Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc

Integrated water resources management: An indicator framework for water

management system assessment in the R’Dom Sub-basin, Morocco
Mohamed Ben-Daoud a,∗, Badr El Mahrad b,c,d, Ismail Elhassnaoui e, Aniss Moumen f,
Ahmed Sayad g, Mohamed ELbouhadioui h, Gabriela Adina Moroșanu i, Lhoussaine El Mezouary f,
Ali Essahlaoui a, Samir Eljaafari a
a
Moulay Ismail University, Faculty of Sciences, Meknes, Morocco
b
Murray Foundation, Brabners LLP, Horton House, Exchange Street, Liverpool L2 3YL, United Kingdom
c
Laboratory of Geoscience, Water and Environment, (LG2E-CERNE2D), Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University of Rabat, Morocco
d
CIMA, FCT-Gambelas Campus, University of Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal
e
Hydraulic System Analysis Team Mohammadia School of Engineers, Rabat, Morocco
f
Ibn Tofail University, National School of Applied Sciences, Kenitra, Morocco
g
Regional Center of Education and Training Professions (CRMEF), FEZ, Morocco
h
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Rabat, Morocco
i
Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy and University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper reports the elaboration and application of an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) indi-
IWRM indicators cators framework designed to assess Water management system in the Meknes Region. The framework making
Water up of twelve indicators was developed and applied to the R’Dom sub-basin. The methodology consisted of an in-
Meknes
dicator selection process to evaluate the inputs from water management stakeholders in the study area. Involved
Management
stakeholders in the consultation phase are accepted indicators as a framework of better understanding integrated
Environmental assessment
R’Dom Sub-basin water resource management. As a result, the IWRM indicators framework was developed accordingly, in order
Participatory approach to integrate the relevant economic, social, and environmental aspects. The indicator’s assessment shows that all
stakeholders have taken steps towards developing a system allowing the IWRM implementation. Nevertheless,
significant additional effort is required, as some stakeholders need to set up a more efficient management system.
The evaluation of the indicators shows that three of the twelve indicators require a considerable effort, specifi-
cally, capacity building, funding, and management scale. The application of the indicators framework represents
a contribution to identifying the shortcomings of the current water management system in the study area. The
results obtained allow the stakeholders to act and trace the steps needed to be taken towards implementing an
integrated water management system.

1. Introduction mize the resultant economic and social welfare equitably without compromis-
ing the sustainability of vital ecosystems”(Biswas, 2004). In other words,
Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is far from being IWRM is a process aiming to ensure the sustainability of water resources
an emergent concept. It goes back to the 1930s when it was rediscov- for environmental reasons, to promote equity in access to water for so-
ered by water professionals in the early 1990s (Biswas, 2008). Several cial reasons, and to improve efficiency in water use for economic rea-
organizations worldwide have adopted the IWRM approach, such as the sons (GWP, 2009, 2004). Therefore, IWRM aims to balance the use of
World Water Council (Smith and Clausen, 2015), the Global Water Part- water as a basis for ensuring the livelihood of a growing population (wa-
nership (GWP, 2000), and a large number of national and international ter demand) while, at the same time, protecting and preserving water
organizations (United Nations, World Bank, etc.) (GWP, 2009). The most resources so as to ensure the sustainability of water supply (Godinez-
popular definition of IWRM was formulated by the Global Water Part- Madrigal et al., 2019; GWP, 2009; Hooper, 2015).
nership, which defined it as "a process which promotes the coordinated This management approach requires the participation of all stake-
development and management of water, land and related resources, to maxi- holders’ and a multitude of innovative tools for its successful imple-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Ben-Daoud).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100062
Received 17 January 2021; Received in revised form 22 February 2021; Accepted 23 February 2021
2667-0100/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

mentation. It seeks to establish partnerships and avoid marginalizing 2. Background

groups and water resources users (Akhmadiyeva and Abdullaev, 2019;
Collins et al., 2020; Hooper, 2015). 2.1. Water management: concept and approaches
Despite each region’s specificities, the IWRM approach has been
adopted and tested by academics and water resource managers world- According to the scientific literature (GWP, 2009), IWRM is defined
wide (Ahmad and Al-Ghouti, 2020; Ahmadov, 2020; Brombal et al., as how water can be managed to achieve sustainable development goals
2018; Brown et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2020; He et al., 2020). and as an approach that reflects the need to balance economic efficiency,
Hooper (2015) highlighted that the integrated management approach social equity, and environmental sustainability (Lenton, 2011). Further-
is a matter of cooperation and coordination, not amalgamation, which more, over the last three decades, the water debate shifted its focus
requires a holistic and sustainable vision. Nowadays, this concept is from assessing the available resources (supply management) to a more
widely adopted to overcome water resource issues. The scientific com- integrated approach involving a wide range of fields, including envi-
munity is very aware of the associated cost of not applying IWRM and ronmental, social, and economic aspects, which represent the purpose
the amount of caused damage, whether environmental, social, or eco- of Integrated Water Resources Management (Lenton, 2011). Therefore,
nomic (Braga, 2001). countries are now obliged to manage water resources in an integrated
Since sectoral competition is increasing, water demand is reaching manner which applies to multiple aspects of water functioning (water
the supply limit, and the multitude of actors in the same geographical quality and quantity, irrigation, drinking water supply, recreation, etc.),
territory (basin) (Petit and Baron, 2001), along with other various com- the involvement of stakeholders, decision-makers, and the existing pol-
plexities, such as climate change, water conflicts, and governance issues icy domains (Mees et al., 2017).
are all making water management more difficult. Achieving a wider in- The integration is becoming a sought-after objective, as there are
tegration is necessary in terms of water resource development and man- no ready-made models that could be adopted to all situations and/or
agement (GWP, 2000). include the different aspects of water management which need to be
In Morocco, water resources are not spared from various pressures integrated (Molle and Wester, 2009). It should also be noted that, in
in terms of quality and quantity. The water scarcity affecting specific re- the majority of the case studies presented in the consulted literature re-
gions of the country often leads to a progressive over-exploitation of the view (Gallego-Ayala, 2013), IWRM is reflected in the field by decision-
available reserves, jeopardizing their sustainability and causing degra- making, commitments, and responsibilities, which also translate into
dation of their quality and of the environment (Farahy et al., 2020). concrete action programs at more decentralized (local) levels. Therefore,
In the case of the R’Dom sub-basin, the water management sys- stakeholders will need the skills and tools to successfully IWRM imple-
tem seemed unintegrated, given the increasing pollution issues and the ment. The requirements in terms of technical and financial tools, capac-
overexploitation of groundwater. This integration issue occurred on the ity building, and other needs are considered when developing IWRM
ground, despite the action programs that have been carried out by the indicators (Brown et al., 2020; Hailu and Tolossa, 2020).
public authorities, in particular, the regulatory establishment and im- The notion of integration in the IWRM concept underlines the need
plementation norms aiming to upgrade the sector’s liquid and solid dis- to consider all the components of the water cycle, the interactions be-
charge sanitation (Ben-Daoud et al., 2011; Farahy et al., 2020). Other tween natural and human systems, to achieve a balance between the
management issues have been observed, such as the use of raw wastew- exploitation and protection of this resource to ensure its sustainability
ater for irrigation in agriculture, the unreasonable use of fertilizers and (GWP, 2009). From another point of view, the term ’integration’ insists
pesticides, and the lack of solid waste treatment, which all degrade the on the need for a global (holistic) approach that aims to bring together
quality of the water table, and the entire water systems of the region different sectors (vertical integration) and different scales (horizontal
(Ben-Daoud et al., 2012). All these identified risks cause irreversible integration) (Giordano and Shah, 2014; GWP, 2004). Indeed, this ap-
damage to the quality, availability, and future renewal of water re- proach brings substantial changes to water resources management that
sources. Consequently, integrated and concerted water resources man- go beyond sectoral thinking in water management.
agement has become necessary to end this region’s water-related prob- The IWRM local approach aims to support water stakeholders to par-
lem. In response to this problem, Meknes city has been the subject of ticipate in the IWRM process, thus contributing to water resource man-
several studies that address water resources from a qualitative and/or agement at the local and more decentralized scale and responding to
quantitative perspective (Ben-Daoud et al., 2011; Essahlaoui et al., 2001; different specific issues. Each action in the field contributes to an en-
Farahy et al., 2020; Handaq and Blenzar, 2017; Lahjouj et al., 2020; tire river basin’s integrated management process (Moriarty et al., 2010).
Lotfi et al., 2020; Mehanned et al., 2014; Tahri, 2005). However, none In this regard, many projects have started to experiment with specific
of these studies has highlighted so far the importance of IWRM or local tools at a local scale while always keeping, as a framework and ori-
actors’ consultation. In addition, in the literature review, all the stud- entation, the IWRM fundamental principles (Ahmadov, 2020; Godinez-
ies carried out relate to evaluation methods of the physicochemical and Madrigal et al., 2019; Mazvimavi et al., 2008, 2008). As a result, scien-
microbiological quality of water and also to the quantitative evaluation tists have often criticized the IWRM concept despite its popularity, par-
of groundwater exploitation (Ait Kadi and Ziyad, 2018; Lahjouj et al., ticularly concerning its implementation in the real world (Akpabio et al.,
2020; Lotfi et al., 2020; Mehanned et al., 2014; Saddiki et al., 2010). 2007; Biswas, 2008; García, 2008; Petit and Baron, 2009). Thus, the
However, none of these works has addressed the question of the actors’ main issues related to IWRM implementation are both theoretical and
involvement in the water management system. In the present study, we practical. The theoretical issue concerns the shortcomings related to
have designed an indicator framework that allows the contribution of the meaning of the IWRM concept, which is insufficiently clear. At the
each actor in the management system to be assessed at any time, by same time, the practical issues are represented by insufficient human
using indicators developed in a participatory manner. These indicators ressources in water resources institutions (Swatuk, 2005) and institu-
are designed to integrate environmental, economic and social aspects. tional barriers (Gallego-Ayala, 2013; Grigg, 2008).
Indeed, the indicator framework has been tested through a case study On the other hand, (Molle, 2012) points out that the criticisms aimed
on the R’Dom sub-basin. The proposed indicator framework has been at the IWRM concept can be better understood by introducing a distinc-
widely accepted by stakeholders as a step towards a better assessment of tion between three "levels" of definition: a "principle," a "framework,"
the current water management system and improving the contribution and a "process"(Rogers and Hall, 2003):
of stakeholders at the local level. The case study results are not counter-
intuitive and confirm an average evolution of the water resources man-
agement system in the study area. Thus, steps forward for potential im- 1) IWRM as a "principle" recommends giving equal attention to water
provement were also identified. resources’ social, economic, and environmental dimensions.

