agree that far more research is needed on ecological flows And very much welcome that this is emphasized in the blueprint and that research is going to take some time to To come to conclusions How does the panel feel we should deal with the present? Applications of hydropower that are in the system And the logical conclusion of the fact that we need far more research on the impacts Does that imply that there should be a moratorium on any more applications? Thank you Xavier I'm not sure to to get the exactive question, but I think we yes we need more in monitoring about Big values in which we have big a draw poor schemes and our impression is that Regarding a draw schemes We already have a number of solutions to better integrate our streams in water management plans And that this is the important part of the solution and that in this field I draw schemes could play a greener role a greener role in what they bring to the Ecosystem and to the water management of the basin in which they are that's is the point and for the preceding remark about sediment transportation Personally, I think that this is the biggest issue that I draw power has to address in the years to come This is the biggest issue because in fact this is the the biggest trouble that I draw power brings to a river It's the problem of sediment transportation and we already have a number of solution Especially regarding water management and structural modification of the schemes that can bring a solution to sediment transportation And I think this this issue is really the issue on which I draw power company have to stress upon during the year to come well, I mean ideally We would have a moratorium and then very quickly Really a pre-planning mechanism and agreement on place on on on how how to make Hydropower development sustainable, but of course This is most likely not Implementable so all the more important to to come up with a pre-planning mechanism That is based on available knowledge and and data And that is possible. I mean we as WWF we we have already proposed a Zonation approach also with criteria And that that include parameters for which we already have the data And by that already very quickly inform hydropower developers Where it will be comparatively easy if legislation is being applied to to develop and where it will be Difficult very difficult to impossible. So that's something we believe could be done very quickly It doesn't have to be cast in stone and it can be a first Solution that that makes sure that the most valuable river stretches are protected and then in a next step to do to come up with a more fine grained Methodology that could also then be again have some some regional or or national variations But if that is the will and we believe that then we we could ensure that the most precious river stretches will will really be be protected and then of course in parallel also work on on on guidance on how to implement projects sustainably at a project level so best available technology and so on okay, we had one more comment from Fritz Holthardt Sometimes I have the feeling listening to this debate We are back ten years ago Frankly speaking this is And from my point of view especially if it if it comes to hydropower. I think There was a lot of progress If you see the dialogues which had been Installed on the EU level but also in the framework of the Alpine Convention for example There are there are issues They had been taboo ten years ago if you want ten years ago to talk with With hydropower companies about hydro peaking This was a kind of no-go area for discussion because this had been the cash cow For for the companies so also in this area. There is some movement There are there are there is the Possibility to discuss because they are technical solutions possible. They are management solutions possible And others river continuity. Okay. It's not sufficient and the only thing what we are going to discuss is the the upstream continuity and there's a lot of there are a lot of gaps if it comes to downstream continuity and From my point of view If it comes to ecological flow I think it is a Really major step that ecological flow is mentioned in the blueprint But so and such a real challenge is not To make a guidance on ecological flow The real challenge at the moment is how do we respond to? To concessions They have to be renewed all over Europe where we need to To negotiate on ecological flows there say is a very practical need to do things and I think there is Also a possibility to learn from our neighbors in Switzerland. They have They have an ecological flow Guideline where we can learn from and where we can see how we how we can How we can deal with that But we have to be also clear said ecological flow is on one hand side Has an ecological dimension, but on the other hand side it has an economic dimension this means And I know that from from concession negotiations in the upper Rhine Valley Where we discussed ecological flow between 40 and 100 cubic meter per second At a certain point and where we had to see how we can really ensure in a practical way that we get a Consensus between the ecological requirement and the economic requirements, so I really think if you are talking back to To this morning about integration about the issue that we have to see Both sides of the coin. I think then it is really important also to accept that within the last ten years Things changed and there is a difference. It is not enough, but we should be we should be really Accepting that the water framework directive changed especially in hydropower things We would not have accepted ten years ago to change Good. I can take only a few very brief comments. So if you have a brief comment to make please keep your within 30 seconds Start here and go to the side Thank you chair. I said game was again just two very brief one one on the hydropower debate one on e-flows The