2
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

2) IWRM as a "framework" refers to the methodological aspects of IWRM Indicators can also lead to better decisions by simplifying
IWRM implementation. and clarifying the information available to policymakers in this field
3) IWRM as a "process", often referred to as "policy", which is based on (Gaucherel, 2003).
the idea that there is no ready-made model, but a learning process
for all stakeholders. 2.4. The interest of water management indicators
Moreover, it appears that the IWRM concept has been of great inter-
The development of IWRM indicators depends on the decision-
est to the scientific community. The aspects most frequently addressed
making level, as simple raw data can help decision-making. However,
by scientists are the IWRM institutional framework, equitable water allo-
distinctly from a direct and straightforward situation, such as in more
cation, IWRM implementation, and stakeholder participation (Gallego-
complex situations and/or cases where several factors are involved, data
Ayala, 2013).
must be treated according to the required standards to comply with the
needs generated by challenging situations (Gaucherel, 2003). Further-
2.2. Watersheds as water management units
more, there is a possibility of developing standard indicators between
regions and countries, in order to be able to make more general deci-
The watershed is frequently highlighted as a key pillar in IWRM im-
sions at larger scales. IWRM indicators take into consideration moni-
plementation and as the natural management unit for water resources
toring and evaluation instruments for measuring IWRM level adoption
(Giordano and Shah, 2014). The integrated management approach em-
and provide simplified information that can be easily understood, rather
phasizes it as the basic unit for integrating different water features that
than raw primary data (Lavkulich and Ulazzi, 2008).
are interdependent within the same watershed. According to some au-
An indicator can represent any quantitative or qualitative measure
thors, this management model is well adapted to spatial and temporal
that can be applied to assess the IWRM implementation process in a
variability and to the diversity of upstream and downstream interests
given territory. Both can be used at several levels, significantly monitor-
(Lenton, 2011).
ing key variables over time and assessing compliance or non-compliance
Since the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannes-
with regulations and standards for water quality and the health of
burg, 2002), the watershed management approach has been the central
aquatic ecosystems (GWP, 2009).
point of many advancements and reflections on IWRM (Lenton, 2011).
The international community has used several indicators to integrate
However, real-world water resources management does not often follow
environmental, social, and economic dimensions (Gaucherel, 2003;
this basin management approach for several reasons, including:
Ioris et al., 2008; SWIM-project, 2012), according to different pur-
1) Basin boundaries do not generally coincide with administrative or poses, which allow to synthesize and communicate information on wa-
political boundaries (Hooper, 2015). ter resources-related issues to facilitate the decision-making process
2) The scale of decision implementation is often broader at the regional (Davis and Threlfall, 2009).
level (Giordano and Shah, 2014).
3) The emergence of more specific issues in some areas that require lo- 3. Case study
cal intervention rather than a watershed approach (Ahmadov, 2020;
Ahmed et al., 2020; Godinez-Madrigal et al., 2019). 3.1. Study area characteristics
Consequently, scientists have resorted to adapting the IWRM con-
The study area is located in northwestern Morocco, about 140 km
cept to different scales, such as local, regional, national, river basin,
east of Rabat and 60 km west of Fez city. The Lambert coordinates
etc. (Granjou and Garin, 2006; Moriarty et al., 2010). Thus, the follow-
are: X = 470 to 510 km and Y = 320 to 380 km. It is an area that
ing research study considered the sub-basin as the management unit
extends 35 km from east to west and about 50 km from north to south
best suited to respond to the study area’s specific problem. This leads
(Tahri, 2005) (Fig. 1).
us to underline that the management scale must be chosen according
From a climatic point of view, the study area is characterized by a
to the size of the objective sought by the IWRM project (Lenton, 2011;
semi-arid climate. The temperature in the study area shows intra-annual
Moriarty et al., 2010).
variability, with little variation from year to year. The warmest months
are July and August, with mean temperatures of 26.0 and 26.3 C° re-
2.3. Data and water management
spectively; the coldest months are January and February with mean
temperatures of 9.4 and 11.3 C°. The study area is characterized by
Lack of disseminating, organizing, and communicating water infor-
an average annual rainfall of 500 mm, recorded in the Meknes station
mation and data is among the major obstacles to IWRM’s implemen-
(Allaoui, 2019; Essahlaoui et al., 2001).
tation in different places/areas worldwide. Moreover, the diversity of
In terms of surface water, the R’dom River is the main network in
actors and the vast volume of water-related data are also considered
the study area. It forms at the confluence of the Boufekrane, Ouislane,
as issues for the implementation of an IWRM. Therefore, to assist stake-
and Bouishak Rivers. Boufekrane River has its source at Aïn Maarouf (El
holders in IWRM decision-making, reliable and timely data and informa-
Hajeb City) with a flow rate of 236 l/s (Essahlaoui et al., 2001). Ouislane
tion must be available with the required quality (Hooper, 2015). This
River is the longest of its tributaries, and has its source beyond El Hajeb
is fundamental to any good governance objective to ensure that deci-
City and then crosses the Meknes plateau between Sbaâ Aioune and El Haj
sions are made efficiently and equitably (Mcdonnell, 2008). Thus, data
Kaddour with a flow of (131 l/s)(Allaoui, 2019; Essahlaoui, 2000). The
in different forms should be used at different stages of the IWRM pro-
rivers are strongly dependent on their input sources. The tabular Mid-
cess by different stakeholders (GWP, 2004). Indeed, different solutions
dle Atlas Causse supplies water to all the springs located at its foothills.
have been developed by academics and managers to facilitate manage-
Between the Causse and the Meknes Plateau, two groups of springs of
ment tasks and decision making (Abdullaev and Rakhmatullaev, 2014;
unequal importance are evident (Amraoui et al., 2004; Essahlaoui and
Jarar Oulidi, 2019). Thus, water data and information relevant for all
Ouali, 2003). The Atrous, Ribaa, and Bittit springs are the most impor-
water-related sectors can be produced and/ or collected and then di-
tant in the foothills of the El Hajeb-Ifrane Causse; they are located about
vided into three dimensions of IWRM, namely:
30 km South-East of the Meknes city (Amraoui et al., 2004). The water
1) Social dimension data to promote equity in water access. from these springs is used for irrigation, but also to supply the Meknes
2) Environmental dimension data to ensure the sustainability of water city with drinking water. The Aghbal, Boujaoui, and Maarouf springs are
resources. located 20 km south of the Meknes city in the foothills of the Agourai
3) Economic dimension data to improve water use efficiency. Causse. They constitute the main contributions of the Boufekrane River

3
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Fig. 1. Study area location.