I think I would recognize the progress that has been made And Fritz is right there, but we're also facing a massive challenge where in the next Five years a number of new hydropower projects that are being planned on some of the last remaining natural stretches in the river In Europe is absolutely staggering and we look at the commission's Analysis of article 4.7 application, which is not happening. We've heard from Irena some of the ideas about pre-planning We have only very few examples where this is being done So we definitely still face a lot of challenges, especially in the next period of time You know, we don't have another 10 years a lot of these rivers are at risk and If we are just going ahead without proper considerations without proper strategic planning a lot of damage can still be done So I think it's really important that we are not complacent There is there is something we need to solve and I think the blueprint is really not giving us enough tools That's one of the weaknesses of this and very very briefly on e-flows also to support that I think it's extremely important that we are looking at e-flows in the next phase of the common implementation strategy There is such a different Understanding among the member states that actually getting that understanding on the table having a debate about it Will be extremely useful and we need to look at Switzerland But I would also think that we need to look at the outside of Europe as well The rest of the world has moved on very far on environmental and ecological flows And I think there are very good examples from other parts of the world as well So it's really to support. It's really important that we look into that. Thanks My name is sinri longos. I'm working for the federation of swedish farmers But also representing Baltic farmers for him on environment 15 farmer organizations around the Baltic sea But also representing Copa Korsiga I would like to take up the first question here on on the screen on the take-up of green infrastructure in particular restoration of wetlands and and full planes which of course is is an issue that is directly impacting upon and pointing at at at farmers and landowners and in Sweden, I mean this this is a Agron environment measured offered in in the in the second pillar or cap But the attractiveness of of of this is maybe not the highest one because what governs the compensation given to farmers is cost incurred and income for gun and What we've been explained is that this is due to to WTO rules that prevents I mean countries or EU to to actually pay farmers more than than costs incurred and income for gun and We all know that that the recreation for instance of wetlands might be very very valuable if they are been targeted very nicely Far downstream along the river systems But currently I mean it's the same compensation whether it's far up and and not giving much value Ecologically or to society or whether it's put very far downstream may give a lot of value So my question would be I mean how is is the EU pushing towards the World Trade Organization to to actually Get a new view upon this because if you take I mean land from Agriculture production and make it into something different. I mean a societal ecosystem service You are not actually you are you're taking land out of production and you're not producing agriculture products So how can this come? It's not being I mean taken out of this this with the old rules and and Allowing I mean more targeted Compensation to farmers. I mean trying to value. I mean some Restore wetlands as more valuable than others Yes, thank you. It's might have been again One short comment is about this hydropower and I think there's something still lacking and it is a full Assessment of article four seven of in all new hydropower developments. I think it's not happening at many projects around Europe Second when it comes to over abstraction, please don't forget about the energy sector I saw it. It's in the blueprint, but also don't forget about the mining activities They sometimes have a very big impact on whole river basins. Okay Okay, I think we cut the discussion off there. Thank you everyone for a very good discussion From the room and now we turn it back over to the panel for some concluding remarks Thank you. So one minute Yeah for me. Thank you very much. It was it was very pleased to be there. It was very interesting discussion Would say stress on bond three points first. I think that coming from the river basin management plants We already have a number of solutions that work. I did that as it has been said for example for a drop over I drop over man. I drop our company doesn't work and doesn't react like 10 or 10 or 15 years ago we have solution in our package and I think that we have to look for these 10 or 15 year Experiments and to put on the table the solution that work I think it would be more very concrete and maybe after the blueprint Job could be done in that way to put on the table of solution that work Secondly as we is it is a quite complicated question I said that there's a lack of knowledge a lack of R&D or that we need a R&D and experiment And I think that it's a good idea to put also on the Experiments river basins where mystic multi-stakeholder management Multi-stakeholder approach of the question could be done between regulators operators ONG and so on to Progress in the field and put the scientific research into application in the river basin experiment This is the second point and the third point won't be a surprise Is that I think that we must go further in the integration question? Especially in between the cap energy policies and water policies between because I think that at this time We don't we didn't go any further Yeah, as it said at the outset I'm here representing Marcus Simona Who's from the navigation sector and I'll try to think of what he would say I think the the