(Essahlaoui, 2000). They are also used to supply drinking water to Mek- • To halt the overexploitation of the water table which causes an an-
nes City. nual destocking of 100 million m3 .
From a hydrogeological aspect, there are two important aquifers • To stop the development of irrigation systems by controlling the in-
in the Study Area. Firstly, there is a deep aquifer the reservoir of which tensification of agricultural activities that consume groundwater re-
is contained within the Liassic limestone and Plio-Quaternary aquifer sources.
where groundwater circulates mainly in the sands, sandstones, and lo- • The involvement of farmers and water users for an appropriation of
cally the lacustrine limestone (Essahlaoui et al., 2001). The water ta- the challenge of water table sustainable management.
ble circulates mainly within the sands, sandstones, and conglomerates • The establishment of a policy that mixes awareness-raising and reg-
which belong to the Sahelian and Pliocene periods. It appears at the sur- ulation.
face through many springs in the Meknes Plateau region.
The free water table is located at an average depth of 10 to 30 m
3.2. Water management stakeholders in the study area
(Essahlaoui, 2000). The annual fluctuations of the water table roughly
follow those of precipitation, with a delay of 1 to 2 months. The average
In the following research, it is essential to present the actors (Stake-
height of the fluctuations is around 2 m. The water table has a surface
holders) involved in water management and their roles in implementing
area of 2100 km2 , with a total reserve of 650 to 1300 million m3 , based
the reforms carried out in the field of integrated water management at
on an average dewatering coefficient of 1.5–3% (Amraoui et al., 2004;
the national and local levels.
Essahlaoui et al., 2001). Groundwater recharge is mainly through the
In Morocco, two evolutionary approaches have been adopted for wa-
infiltration of rainwater and irrigation water and upward drainage from
ter management. The first began in the 1960s and adopted a supply
the deep water table (groundwater in charge). In most of the Basin, the
management approach, a phase characterized by the development of
free water table is located at an average depth of between 10 and 30 m
hydraulic infrastructure marked by dam policy introduction to ensure
depending on the sector (Essahlaoui, 2000).
water security (Ait Kadi and Ziyad, 2018; Legrouri et al., 2019). The
The Liassic deep aquifer is fed by the waters infiltrating on the slopes
second phase began in the 2000s by adopting a demand management
of the Middle Atlas Causse. It springs out of a groundwater system to
approach and national water strategy development in 2009 (Ait Kadi
which overflow sources also contribute, to give birth, among others, to
and Ziyad, 2018).
the Boufekrane River. The water temperature of the aquifer is between
This approach of water demand management is applied at different
18 and 25°C. The Bittit and Ribaa springs are tapped from this water table
scales (Dubreuil-Imbert, 2015), such as:
for irrigation and for providing the drinking water supply to Meknes City
(Essahlaoui et al., 2001). • At the water users’ scale through water management at the plot
From an economic perspective, there are important economic ac- level, optimization of industrial processes, awareness-raising, and
tivities in the study area, consisting of agriculture (arboriculture, cereal training for water-saving among users.
farming, legumes, olive groves, and vineyards), food industry, textile • At the water services scale by the rehabilitation and renewal of
industry, tourism activities (Fig. 2). irrigation systems, the improvement of urban network yields, and
The city of Meknes is one of the largest cities in the study area, with a the redesign of water consumption tax schemes and cost recovery.
high population, estimated at 650,000 inhabitants according to the 2014 • At the regional scale, with concerted and collective management,
national census. This strong anthropic activity harms the quality and regulations to control the overexploitation of aquifers (water table
sustainability of water resources in the region. Besides, the challenges contracts), wastewater reuse, and desalination of seawater.
in terms of water resources management calls for decision-makers and • At the national scale through the establishment of Basin Agencies,
managers to operate at several issues, such as: strengthening of the institutional regulatory framework (Law 10–95

4
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Fig. 2. Distribution of groundwater and surface water in the study area.

and Law 36–15), as well as the development of the National Water The first phase enabled us to identify relevant and essential indicators
Strategy. for integrated water management in the study area. Based on the devel-
oped indicators framework, a questionary was drawn up, and a survey
Taking into consideration the regulatory framework governing water
was carried out among water stakeholders to collect their perceptions
resources management and preservation in Morocco and the attributions
regarding the water management system in each department. To our
of concerned institutions of the Meknes region, the key stakeholders of
knowledge, the choice of indicators in the case of IWRM issues should
our study are classified into two categories (Operators and Regulators):
be done according to the relevance, rather than to the availability of
1. Operators, which are responsible for the production and distribu- data.
tion of drinking water and energy policy and are represented by the The number of people interviewed was chosen according to crite-
Water and Electricity Distribution Agency (WEDA) and the National ria that provide access to reliable data. In fact, all the interviewed
Office of Water and Electricity (NOWE). persons have profiles that allow them to provide sufficient and re-
2. Regulators, which support, control, supervise and provide regula- liable information on the water management issues in the study
tion, represented by Sebou River Basin Agency (SRBA); Water service area. In this sense, Table 2 shows the profile of our study partici-
(W.S.); Environment service (E.S.); Regional direction of agriculture pants in the development phase of the indicator framework and in
(RDA); Provincial department of agriculture (PDA); Regional health the stakeholder assessments of the indicators. Note that only job
department (RHD), and many others. titles are provided in order to preserve the anonymity of survey
respondents.
Table (1) shows the roles of the different actors interviewed to assess
Note that other stakeholders were invited to be involved in this
their contributions to integrated water resources management at the
study, however some of them preferred not to get involved in the study,
local level.
either because of the absence of reliable information or the unavail-
ability of the appropriate person to respond to our request. In total, 32
3.4. Materials and method
persons were interviewed, representing eight actors (stakeholders), four
persons per actor.
The working methodology was initially based on a participatory ap-
In the questionnaire development, a scoring system was used, and
proach and consultations with water management stakeholders in the
the results of this scoring system were sorted into four quality classes
study area within this research framework. In the following research, the
(Very Good, Good, Medium, Bad, Very Bad) according to the indicator
“stakeholders” are represented only by public bodies and institutions,
implementation level. Table 3 presents a descriptive example for the
as they are the main contributors to the water management process and
"Water Data" indicator (Charnay, 2011; Dungumaro and Madulu, 2003;
they are closely related to water issues in the region. All administrative
Goosen, 2012).
stakeholders were thoroughly consulted, thus providing legitimacy to
Moreover, the data collected during meetings and through the survey
the participatory process and building trust between researchers (our
were analyzed through a descriptive approach. This approach focused
team) and stakeholders (Tippett et al., 2005). Furthermore, the ‘partic-
on the analysis of indicators and stakeholders to identify the points to be
ipatory’ component implied the participation of members of the man-
improved and progress points in terms of IWRM implementation for all
agement only.
involved stakeholders, and also to identify which indicators meet IWRM
The participatory approach was conducted through discussion work-
requirements and which of them do not.
shops and working meetings with stakeholders to tackle the IWRM issue.

5
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Table 1
Intervention fields of the involved actors in the case study.

Operators Regulators

intervention fields WEDA NOWE SRBA RDA WS ES RDA PDA RHD

Water resources inventories + + +

Water resources mobilization + + + + + +
Planning + + + +
Water transport and distribution + + + + +
Irrigation + + + + + +
Hydroelectricity + + +
Water quality monitoring + + + + + + + + +
Control and regulation + + + +

WEDA: Water and Electricity Distribution Agency

SRBA: Sebou River Basin Agency
PDA: Provincial Department of Agriculture
RHD: Regional Health Department
NOWE: National Office of Water and Electricity
RDA: Regional Direction of Agriculture
ES: Environmental Service
WS: Water Service

Table 2
Profiles of persons contacted during the development of the indicator framework and/or at the follow-up interviews.

Involved Stakeholders Profiles of participants Indicator development Indicator assessment

Water and Electricity Distribution Agency Hydrologist + +

(WEDA) Water quality expert (2) ++ ++
Water management specialist +
National Office of Water and Electricity (NOWE) Data Manager + +
Environmental officer ++ +
Hydrologist ++
Sebou River Basin Agency (SRBA) Hydrogeologist + +
Environmental officer + +
Head of department + +
Hydrologist +
Regional Direction of Agriculture (RDA) Head of department(2) ++
Environmental officer + +
Water planner +
Provincial Department of Agriculture (PDA) Head of department +
Environmental officer(2) ++ ++
Water and Agriculture officer +
Environmental Service (ES) Water expert + +
Head of department + +
Environmental officer + +
Hydrogeologist + +
Regional Health Department (RHD) Head of department +
Environmental officer + +
Water and health specialist +
Monitoring, Evaluation expert
Water Service (WS) Hydrologist + +
Head of department + +
Hydrogeologist (2) + ++

Table 3
Descriptive example of the survey on the “Water Data Indicator”.

Score∗Quality classesWhat is your state of knowledge about used water resources? Do you have any updated water data such as flow rates, water quality, and different water uses?

5 Very good Continuous water resource data makes it possible to assess the impact of the use on the environment
4 Good Part of water resource data gives an approximate assessment of the impact of the use on the environment.
3 Medium Data (not mandatory), which gives the resource status from time to time (sporadically) but not continuously enough to assess impact
2 Bad Some unreliable data to assess impact
1 Very bad No data, neither resource knowledge, nor impact assessment.
∗
In the same manner, the other indicators were evaluated by stakeholders.

4. Results when defining a new IWRM issue that needs to be assessed (Ioris et al.,
2008). Furthermore, the IWRM indicators used for selecting criteria de-
4.1. Developing the indicator framework pend on the objective of the work and the issue to be evaluated. Thus,
in the following study, the selection criteria are based on three essential
In the present work, the selection of IWRM indicators is a participa- considerations (SWIM-project, 2012), namely:
tory exercise that allowed for the appropriation of the indicators by the
1. Relevance: i.e., the indicator must be relevant while giving a repre-
stakeholders, an exercise that can be an iterative process at each stage
sentative image of IWRM implementation in the study area.

6
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Fig. 3. Indicator framework.

2. Usefulness for decision-makers and water managers: i.e., the indi- radar plots have been developed for each indicator while present-
cator must be of interest to decision-makers and managers, hence ing the average scores of each stakeholder. The analyzed indicators
the importance of broad-based consultation with these stakeholders were: ‘Water Data’(a), ‘Assessment tools’(b), ‘Management scale’(c),
when developing these indicators. ‘Water Uses Integration(d)’, ‘Partnership level’(e), ‘Stakeholders par-
3. Reliability of the used information to measure the indicator: i.e., the ticipation’(f), ‘Awareness’(g), ‘Funding’(h), ‘Regulation’(i), ‘Technical
indicator must be technically and theoretically sound, that is, it must means’(j), ‘Planning’(k) and ‘Capacity Building’(l) shown in Fig. (4).
be scientifically valid (SWIM-project, 2012).

The information supporting the indicator should also be readily 4.2.1.1. Assessment indicators.
available, accessible on time, and with sufficiently long time series. Water data. Water data indicates the actor’s state of knowledge in
These selection criteria are sometimes challenging to meet jointly, which terms of used resources, as well as the availability of information on wa-
means that some may have to be ignored. In an environment of consul- ter flows and quality and also the impact of its use on the environment
tation with stakeholders, the proposed indicators are mostly inspired (Molina et al., 2010).Water data are also crucial in evaluating the indi-
by several works on IWRM and its implementation at the local level cators’ performance in IWRM implementation (Abdullaev and Rakhmat-
(Jeffrey and Gearey, 2006; Mazvimavi et al., 2008; Medema et al., ullaev, 2014). According to the analysis grid, the water data indicator
2008). The selected indicators are not exhaustive, thus, they can be belongs to the middle class, with a score of 3.6/5. Two actors, SRBA
strengthened by improving data availability. The indicator framework and NOWE, have achieved a perfect class. WEDA, RHD, and ES are in
contains relevant key indicators concerning specific issues, such as eval- the medium class, followed by RDA with a result falling in the poor
uation tools, technical and financial resources. They also refer to the par- class. These results show that, except for SRBA and NOWE, the rest of
ticipation level and integration indicators, such as water uses integra- the actors should be called upon to further develop their databases in
tion, partnerships, and consultation. The adopted indicator framework the water management process. Also, the survey identified, among other
is listed below in Fig. 3. things, issues related to access and sharing of water information. Data
Although these indicators do not allow for an in-depth analysis of are not continuous and not easily accessible for some parameters such as
the water management system’s problems, they nevertheless fulfill their water quality measurements, wastewater reuse data, and phytosanitary
primary function of providing more general data on the most critical practices in agriculture.
problems related to the management system. This approach will allow Assessment tools. This indicator provides information on a stake-
checking whether the management system has the characteristics re- holder’s assessment approach of water resources and the availability of
quired by IWRM framework and assessing the elements to be reinforced. assessment tools (Bourget, 2009). Furthermore, the assessment tools are
The aim here is to ensure that the management system reaches the de- essential in ensuring water information reliability among stakeholders
sired vision. Indeed, four categories of indicators were used to better (Davis and Threlfall, 2009). According to the analysis grid, the assess-
understand the state of the water management system, such as Assess- ment tools indicator has a score of 3.4/5 and shows that two actors,
ment indicators; Integration indicators; Consultation and Awareness in- SRBA and NOWE, have an excellent rating, while other actors have
dicators, and Management resources indicators (Fig. 3). modest scores belonging to the medium to low class. This shows that
most stakeholders need to strengthen their assessment tools for assessing
4.2. Water management system assessment in the study area the state of water resources in their action areas. Moreover, the assess-
ment tools, even if they exist, are often not exploited by stakeholders for
The survey results in Table 4 show the actors’ contribution level to achieving a better level of assessment of water resources and this may
IWRM implementation in the study area. According to the evaluation be due to problems of vision and planning. The establishment of a com-
grid adopted in this research, the table summarizes each stakeholder’s mon vision between stakeholders can help reinforce the requirements
average scores and their appreciation for the 12 indicators used. To fa- in terms of assessment tools.
cilitate the interpretation of results in both stakeholder and indicator
analyses, radar plots were constructed for 12 indicators from the per- 4.2.1.2. Integration indicators.
spective of all of the stakeholders. The points of progress and the points Management scale. The water resources management scale is an es-
requiring improvement for each stakeholder were also drawn from these sential indicator that concerned most stakeholders during the IWRM
results. indicator selection workshops. This importance of watershed-based
management is due to the close relationship between water manage-
4.2.1. Analysis of indicators ment at the watershed level and upstream/downstream considerations
To illustrate the progress and setbacks among stakeholders in (Lenton, 2011). According to the results achieved, the concept of water-
terms of IWRM implementation, each indicator’s status was presented, shed as a management unit seems difficult to respect for all stakehold-
considering the total contribution of involved stakeholders. Thus, ers except SRBA, since most of them operate within an administrative

7
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Table 4
Table summarizing the indicators scores evaluated among involved stakeholders.

territory which is geographically different from the watershed’s limits. ment of the water resource management system. This indicator shows
Thus, stakeholders were called to respect the watershed’s territorial di- that the stakeholders’ consultation is well taken into account by the
mension for actions that need to be taken into consideration to comply SRBA and W.S., and it is at a medium level for the other actors. Thus,
with the IWRM principles. This management scale issue can be solved stakeholders are aware of the importance of the participatory approach
by the recent establishment of Hydraulic Basin Councils, according to in IWRM implementation. Nevertheless, this approach seems hampered
the Law no. 36-15 relating to water. The Hydraulic Basin Council can by organizational constraints.
take on the role of consensus builder between the different actors, al- Awareness. For participatory water resources management, it is im-
lowing them to adopt together the same management policy that takes perative to guarantee water information sharing between stakehold-
into consideration the watershed as a management unit. ers. Indeed, one of the first obstacles to IWRM implementation is the
Water uses integration. The water sector is defined by the inter- poor dissemination of information concerning water among stakehold-
dependence of several domains, which requires giving consideration ers (Charnay, 2011). Thus, all stakeholders must reduce the problem of
to different water uses while allowing efficient and equitable man- information access by sharing and making accessible the available infor-
agement (Charnay, 2011). Thus, by integrating water uses, the IWRM mation. Like most indicators, awareness belongs to the medium class,
aims to satisfy the rational and legitimate needs of different categories with a score of 3.4 / 5. Only the PDA has a good score for this indicator.
of users in coherence with appropriate land use planning (Davis and In its management plan, PDA organizes awareness campaigns around
Threlfall, 2009). The results in Figure (4-d) show that the water uses the issues of management and water preservation, particularly among
integration indicator belongs to the medium class according to the anal- farmers and users.
ysis grid, with a score of 3.6/5, with two actors SRBA, PDA, and WS, Capacity building. The lack of qualified human resources is one of
having a Very Good class. However, other actors need to improve on the obstacles to IWRM implementation, especially in developing coun-
this indicator and consider different water uses in the water manage- tries (Fulazzaky, 2014; GWP, 2000). This requires continuous capac-
ment system. ity building among water resource actors and managers (Hartvelt and
Partnership level. The partnership level between stakeholders is of Okun, 1991). The use of new technologies, such as geographic informa-
paramount importance for water resource management, whether for tion systems, modeling, and management tools, requires actors to update
managers, decision-makers, or users (Margerum and Robinson, 2015). and adapt their capacity building plans to meet the needs of current
Thus, they need the tools to work together to achieve real consulta- and future management plans (Abdullaev and Rakhmatullaev, 2014;
tion. This indicator gives us an appreciation of the partnership level Jarar Oulidi, 2019; Kyalo Kiema, 2013). Capacity building received a
and the stakeholders’ integration in the issue of water resource man- low score of 2.8/5, which means that all actors must review their human
agement (Galvez and Rojas, 2019; Mostert, 2009). This indicator also resources capacity building policy to develop the necessary knowledge
shows that the partnership level remains modest for most actors, except of IWRM implementation.
SRBA and W.S., with an overall score of 3.5/5. RHD and E.S. have also
reached an important milestone in the area of partnership and belong
4.2.1.4. Management resources indicators.
to the good class. Based on these results, it is clear that strengthening
Funding. One of the significant challenges in water management
the partnership level is among the stakeholders’ priorities for successful
is to find adequate and sustainable funding for all infrastructures and
IWRM implementation.
services, as well as for the organization of regulatory and coordinating
institutions (Grigg, 2008). This indicator shows that only PDA has suffi-
4.2.1.3. Consultation and awareness indicators. cient funding for management actions. Thus, funding remains a limiting
Stakeholder’s consultation. Ideally, all stakeholders should be in- factor for management actions in the study area.
volved at every stage of the decision-making process, which allows for Regulation. Any state’s ability to control its water resources depends
sharing knowledge and makes actors responsible for the IWRM con- mainly on establishing a legal and regulatory framework and monitor-
cept application (Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). Indeed, the concerta- ing its implementation by involving all concerned parties (Salman and
tion/consultation level assessment seems relevant for the global assess- Bradlow, 2006). This indicator makes it possible to know how well the