main thing is that the navigation sector needs the blueprint It needs river basin management plans to be able to respond to The goals that are there from an ecological or water quality perspective and Certainly our own experience in the Danube River basin has shown that the navigation sector is willing to undertake green Engineering on the basis of what the needs of the river system are and to undertake innovation in green infrastructure redesigning ships or redesigned ships that they can Utilize rivers as natural systems and that I think is an indication that if the kind of multi-sectoral Dialogue that has been talked about Happens we can achieve the goal here and I certainly would advocate for Undertaking that dialogue but most important from the water sector To make sure that the other sectors are aware of the river basin management plans what the needs are from a water perspective. Thank you I've have two concluding remarks to make The first one is to join with others really and say you know river basin management plans or catchment management plans that That don't incorporate energy carbon floods agriculture and so on are severely limited and even detached 90% of the public interest from river management We could do all the Green infrastructure work. We want but we would not deliver good ecological status without tackling those elephants in the river And that includes incorporating hydropower into catchment management The other comment I'd like to make is about cap one and two and and where things go and I think it's Policy or legislative level to say we'll put it in cross compliance and enforce it But working on the ground we see very little activity in enforcement and as someone involved in upland farming myself and the only person that knows that goes on on on my bit of farmland is me And you know the fact that would go for the vast majority of farmers I think the consequences of putting things into cross compliance is that firstly you prevent NGOs who are doing a lot of work in this From delivering this kind of work because suddenly it's a statutory requirement or something that people are required to do It also disenfranchises landowners farmers who are suddenly required to do something that they weren't required to do before and They don't understand why and also leads to a broad approach that actually you know We've heard that these green infrastructure need to be targeted very accurately to produce the outcomes we want And by taking this broad approach that all farmers must comply with this that or the other Means you you don't get that targeting that you need for green infrastructure to work Thank you. I would like to highlight two issues. One is communication and the other is Strategic planning integrated strategic planning, but before doing that I also would like to to mention that we are very glad about this global dimension Section in the blueprint we think that so far this has been a Missing element. We're very glad that it's now being being highlighted and emphasized But now coming back to the two other issues I would would like to to focus on my concluding remarks The one is an integrated and strategic approach that that we need actually for for several issues I mean hydro power are already mentioned. It was discussed, but also floodplain wetland restoration So that we know where the the biggest potentials with the the highest benefits for flood protection for Drought protection For for biodiversity conservation are in order then to to focus attention and funding on on those priorities And then as a second issue that is communication In a way, I believe that that one reason why quite often water and especially the the the biodiversity element of Water management question is losing out is that the water sector is not good enough at communicating also the the the economic benefits and the values for society Of applying the ecosystem-based approach the the water framework directive is based on if we did that better I'm pretty sure that that it was was easier to to come up with a With a with a fairer share of of the the water resource When for example negotiating with with agriculture or the the energy sector and as a sort of Internal communication within the the environmental sector. I mean, I know that from my own organization So it was easy when when you come from the the the biodiversity department To to come to a conclusion with the colleagues working on climate change issues for example So this this is I guess an issue that that we could could all also work on in our own Organizations or in the the own communities. We are working on this to to be better at it's communicating and and and also Just joining joining forces and working together on on the challenges ahead. Thank you Now I take my position as the moderator to kind of sum up the session I heard several things in this session and we had a very good discussion. We had a very good panelist discussion they are gonna divide my Comments into three categories from what I heard I heard that we need more knowledge And this is this has come out quite clearly and every what everybody is talking about There is knowledge on accounting even know how to account for all the water that's in the basin and when and where it is Ended what quality it is We need more knowledge on ecological flows. What does that mean? What do we what do eco systems need? What kind of flow regimes do they need? We need more knowledge about the impacts of policies. How are these policy suggestions that we're recommending in? How do they really impact the system? Are there cases that we can study that show us? We need knowledge sharing. What are the Tools methods that have been used in areas that work under different types of systems And how can we share those processes stakeholder? Stakeholder processes are one way of knowledge sharing, but we need knowledge sharing between basins as