8
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Fig. 4. Analysis of the Indicators.

regulatory aspect covers water uses and the degree to which it is applied. nical means can be an obstacle to water resource management actions.
As with most indicators, it is clear that the actors require political will This indicator provides information about the techniques used by stake-
and a great deal of effort for the regulatory implementation concerning holders in water management actions and how these are applied. It is
water resources. more advanced compared to other indicators, with a score of 3.9/5. All
Technical means. Managers must have appropriate technical means Actors were at the same level in terms of the availability of technical
to facilitate their management actions (Goosen, 2012). The lack of tech- means.

9
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Fig. 5. Stakeholders’ analysis.

Planning. The achievement of effective water resources planning adopted in the management plan are issues analyzed by this indicator
and management is already a challenge today, and will become increas- (Biswas, 2004). With a score of 3.6/5, the planning related indicator is
ingly so in the future (Loucks and van Beek, 2017) The presence or in the medium class. In terms of planning, the SRBA and W.S. seem to
absence of management plans among stakeholders and the time scale be more advanced than the other actors.

10
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

ter uses and deficient actors’ integration, as well as delays in terms of

awareness actions and evaluation tools.
The Provincial Directorate of Agriculture (PDA) is in charge of
hydraulic installation management for Small and Medium Hydraulics
(SMH) and the expansion/proliferation of water-saving techniques.
Some indicators show a positive evolution toward meeting integrated
water management requirements, such as Funding, Awareness, Water
Uses integration. Difficulties in achieving IWRM implementation for
this organization are mainly represented by weaknesses in terms of ca-
pacity building, lags in water regulations implementation, limited part-
nerships, and consultations related to other management processes. It
should be noted that there are no human resources capacity building
plans for PDA.
Water Service (WS) is affiliated with the Ministry of Equipment,
Transport, Logistics, and Water of Morocco, and it has achieved signif-
icant progress in water uses integration, stakeholder consultation, and
planning related to their water management process. Similarly to other
stakeholders, the Water Service registers shortcomings in terms of pos-
sessing assessment tools and implementing the regulatory framework.
This actor plays an essential role in water resources protection, through
quality control. Despite some weaknesses that require an improvement
in consultation with other stakeholders, its management system shows
a positive and essential contribution towards IWRM implementation.
The Regional Health Directorate (RHD) has a close relationship with
water resources and their uses. The management system for this actor
remains medium to very low for all indicators. Therefore, it requires
a great effort to improve regulatory framework implementation, par-
ticularly for achieving compliance with discharge standards and food
quality from areas irrigated with wastewater. Efforts must also be made
to strengthen technical tools and improve human resource capacities.
The Environmental Service’s mission includes monitoring water
Fig. 6. Global stakeholders’ analysis. quality and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. It con-
tributes, alongside other actors, to the improvement of health conditions
in aquatic ecosystems. ES records a medium score for eight indicators
out of 12, which requires an overall improvement in the adopted man-
4.2.2. Stakeholders’ analysis agement system to adequately contribute alongside other actors to the
To show each actor’s situation in terms of IWRM implementation in a achievement of an IWRM.
specific way, the actors’ standing was mapped using radar plots (Fig. 5).
The actors’ analysis allowed us to establish the state of the management 5. Discussion
system for each one.
The Sebou Rivers Basin Agency (SRBA) is responsible for water man- The global analysis of water resources stakeholders of the Meknes
agement at the large basin scale (Sebou Rivers Basin). It also has an es- Region could be divided into two main categories. The first category is
sential contribution to maintaining water resources in good condition at considered to correspond to a medium level, bringing together stake-
a more local scale and at the level of sub-basins. The Sebou Rivers Basin holders with weaknesses in terms of technical and financial means, ca-
Agency Sebou has an excellent score for 7 out of 12 indicators (water pacity building, and many other indicators, which are far from adequate
data; Assessment tools; Management scale; Water Uses Integration; Part- for applying a proper IWRM. The second category is associated with the
nership level; Stakeholders participation; Planning). Conversely, SRBA good level, grouping stakeholders who are more advanced and could
lacks awareness-raising activities and financial resources. contribute effectively to a proper IWRM (Fig. 6).
Water and Electricity Distribution Agency (WEDA), as the entity re- The indicators’ analysis shows that the total score for all indicators
sponsible for supplying drinking water to Meknes prefecture’s urban is 27.3, thus exceeding the average required for IWRM estimated at 24.
agglomerations, as well as for the management of hydraulic installa- The results show certain actors’ progress in some indicators, such as
tions and wastewater treatment, presents medium level scores compared technical resources and water data. At the same time, the indicators
to the objective of achieving an integrated management. Despite its related to capacity building and financial resources still present lower
progress in water data availability and evaluation, it is lagging far be- values compared to other indicators (Fig. 7).
hind for other indicators. Indeed, on the issue of management scale, this Besides, the majority of stakeholders are at a medium to a very good
actor gives no consideration either to the watershed scale as a manage- level in terms of their contributions to IWRM implementation in the
ment unit, or to water uses integration in water management. It should study area. The stakeholders that have an essential contribution to-
be noted that the financial resources are insufficient and the partner- wards the construction of an IWRM system are represented by Sebou
ships with other stakeholders are also limited. River Basin Agency (SRBA), National Office of Water and Electricity
The Regional Directorate of Agriculture (RDA) is in charge of hy- (NOWE), Water Service (WS), and Water and Electricity Distribution
draulic installation management for Large Hydraulics (L.H.) and Small Agency (WEDA). The rest of the stakeholders have a secondary contri-
and Medium Hydraulics (SMH), and the expansion of water-saving tech- bution to IWRM, which might be due to the overlap between the areas of
niques (along with the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture). According intervention of each actor and the lack of a common strategy among sev-
to the indicators mentioned in the evaluation radar, RDA presents a no- eral stakeholders (Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016; Brown et al., 2020).
table lag for the majority of indicators, thus indicating a weak to fragile This interpretation was confirmed by the stakeholders’ testimonies in
rating, especially marked by insufficient financial resources, weak wa- this study. Thus, a significant number of actors are affected by insuf-

11
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Fig. 7. Global indicators’ analysis.