well The second main category is cross compliance. This is something that came out quite clearly This is something that's relatively new. I think to the blueprint, but We need to cross complied across compliance across Policies within the EU We need a harmonization of the policies within the EU with a habitat direction the common agricultural policy and energy policies So we need cross compliance with all the different policies that we have already on the table And finally the question of implementation and enforcement Well, we have we have some policies already under the waterfamer direct directive We're proposing more now with the water blueprint, but there needs to be some measure of enforcement Monitoring is one perhaps GMEs have been suggested But these three the knowledge cross compliance and implementation are are the main topics that I got out of this session And I thank you. These are focus areas. They may not they may not be Direct policy recommendations or improvements, but they are focus areas where we should focus our attention on within the water blueprint So thank you everyone for a very good discussion Thank you to the panel and I am told that lunch will now be from 1 to 2 15. Is that correct 1 to 2 15 for lunch? Thank you very much


Welcome to Agile Roots 2010, sponsored by Version 1, Rally Software, Vario, Amirsis, Agile Alliance, and Xmission Internet. The Product Owner's Guide to Saying No by Alex Pukinski. So, I was actually here last year and I gave another talk on product councils. Was anybody here for that last year at this conference? Okay, cool. Well, at any rate, last year I was talking a bit about stakeholders and sort of the process whereby stakeholders on an Agile project or an Agile company get addicted to the constant availability of change. I talked about sort of getting drunk on Agile and what that means for stakeholders. I also talked about how to form a product council and sort of how to get your stakeholders together in a group to, you know, on a regular basis in one room. Talking about what their needs are and how to put together a Kanban to, you know, help raise visibility of the things you're working on and the things you're exploring and how this would ultimately make your stakeholders happy. But this year I'm actually here to talk about something somewhat different because I've actually decided that stakeholder happiness is really the wrong goal and that in many cases you actually, it's okay for some of your stakeholders to be very upset about what you're doing and this talk is about a little bit of that. I actually was talking to my brother a few days ago and he reminded me of a somewhat famous email from the year 2000. I don't know if any of you have seen this. This is Linus Torvalds is talking about somebody who wanted to put a, build a kernel debugger and he was basically saying, no, I don't want to, you know, my biggest job as a person responsible for Linux is to say no to all kinds of things people are asking for. So, you know, it's kind of a phenomenon that seems to happen to people who are in positions who have to be deciding what to work on for products. So we're going to talk today about how great products come from saying no. This is actually the majority of what I do in my job as a product owner day to day. And as part of that, there's sort of four different parts of this talk. There's actually about 60 slides and if I continue the rate I'm moving, we'll finish with plenty of time left over for questions. So the first part, I'm going to talk a bit about where does quality come from on an agile product. I'm going to talk about why saying no is a really important thing to learn to do. I'm going to turn, talk a little bit about how to know what to say no to, which is kind of a mouthful, and I'll also talk about how to actually go about saying no in a way that doesn't get you in lots of trouble. As a result of this, I'm hoping that some of you, how many people here are product owners or in a product management type role? So I'm hoping that some of you start looking at what I'm going to call painful prioritization. We'll come back to why the dragon's significant later. And you're going to end up with a product that's better and hopefully making you more money in the long run. So that's my goal in the next 30 to 35 minutes. So who owns quality on my agile team? Does anybody want to try to answer this question for me? What's that? Everyone. Any other answers? What's that? He says that would fail an ISO audit. No other, nobody else. It's kind of a loaded question. So yeah, it's interesting. I was talking to my, we have an internal agile coach, Jennifer, on our team, and she said, yeah, it's everyone. It's the team owns quality. So, so here's a picture of some of my team, which doesn't project very well. It's actually in the front. You can see there are a couple of developers in the front. There's a tester in the back. There's the user experience designer talking to a product owner. There's a whole mixture of all different roles. And when, when you say the team owns quality, that means all these different people are responsible for quality on the agile project. And so one of the tools that agile teams often come up with to help with quality is a definition of done. How many people have a definition of done for your team in some form? So, okay, so for maybe some other people will benefit from this. So this is a sample definition of done. This is what our coaches use for coaching people. I don't know if it's actually real or they made it up, but it's similar to what we have. You know, the idea is that for a story to be considered done, all these things need to happen. We need working software that's demo-able. We need unit tests, code review. For this team, they want to do an installer. They want to have functional testing done. They want to have some functional review by the product owner, load testing, regression tests, documentation and review by the PM, user docs, design docs, samples for critical features, release notes and API documentation. So if you do all this stuff, then you're done. So, and what this, this kind of definition of done is really important to have and definitely a very valuable thing. And this is kind of what, you know, the story done part of it. There's a couple other parts of done I want to talk about. One part is the concept of technical done. Here you can see a couple more developers just chatting with each other. But the interesting thing is as a product owner, even though I was technical in the past, I don't have a lot of visibility into sort of the actual technical quality of the system. You know, I could go looking at the code and digging around it, but I try not to do that. Because ultimately the developers bear a lot of, bear the responsibility for maintaining technical quality of the system. So, when we build features, I'm kind of trusting the team to make good decisions about what level of cleanup and what level of refactoring, what level of testing is right behind the scenes. And it's interesting, I often use the example of a kitchen.  Does anybody ever do that in here? Okay, one or two people admit to having left their kitchen unclean. And if you go down the next morning and you're trying to get breakfast together and you want coffee and a bowl of cereal, and the kitchen's a mess, it's pretty easy to, I don't know why this thing keeps going off, hopefully it'll come back in time for my slide change. If you're, sorry, if your kitchen's a mess, you can still get your cereal together and make coffee the next morning. You can actually also cook dinner again the next night. I mean, I know this, I've tried it. If your kitchen is dirty, you can still produce a second substantial meal, but it's going to take you a little bit longer. And if you wait around for the third night without cleaning up for the first two meals, the meal's going to take a little bit longer. And by Friday night, you can barely produce a meal. You're going to, actually, for me, I'd probably be eating out by Thursday. But the point is, there's a mess in the kitchen, it's slowing you down. And the thing is, it's very, very visible. Now, for me as a product owner, I look at the product, and if there's a technical best behind the scenes, I don't see that mess. It's something the developers see. And it's almost as if the mess were invisible in the kitchen. I walk in the kitchen sparkling, and for some reason it takes 16 hours to bruise a peanut butter sandwich. And that's the kind of scenario we're trying to avoid. So I really have to trust the development team to make good decisions about cleaning up after themselves, because I can't see that sort of technical mess. And in a way, the same is true for features. The level of feature dunyus for an executive is obscured. An executive knows, you might know that you shift a feature, but the detailed level of quality of the feature, did you really round out all the corners you should have? Did you satisfy all the groups you should have? That's the same level of security that the technical mess is for developers. So as a PO, it's very important for me to own quality to some extent too. And that's kind of a little bit of the genesis of this talk, is the realization that as a PO, if I'm not paying attention to, are features finished to the right extent? Are they done really to the right degree? It's very easy to end up with a crappy product. So I want to talk a little bit about the whole idea of making everybody happy and why that leads to crappy products. One of the things that's interesting in MySpace, I worked on a software development tool, and there's really an infinite number of good ideas for improvements to the software tool. It's not really infinite, but I have a database of 4,500 feature requests. So there's no shortage of good ideas. Probably five of them are no good, but several thousand of them are really good ideas. And within that space of good ideas, there's a somewhat smaller infinity of great ideas. So really, like I have 30 or 40 big things that I could be building right now that would be awesome, that would really make a bunch of customers extremely happy, that would reduce pain, and that would be a great thing to do. And the challenge is that constantly there are people coming in asking for you to build more features as a product owner, and it feels really good to be able to say yes. If somebody comes to you and says, you know what, I'd really like you to improve your search functionality, which happens to be what I'm working on right now, and you can say yes, you know what, we're going to do that for you. It'll be out in two months. That's a really good feeling and really gratifying. It's very easy to get sort of attached to that feeling. The challenge is that if you say yes to too many things at once, you kind of get in a situation where you have lots of partially completed work. And so saying no is very important to avoid this situation of having too many things going on at once and ending up with a half-finished product. So I want to talk a little bit about how to know what you should say no to. There's one easy rule that I got that I stole, actually, which is just say no to everything. This is what 37 Signals does. They say, you know what, thanks for your feedback. And we probably won't do anything with it. So generally, this is a fairly simple approach. You don't even keep a list of what to work on. But it's interesting. If you're saying no to all your requests, you kind of have this challenge of, well, what do you actually work on? And I kind of want to try to help you sort of think about different ways of sorting through the morass of potential ideas. Jeff Patten alluded to earlier. If we just knew which were the features that people would