ficient information, funding, and assessment tools. Indeed, most man- nomic, social, and environmental dimensions. This indicator framework
agement structures are not entirely adequate for carrying out an IWRM, has also been the subject of a participatory approach that is considered
which requires thorough reflection that needs to be focused on the play- crucial in IWRM. Furthermore, the analysis carried out on the stake-
ers while managing their resources to contribute together to an IWRM holders, and the indicators’ framework developed, enabled us to show
in their territory (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2003; Medema et al., 2008). the local stakeholders’ role in the IWRM implementation. An indica-
Moreover, a relationship may exist between the different studied vari- tor framework was also developed and tested, leading to the evalua-
ables, such as the fact that the financial funds indicator may have a re- tion of the IWRM system existing in Meknes’s city (R’dom sub-basin).
lationship with the other indicators (Medema et al., 2008). Stakehold- Since integrated water management is a management method that takes
ers do not have the same weight in terms of influence and power in into consideration all activities that have an impact on water resources
the IWRM implementation issue (Kapetas et al., 2019; Newton and El- within the natural territory of water flow (Giordano and Shah, 2014),
liott, 2016). Nevertheless, the assessment of their means and their con- this total integration remains problematic in the study area for many
tributions through developed indicators framework has allowed us to reasons, including governance related to water management.
identify the limits of the management system as a whole and the man- Note that the indicators questioned in the framework of this study
agement challenges for the involved stakeholders. constitute the important elements on which governance through inte-
In the section on water data, we pointed out the importance of data grated water resource management is based. It is important to show
in the development and application of IWRM indicators (Abdullaev and the system of governance implemented in the study area on the basis
Rakhmatullaev, 2014; Jarar Oulidi, 2019). Indeed, data acquisition and of the framework of indicators developed. This allows us to understand
manipulation problems would have increased with a more significant how the different stakeholders interact with each other in the different
number of indicators (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2003). In this way, we stages of management (Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016; Kapetas et al.,
limited the number of indicators to 12 to facilitate their interpretation 2019). Despite the importance of the participatory approach in water
due to the lack of reliable data and also to make it easier for stakeholders management system, stakeholders in the study area have not yet evolved
to use them in any eventual study (Ioris et al., 2008). As in any study in- to levels that allow for real involvement and consultation in the deci-
volving questionnaires, considerable efforts have been made to involve sive stages of the management process (Hargrove and Heyman, 2020;
stakeholders and gather data at the small basin scale. Respondents gen- Newton and Elliott, 2016).
erally acknowledged the limitations imposed on developing indicators Although the system of governance, whether in the regulatory or
and assessing IWRM implementation due to limited data availability. institutional framework, insists on the adoption of the participatory ap-
Compliance with the water-related Laws nos. 36-15 and 10-95 should proach at all levels, this lack of emphasis on the adoption, in practice,
typically result in more data on water use and hydrological monitoring. of the participatory approach is likely to have a negative impact on the
Also, the acquisition of other water-related data held by public agencies governance system (Dubreuil-Imbert, 2015). Taking into account the
should now be easier with the recent introduction of a law regulating complex context of water management, explained by the multitude of
the access to information in Morocco (Ait Kadi and Ziyad, 2018). It is interacting actors and sectors, the water management mode is seen as a
undoubtedly ample for several research studies that have been carried materialization of the social and political power relations between the
out in the same study area to assess environmental indicators, for ex- stakeholders (Del Vecchio and Mayaux, 2017; Swatuk, 2005). Although
ample, the physicochemical and bacteriological state of water resources the actors interviewed did not clearly express the issue of conflicts re-
in rivers and groundwater (Derfoufi et al., 2019; Gamar et al., 2018; lated to the use of water resources, these conflicts still exist, especially
Handaq and Blenzar, 2017; Lahjouj et al., 2020; Mehanned et al., 2014; in terms of agricultural irrigation in the study area. Thus, the digging
Pati et al., 2014). Ioris et al, 2008 developed a framework of water man- of wells and boreholes, the use of water from dams and the granting of
agement sustainability indicators applied in Brazil and Scotland. The re- operating authorizations are sensitive and represent potential point of
searchers found that Indicators are relatively easy to develop. However, conflict (Ait Kadi and Ziyad, 2018; Del Vecchio and Mayaux, 2017).
it is often difficult to collect reliable, representative data to assess the Moreover, the research conducted on water conflicts has shown that
performance of IWRM’s objectives. In spite of these findings, there is a these conflicts have a considerable influence on the implementation
scarcity of solutions to the real problems that lead to the degradation of of policies adopted in terms of water management (Del Vecchio and
the state of water bodies. Mayaux, 2017; Pellegrini et al., 2019; Rogers and Hall, 2003). In spite
The present work attempts to develop an indicators’ framework for of important advances deployed in the water sector in the study area, the
integrated water resources management that brings together the eco- issue of water management governance is left behind at several levels:

12
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

• The absence of a global and shared vision between actors, in terms • Building an IWRM information and data sharing system to facilitate
of water management; the assessment process by stakeholders.
• The multitude and interdependence of uses which seem unintegrated
for the majority of actors, as sectoral management is ineffective in Moreover, it is important to highlight the practical limitations of the
preserving the quality and quantity of water resources and in taking recommendations made in the case study. Thus, the problem of data ac-
into consideration needs and impacts between the different water quisition and manipulation and the complexity of the real-world process
uses; of water management are considered to represents the limits in apply-
• The absence of a political will, which reflects the non-enforcement ing the recommendations made. The limitations also include the lack
of regulatory texts relating to water and the lack of technical and of political willingness for collaboration in the case of some actors and,
control means among the majority of actors; together, these issues are the most limiting factors for the implemen-
• Decision-making is generally achieved without consultation between tation of the indicator framework results. Indeed, the water resources
actors, which favors divergences in water management actions even management system’s current state in the study area requires all actors’
on a smaller territory (small basin); this point calls us to question political will to make the water issue a priority and a common problem
the existence of good governance in the management of a common of interest. It is also crucial to mobilize local actors and set up consul-
good such as water; tation and coordination mechanisms at the local level to make IWRM
• The financing allocated to water management is insufficient and not effective and efficient in the study area through medium and long-term
sustainable to bring about investments in a global and concerted planning.
approach.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Indeed, the results of the indicator framework implementation and
the observation linked to governance in water resource management The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
indicate that the problem of governance related to water sector in the interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
study area does not lie primarily in its institutional organization, but in the work reported in this paper.
the operationalization and proper functioning of these structures. De-
spite the challenges faced by stakeholders participating in our research, Acknowledgments
it is important to acknowledge the strength of efforts developed in the
face of limited funding and human resources. The following research At the end of this work, we would like to thank all the stakeholders
can be used as a primary approach to organize and display complex (WEDA, NOWE, SRBA, RDA, PDA, ES, RHD, and WS) who responded
concepts, such as the IWRM, which can provide further knowledge on positively to our requests on water management, and we would also
developing quantitative and qualitative measures to identify the needs like to thank all the co-authors who each contributed in their respective
and resources of each stakeholder and finally provide a vehicle for com- places in the elaboration of this work. This article is dedicated to Dr
munity planning toward an improvement of IWRM implementation. Ahmed SAYAD, an inspiring Environmental Scientist and an extraordi-
nary man.
6. Conclusions
Supplementary materials
This work’s objective was to develop an indicator framework for in-
tegrated water resources management and test it at the R’Dom sub-basin
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
level, to assess the stakeholders’ IWRM implementation state. This stud-
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.envc.2021.100062.
ied sub-basin is characterized by intense agricultural activity, resulting
in overexploitation of the water table and the degradation of water qual-
References
ity. The adopted methodology seems relevant concerning the participa-
tory approach used to involve the various stakeholders in developing Abdullaev, I., Rakhmatullaev, S., 2014. Data management for integrated water re-
indicators. The assessment method is based on a scoring system ranging sources management in Central Asia. J. Hydroinf. 16, 1425–1440. doi:10.2166/hy-
dro.2014.097.
from 1 to 5 for the 12 studied indicators. The result of this rating sys-
Ahmad, A.Y., Al-Ghouti, M.A., 2020. Approaches to achieve sustainable use and man-
tem is organized in five quality classes (Very good, Good, Medium, Bad, agement of groundwater resources in Qatar: a review. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 11,
Awful), allowing the assessment of each indicator, as well as the assess- 100367. doi:10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100367.
ment of the global management system in the study area. The analysis Ahmadov, E., 2020. Water resources management to achieve sustainable development in
Azerbaijan. Sustain. Futures 2, 100030. doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100030.
method makes it much easier for us to interpret the results even when Ahmed, M.F., Mokhtar, M.B., Alam, L., 2020. Factors influencing people’s willingness to
several stakeholder indicators are compared. In evaluating the overall participate in sustainable water resources management in Malaysia. J. Hydrol. 31,
stakeholders’ contributions to the integrated management implementa- 100737. doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100737.
Ait Kadi, M., Ziyad, A., 2018. Integrated water resources management in Mo-
tion, it is clear that the water resources management system in the study rocco. In: World Water Council. Global Water Security, Water Resources
area is to be considered overall as average in terms of IWRM implemen- Development and Management. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 143–163.
tation. The findings also show the fields of interest that stakeholders doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7913-9_6 Ed..
Akhmadiyeva, Z., Abdullaev, I., 2019. Water management paradigm shifts in
need to deal with, such as: the Caspian Sea region: Review and outlook. J. Hydrol. 568, 997–1006.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.009.
• A shared vision among stakeholders on the future of water resources Akhmouch, A., Clavreul, D., 2016. Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water gover-
should be designed and implemented. nance: “practicing what we preach” with the OECD water governance initiative. Water
• The financing allocated to water management must be strengthened 8, 204. doi:10.3390/w8050204.
Akpabio, E.M., Watson, N.M., Ite, U.E., Ukpong, I.E., 2007. Integrated water resources
and become sustainable in order to attract investment in terms of
management in the cross river Basin, Nigeria. Int. J. Water Resourc. Dev. 23, 691–
water management. 708. doi:10.1080/07900620701488612.
• Establishing a consensus among stakeholders to strengthen the inte- Allaoui, A., 2019. Contribution des études Structurales, Géophysiques et Hydrochimiques
a la Compréhension des Écoulements des Eaux Souterraines du Causse d’Agouray vers
gration of the various water-related uses.
le bassin de Saïss, (Maroc). Moulay Imail University, Melknes.
• Institutional capacity building in terms of water management. Amraoui, F., Razack, M., Bouchaou, L., 2004. Comportement d’une source karstique
• Strengthening governance in water management and ensuring the soumise à une sécheresse prolongée : la source Bittit (Maroc). Comptes Rendus Geosci.
implementation of laws. 336, 1099–1109. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2004.03.016.
Ben-Daoud, M., Mouhaddach, O., Essahlaoui, A., Kestemont, M.-P., ELJaafari, S., 2012.
• Raising the consultation level among stakeholders and promoting Diagnosis of Potential Water Contamination by Pesticides in the Sub-Basin R’Dom
decision-making at the local level. (Morocco) 7 https://doi.org/DOI: 10.5829/idosi.rjes.2012.4.1.1108.