never use, it'd be easy not to build them. But I think there are some techniques that can help with this. The first one is Moscow prioritization. How many people know what that means? This is sort of the basic Agile 101 kind of approach. It works well for features or projects within a product and also kind of initial product planning. And the idea with Moscow is that if you have a list of things you could work on, you sort them into piles. You know, must have, should have, could have, won't have. When I was coaching, I used to say the must have things are the things that you absolutely can't go out. If you don't have these features, there's absolutely no point to your product whatsoever, and nobody would even look at it. These are the things that are more things. The should have things are the things where if you don't have them, it's pretty embarrassing or really awkward to use the product or just difficult to, you know, for a major segment of your user base. And the, you know, the could have are the things that you, you know, you'd like to get to but realistically don't think you're going to get to and, you know, generally people just skip those. And the won't have are the things that you have already decided are out of scope. The interesting thing is you can ship a product with just the must have and in a lot of cases this is a very, very helpful thing to do because you can get something out in the market and you can get value before there's actually a completed system in place and, you know, it's kind of, it doesn't project very well but in Star Wars we learned that the Death Star functions quite nicely even though it's not complete. But you can get value before you're done and in a lot of cases it's worthwhile to get something out in the market early before you've done the should have. But what that, the challenge is there's a lot of danger in skipping the should have and it's always tempting to skip the should have. It's always tempting to see, you know, if you're comparing a should have or a could have of one feature that's mostly done out in the market and making you money versus the must haves of a new feature that you haven't started yet and you've got lots of people actively complaining about, it's very easy to make the leap towards the framing nails. Let's move on and start building the new structure of the last piece of the trim. Because in fact people can live in houses without trim. Has anybody been in situations where they lived in an unfinished construction project? Nobody's renovated their house? Okay, a couple people. So you can live in a house that's not finished. The challenge is that it's very hard to get it finished once you're living in it and once you've moved on to the next thing.  Because they're two very different things. So I want to talk a little bit more about saying no because there are some things that are very easy to say no to. There's sort of a continuum of easiness. The easiest things are the ones that are kind of out there where there's no demand and, you know, occasionally we get a request to integrate with some product that is very rarely used. And so it's fairly easy to say no. It's like, well, you're the only customer who's ever asked for that. We, you know, we appreciate your feedback. We'll pay some attention to whether other people ask for it, but, you know, we're probably not going to do an integration with that product in the short term. So these are the easiest ones to say no to. The next batch that are a little tricky are sort of the popular non-aligned features. This is kind of some dependency graph from something. This is kind of my pet non-aligned feature. We constantly get requests within my company to build tools for task dependency management. We're building an agile tool, so we don't really want to do that and get what you're supposed to do. And we've got story dependencies and we think that should be good enough. It's a popular feature, though, because as people transition from waterfall development to agile, they're interested in dependencies. And so, but it's not aligned. So it's relatively easy for us to say, you know what, we've had some requests for that. It's not really aligned with where we want to go.  So that's, these are not so hard to say no to. But what I mean is, for me, are the personal pet features because, personally, there's a bunch of things that I really want in the product that I think would make it better. I really want to bulk to lead backlog items. You know, it just drives me crazy that I have to click through each one of them. And so I get requests for that. It's something that I'd like to build, but it's not on the roadmap. It's not aligned with what we're focused on right now. So it's an absolutely great idea. It'd be very useful and it's something I care about. So it's really tough for me personally to do that. The real challenge, though, is when you come to the things that are really, really well aligned, but they're not in sort of your top three. They're not at the top of the list. So, you know, they're a great, incredible opportunity. They make you tons of money, but they're not the things you've already decided to focus on. And those are the hardest ones to say no to because there's always this question of, isn't this a great opportunity? Couldn't we make a ton of money with this feature? And the answer is often, you know, maybe we should work on it, but there's a lot of risk for constant shifting of focus. So the question to ask yourself is, is this really not just a great incredible thing to work on, but is it the best possible thing to work on right now? And if it's not the best possible thing to work on right now, is it in the top three such that we should be considering over the next few months? Ultimately, that's one of the difficult judgments to make in a lot of cases. And having alignment with revision is an important part of it. Part of it, too, is looking at, you know, ultimately the economics of the situation. You know, there are features that would be wonderful, that'd be very helpful, but that doesn't materially change the customer situation, but there's still a lot of demand for them and they're very popular. So ultimately, the challenge is finding the features that people are willing to pay you money for and that they're willing to pay you more money for than other features that you're looking at. So it's a really painful process. And I'll talk about a couple of areas that I kind of had to make some difficult trade-offs. I had this photo in this picture at the beginning. Does anybody recognize this dragon? It's kind of a long shot, but I figure with a bunch of a relatively geeky audience there might be someone. So this is actually from the C.S. Lewis's The Voyage of the Dawn Treaders. Anybody read this book when they were younger? Okay, a few people. So the interesting thing about this book is this is the one that starts out there. Once was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrub, and he almost deserved it. And goes off on a sea voyage with some of his cousins. And ultimately, partway through the story, he ends up sort of getting straying from the pack and wanders off and gets turned into a dragon. I don't remember exactly how that worked, and he's miserable as a dragon.  And he talks about how painful it was, that sort of deep tearing feeling. And in a lot of ways, this is kind of that deep tearing. It's the sort of thing that you sometimes get when you're making these painful prioritizations. And I want to talk about one example. We have a product at my company that we built a number of years ago, and we built the first increment of it. And it actually did fairly well in the market. I think it made, I don't know, a million and a half dollars in the first year, which was pretty good. And after that, we conducted a number of usability studies and interviews with different customers who were using it. Got some clear feedback about what improvements we had to make to make it better for them. And we had a pretty clear list of, you know, a short backlog of things that need to be done to make it better. And ultimately, we still do have this list, and we've made the strategic prioritization not to work on this because it's not the most important thing for the business. The challenge is that it's the investment that we need to make, and it's relatively small. It's a couple hundred thousand dollars. We think it returned two million dollars in revenue within the first year, so it's a 10x ROI. It's a pretty compelling return on investment. And ultimately, it's something that we have nonetheless decided not to do, and it's very painful. You know, I'm actually going to go talk to a customer tomorrow who's really disappointed that we haven't built these set of features. But ultimately, the challenge is sort of having the fortitude to say no even when there are really strong, compelling reasons to do something, just because you can't do many things at once with a finite capacity team. So with that, I want to talk a little bit about how to say no because how you say it is pretty important in how you get away with it. And after a couple years of doing this, I have a few things that we're doing. So I'm going to give you five basic tips for how to say no more effectively. The first part has to do with listening. One of the interesting things about saying no is that if you listen well to your customers and they're convinced that you understand what they're asking for, and you listen to your stakeholders and they really feel like you get what they're asking for, when you come back and say no to them for the thing they're asking for, they'll accept it. If you don't listen to your customers, because you've heard it a hundred times, if a customer comes and says, I want to give you feedback about X, and you say, yeah, we're not working on X, the customer is going to say, gosh, he must not understand how painful this is for me to not have X. So the listening is one of the major purposes of it is really convincing the customers that in fact you do understand their needs and that you're making this decision with that understanding in mind. The other part of it too is that there is a chance that you'll hear something very, very different than what you expected. But the flip side of this is that you really want to make sure that you don't listen too much because listening too much to the same thing over and over again is ultimately a waste of time. So ultimately, for that product in particular, I have a fairly standard answer for how I deliver the issues with it, and that saves the time of repeatedly listening to the same things over and over again on this. I think the major challenge is that by listening, you set expectations when you listen to a customer and you say, yes, I hear what you're asking for. You want this complicated task dependency management system. I've had a half a dozen other customers ask for that. I understand your legitimate needs. If you say that, it's very easy for the customer to walk away saying, oh, they understand it. They might build this soon. And then you have a customer sort of waiting at this fairly faded bus stop, waiting sort of expecting this feature to come out that never really arrives. So it's very important to be careful with the expectations you're setting when you're listening. It's this sort of delicate balancing act. I think one of the other things that we've encountered a lot of, especially as we've grown to be a bigger company, is that some of you may understand this if you have kids, the two-parent problem. Can I have a cookie when daddy just said no? Mommy might say yes. There's this challenge in a software company of making sure different people are speaking with a consistent voice about what we are and what we