13
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Ben-Daoud, M., Mouhaddach, O., Essahlaoui, A., Layachi, A., Kestemont, M.-P., El Jaafari, Goosen, M.F.A., 2012. Environmental management and sustainable development. Proce-
S., 2011. Conception d’un SIG pour l’évaluation de l’impact des activités anthropiques dia Eng. 33, 6–13. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1171.
sur la qualité des eaux superficielles de la ville de Meknès (Maroc). Cahiers de l’ASEES Granjou, C., Garin, P., 2006. Organiser la proximité entre usagers de l’eau : le cas
16, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1051/asees/2011205 de la Gestion Volumétrique dans le Bassin de la Charente. developpementdurable.
Biswas, A.K., 2008. Integrated Water Resources Management: Is It Working? Int. J. Water https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.2694
Resour. Dev. 24, 5–22. doi:10.1080/07900620701871718. Grigg, N.S., 2008. Integrated water resources management: balancing views and improv-
Biswas, A.K., 2004. Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. Water Int. ing practice. Water Int. 33, 279–292. doi:10.1080/02508060802272820.
29, 248–256. doi:10.1080/02508060408691775. GWP, 2009. A Handbook for Integrated Water Resources Management in Basins. Global
Bourget, P.G., 2009. Integrated water resources management curriculum in the united Water Partnership ; International Network of Basin Organizations, Stockholm, Swe-
states: results of a recent survey: IWRM curriculum in the United States. J. Contemp. den; Paris, France.
Water Res. Educ. 135, 107–114. doi:10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp135001013.x. GWP, 2004. Catalyzing Change: a Handbook for Developing Integrated Water Resources
Braga, B.P.F., 2001. Integrated urban water resources management: a chal- Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Strategies. Global Water Partnership Sec-
lenge into the 21st century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 17, 581–599. retariat, Stockholm, Sweden.
doi:10.1080/07900620120094127. GWP, 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Global water partnership, Stock-
Brombal, D., Niu, Y., Pizzol, L., Moriggi, A., Wang, J., Critto, A., Jiang, X., holm.
Liu, B., Marcomini, A., 2018. A participatory sustainability assessment for inte- Hailu, R., Tolossa, D., 2020. Multi-stakeholder platforms: institutional options to achieve
grated watershed management in urban China. Environ. Sci. Policy 85, 54–63. water security in the awash basin of Ethiopia. World Dev. Perspect. 19, 100213.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.020. doi:10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100213.
Brown, A.R., Webber, J., Zonneveld, S., Carless, D., Jackson, B., Artioli, Y., Handaq, N., Blenzar, A., 2017. Impact Des Eaux Usées Et Des Aménagements Urbains
Miller, P.I., Holmyard, J., Baker-Austin, C., Kershaw, S., Bateman, I.J., Tyler, C.R., Sur La Répartition Des Espèces De Culicidae (Diptera Nematocera) Dans La Ville De
2020. Stakeholder perspectives on the importance of water quality and other Meknès (Maroc). ESJ 13, 184. doi:10.19044/esj.2017.v13n27p184.
constraints for sustainable mariculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 114, 506–518. Hargrove, W.L., Heyman, J.M., 2020. A comprehensive process for stakeholder identifi-
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.018. cation and engagement in addressing wicked water resources problems. Land 9, 119.
Chang, I.-S., Zhao, M., Chen, Y., Guo, X., Zhu, Y., Wu, J., Yuan, T., 2020. doi:10.3390/land9040119.
Evaluation on the integrated water resources management in China’s major Hartvelt, F., Okun, D.A., 1991. Capacity building for water resources management. Water
cities – based on City Blueprint® Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 262, 121410. Int. 16, 176–183. doi:10.1080/02508069108686113.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121410. He, C., Harden, C.P., Liu, Y., 2020. Comparison of water resources manage-
Charnay, B., 2011. A system method for the assessment of integrated water resources ment between China and the United States. Geogr. Sustain. 1, 98–108.
management (IWRM) in mountain watershed areas: the case of the “Giffre” watershed doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2020.04.002.
(France). Environ. Manag. 48, 189–197. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9683-7. Hooper, B., 2015. Integrated river Basin governance: learning from international ex-
Collins, R., Johnson, D., Crilly, D., Rickard, A., Neal, L., Morse, A., Walker, M., Lear, R., perience. Water Intell. Online 4. doi:10.2166/9781780402970, 9781780402970–
Deasy, C., Paling, N., Anderton, S., Ryder, C., Bide, P., Holt, A., 2020. Collaborative 9781780402970.
water management across England – an overview of the Catchment Based Approach. Ioris, A.A.R., Hunter, C., Walker, S., 2008. The development and application of water
Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 117–125. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.001. management sustainability indicators in Brazil and Scotland. J. Environ. Manag. 88,
Davis, M.D., Threlfall, J., 2009. Integrated water resource management in New 1190–1201. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.007.
Zealand: legislative framework and implementation: IWRM in New Zealand: Leg- Jarar Oulidi, H., 2019. Technical framework: spatial data infrastructure for water. In: Spa-
islative framework and implementation. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 135, 86–99. tial Data on Water. Elsevier, pp. 63–92. doi:10.1016/B978-1-78548-312-7.50002-8.
doi:10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp135001011.x. Jeffrey, P., Gearey, M., 2006. Integrated water resources management: lost on the road
Del Vecchio, K., Mayaux, P.-L., 2017. In: Gouverner les eaux souterraines au from ambition to realisation? Water Sci. Technol. 53, 1–8. doi:10.2166/wst.2006.001.
Maroc: L’État en aménageur libéral, 1. Gouvernement et action publique, p. 107. Kapetas, L., Kazakis, N., Voudouris, K., McNicholl, D., 2019. Water allocation and gover-
doi:10.3917/gap.171.0107. nance in multi-stakeholder environments: insight from Axios Delta, Greece. Sci. Total
C. Derfoufi, H., Legssyer, M., Belbachir, C, Legssyer, B., 2019. Effect of physicochemical Environ. 695, 133831. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133831.
and microbiological parameters on the water quality of wadi Zegzel. Mater. Today Kyalo Kiema, J.B., 2013. Remote sensing application supporting IWRM in
13, 730–738. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2019.04.034. Kenya. In: Developments in Earth Surface Processes. Elsevier, pp. 51–66.
Dubreuil-Imbert, C., 2015. GIRE et GDE en Méditerranée: Expérience du Maroc. Plan Bleu doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-59559-1.00006-2.
Conference, 24 Février 2015, Lyon, France. Lahjouj, A., El Hmaidi, A., Bouhafa, K., 2020. Spatial and statistical assessment of nitrate
Dungumaro, E.W., Madulu, N.F., 2003. Public participation in integrated water re- contamination in groundwater: Case of Sais Basin, Morocco 16. https://doi.org/DOI:
sources management: the case of Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth 28, 1009–1014. 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.02.006
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2003.08.042, Parts A/B/C. Lavkulich, L.M.(Les), Ulazzi, E., Meire, P., Coenen, M., Lombardo, C., Robba, M.,
Essahlaoui, A., 2000. Contribution B la reconnaissance des formations acquières dans le 2008. Environmental indicators for water resources management. In: Sacile, R.
bassin de Meknès (Maroc), Prospection géoélectrique, étude hydrogéologique et in- (Ed.), Integrated Water Management, NATO Science Series: IV: Earth and
ventaire des ressources en eau. Ecole Mohammadia d’ingénieurs, Rabat, Maroc. Environmental Sciences. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 325–342.
Essahlaoui, A., Ouali, E.A., 2003. Détermination de la structure géologique de la partie doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6552-1_24.
Sud de la plaine du Saïss (bassin de Meknès-Fès, Maroc) par la méthode géoélectrique. Legrouri, A., Sendide, K., Kalpakian, J., 2019. Enhancing integrity in water governance in
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 62, 155–166. doi:10.1007/s10064-002-0178-x. morocco: opportunities and challenges. JGI 3, 1–9. doi:10.15282/jgi.3.1.2019.5417.
Essahlaoui, A., Sahbi, H., El Yamine, N., 2001. Application de la géophysique (méthode Lenton, R., 2011. Integrated water resources management. In: Treatise on Water Science.
géoélectrique) à la reconnaissance du plateau de Meknès (Bassin de Saïss), Maroc [Ap- Elsevier, pp. 9–21. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53199-5.00002-6.
plication of geophysical prospecting (geoelectrical method) for the hydrogeological Lotfi, S., Chakit, M., Belghyti, D., 2020. Groundwater Quality and pollution in-
reconnaissance of the Meknes Plateau (Saiss basin), Morocco]. Geol. Belg. 3, 35–53. dex for heavy metals in Saïs Plain, Morocco. J. Health Pollut. 10, 200603.
doi:10.20341/gb.2014.022. doi:10.5696/2156-9614-10.26.200603.
Farahy, O., Laghfiri, M., Bourioug, M., Lotfi, A., 2020. Overview of pesti- Loucks, D.P., van Beek, E., 2017. Water resources planning and management: an overview.
cide use in Moroccan apple orchards and its effects on the environment. In: Water Resource Systems Planning and Management. Springer International Pub-
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health S246858442030074X. lishing, Cham, pp. 1–49. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011 Margerum, R.D., Robinson, C.J., 2015. Collaborative partnerships and the challenges
Fulazzaky, M., 2014. Challenges of integrated water resources management in Indonesia. for sustainable water management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 53–58.
Water 6 2000–2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6072000. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.003.
Gallego-Ayala, J., 2013. Trends in integrated water resources management research: a Mazvimavi, D., Hoko, Z., Jonker, L., Nhapi, I., Senzanje, A., 2008. Integrated Water Re-
literature review. Water Policy 15, 628–647. doi:10.2166/wp.2013.149. sources Management (IWRM) – from concept to practice. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts
Galvez, V., Rojas, R., 2019. Collaboration and integrated water resources management: a A/B/C 33, 609–613. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.07.001.
literature review. World Water Policy 5, 179–191. doi:10.1002/wwp2.12013. Mcdonnell, R.A., 2008. Challenges for integrated water resources management: how do
Gamar, A., Zair, T., El Kabriti, M., El Hilali, F., 2018. Study of the impact of the we provide the knowledge to support truly integrated thinking? Int. J. Water Resour.
wild dump leachates of the region of El Hajeb (Morocco) on the physicochemi- Dev. 24, 131–143. doi:10.1080/07900620701723240.
cal quality of the adjacent water table. Karbala Int. J. Modern Sci. 4, 382–392. Medema, W., McIntosh, B.S., Jeffrey, P.J., 2008. From Premise to Practice: a Critical
doi:10.1016/j.kijoms.2018.10.002. Assessment of Integrated Water Resources Management and Adaptive Management
García, L.E., 2008. Integrated water resources management: a ‘Small’ step for con- Approaches in the Water Sector. E&S 13, art29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02611-
ceptualists, a giant step for practitioners. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 24, 23–36. 130229
doi:10.1080/07900620701723141. Mees, H., Suykens, C., Crabbé, A., 2017. Evaluating conditions for integrated wa-
Gaucherel, C., 2003. Pertinence de la notion d’indicateur pour la caractérisation du bassin- ter resource management at sub-basin scale. a comparison of the flemish sub-
versant. Espace Géogr. 32, 265. doi:10.3917/eg.323.0265. basin boards and walloon river contracts. Environ. Policy Govern. 27, 59–73.
Giordano, M., Shah, T., 2014. From IWRM back to integrated water resources manage- doi:10.1002/eet.1736.
ment. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 30, 364–376. doi:10.1080/07900627.2013.851521. Mehanned, S., Chahlaoui, A., Zaid, A., Samih, M., Chahboune, M., 2014. Typologie de
Godinez-Madrigal, J., Van Cauwenbergh, N., van der Zaag, P., 2019. Produc- la qualité physico-chimique de l’eau du barrage Sidi Chahed-Maroc (Typology of the
tion of competing water knowledge in the face of water crises: revisiting the physic-chemical quality of the waters of the dam Sidi Chahed-Morocco). J. Mater.
IWRM success story of the Lerma-Chapala Basin, Mexico. Geoforum 103, 3–15. Environ. Sci. 1633–1642.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.002.