aren't doing. And ultimately, having some kind of product council process where people understand what is the focus is very important. And I think one of the things that we've found is quite helpful also is sort of, I call it the redirect. But ultimately, the interesting thing is that when you're building software and you're doing this difficult prioritization, you're ultimately making a choice to work on something and you're hopefully making that choice for a good reason. The fact is you're working on some features that are great that are going to be really valuable and that your customer calling about feature A might be very excited about feature B that you're building and might not have thought of that and might not have realized how much that matters to them. So one of the things we'll often do is say, we've spent, you know, we've heard what you're asking for and let's talk about what we're doing going forward. So one of the common sort of dynamics I do with collecting feedback is this concept of asking the customer to email a list of requests and then getting on a call with them, highlight the top two or three, the things that you really care the most about. And then after I've heard about those things and read your request, then we can talk about what's relevant for the next couple of months. What are the features that we're building that we'd love to get your feedback on and that kind of thing. So ultimately that giving people sort of an opportunity to engage in a different way about the things they are getting that are valuable to them that they didn't know are valuable is pretty important. So any questions at this point before I go on? I think I've actually spoken fairly quickly which is good because it's the end of the day. So one thing I do want to point out too with this, with the concept of the redirect is you're not saying to your customer you're never going to get this feature and in fact, you know, eight years later kernel debugging was added to Linux. So it's not that you're never going to get the feature. It's just that it's not the thing we're working on right now. And that's a much better message than absolutely no, you're not going to get it. So with that I think, you know, again, I feel like great products come from saying no and I think that sort of that focus on really painful prioritization making some sort of tough decisions that involve not doing something that is intensely valuable can make a big difference. So one of the things I'd like you to all do for just a few minutes is talk with the person you're sitting next to about are there two or three things that your team is working on right now that are the things that would be really painful to stop doing but you kind of know you shouldn't be working on them. Let's just take a couple of minutes to do this and see if you can come up with anything. Yeah, so if most teams are working on many things at once and are there a couple of things that are intensely valuable that nonetheless are not the most important things that you should really consider stopping. Let's think about two or three minutes chat and then we'll hear how people do. Any groups have something they want to share around is there a group that has something that they really ought to stop doing despite its intense value? I don't know. Okay, did any groups conclude anything interesting in their short conversation except for... Sure. So what I'm hearing is that you have kind of urgent customer issues around one or two big customers that seem like they need to be handled at least the business is treating them that way. And I think the challenge is that there are some numbers there's some amount of time that we spend on that kind of thing and the challenge is if you're doing six other things if you're building or too many other things at the same time it could be that's not the thing that you need to stop doing so much as some of the other strategic projects. That's been a challenge for me is understanding what's the right level of slack to leave in the roadmap for big issues that come up along the way. And in some cases a lot more than you expect. Well, yeah, it is difficult to turn them down and you see them face to face and saying no to somebody's face is a lot harder than saying it in an email.  I think that does make it even more challenging. I mean, it's interesting internally our business is at the scale where the value of... because we ship software the value of shipping features is so much greater than any internal tools we could build that we very rarely invest in internal tools.  But it is tough. I think the hard thing about being a product manager in a lot of ways is not... you can't be a nice guy. And if you want to be one that's kind of... it's a very difficult job. What other observations do people have? Okay, well, so hopefully, you know, if you're able to do a little bit more of this sort of painful prioritization and turning down more work, your product will ultimately thank you. Great, well, thanks for coming. I finished a little bit early. Hopefully you guys have there.


This is the national statement 2018 revision, specifically the data issues related to the collection use and management of data and information in research. Section 3 of the national statement was fully revised in 2018, including expanded guidance on data-related issues in human research. The national statement supports data linkage research, secondary use of data and data sharing, in accordance with the four ethical principles, research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect for persons. National statement guidance on the collection use and management of data and information in research recognizes the need for context-dependent and proportional approaches to the minimization of the risks associated with the unauthorized disclosure of information that could identify research participants.