14
M. Ben-Daoud, B.E. Mahrad, I. Elhassnaoui et al. Environmental Challenges 3 (2021) 100062

Molina, J.L., Bromley, J., García-Aróstegui, J.L., Sullivan, C., Benavente, J., 2010. In- Petit, O., Baron, C., 2009. Integrated Water Resources Management: From general princi-
tegrated water resources management of overexploited hydrogeological systems ples to its implementation by the state. The case of Burkina Faso. Nat. Resour. Forum
using Object-Oriented Bayesian Networks. Environ. Model. Softw. 25, 383–397. 33, 49–59. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01208.x.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.007. Rogers, P., Hall, A.W., 2003. Gouvernance efficace de lʹeau. Global Water Partner-
Molle, F., 2012. La GIRE : anatomie d’un concept. In: Gestion intégrée des ressources en ship,Comité Technique (TEC), Stockholm.
eau : paradigme occidental, pratiques africaines. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Saddiki, N., Benaabidate, L., Bahaj, T., El Wartiti, M., 2010. Assessment of Sebou water-
Québec, p. 34. shed water quality downstream the cities of Fez and Meknes, Morocco, in: Water-Rock
Molle, F., Wester, P., 2009. River basin trajectories: societies, environments and develop- Interaction – Birkle & Torres-Alvarado (Eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
ment. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series. CABI, Salman, S.M.A., Bradlow, D.D., 2006. Regulatory Frameworks for Water Resources Man-
Wallingford, UK ; Cambridge, MA. agement: A Comparative Study. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-
Moriarty, P., Batchelor, C., Laban, P., Fahmy, H., 2010. Developing a practical approach 8213-6519-9
to “Light IWRM” in the middle east. Water Altern. 3 (1) 122-136 3, 15. Smith, M., Clausen, T.J., 2015. Integrated Water Resource Management-A new way for-
Mostert, E., 2009. Integrated water resources management in the Netherlands: how con- ward.
cepts function: IWRM in The Netherlands. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 135, 19–27. Swatuk, L.A., 2005. Political challenges to implementing IWRM in Southern Africa. Phys.
doi:10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp135001003.x. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 30, 872–880. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2005.08.033.
Newton, A., Elliott, M., 2016. A typology of stakeholders and guidelines for SWIM-project, 2012. Indicators relating to iwrm. Sub-regional workshop on inter-linkages
engagement in transdisciplinary, participatory processes. Front. Mar. Sci. 3. between IWRM & ICZM, 30 Oct-1 Nov June 2012, Algiers.
doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00230. Tahri, M., 2005. Application des Techniques d’Analyse Multiélémentaires pour
Pati, S., Dash, M.K., Mukherjee, C.K., Dash, B., Pokhrel, S., 2014. Assessment of water qual- l’Evaluation des Teneurs en Métaux Lourds dans Les Eaux. Les Sols et Les Sédiments
ity using multivariate statistical techniques in the coastal region of Visakhapatnam, de La Région de Meknès, Moulay Ismail, Meknès.
India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 6385–6402. doi:10.1007/s10661-014-3862-y. Tippett, J., Searle, B., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., 2005. Social learning in public participation
Pellegrini, E., Bortolini, L., Defrancesco, E., 2019. Coordination and participation boards in river basin management—early findings from HarmoniCOP European case studies.
under the european water framework directive: different approaches used in some EU Environ. Sci. Policy 8, 287–299. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.03.003.
countries. Water 11, 833. doi:10.3390/w11040833.

15