1

Rhodes University

Department of Environmental Science

Land degradation Assessment Using LFA Method in Kopoch, West

Pokot District; Kenya

Author: John Kapoi Kipterer

Submitted to Dr. J Gambiza (PhD)

Submission date: 11/11/2011Submission Time: 11.18 am (East African Time)

Assignment for the partial fulfillment of Certificate in Land degradation Assessment

2

Land degradation Assessment Using LFA Method in Kopoch,site, West Pokot

District;Kenya

Abstract

The study focuses on the Land function analysis in land degradation assessment, a simple methodology that utilizes

locally available tools to bring results. The investigators aimed at using this methodology to determine the key

determinants of land functional analysis and to find out the level of degradation in the study area. The study was

conducted and the findings using the methodology concurred with the actual general ground situation in the area.

1.0 Introduction

Land is a non renewable resource on the human timescale.(P.Brabant, 2008).Land is the world’s

most precious resource, it is not however appreciated for its true value because of the high prices

obtained from gold, petroleum, mineral ore and other precious stones, therefore land is treated as

a mere dirt (Edouard Saouma, FAO, 1996)

Land degradation is serious and slow onset disasters that at long run undermines the land

production and change the livelihood patterns. IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on

Development) economic block of Africa, in the Africa monitoring of Environment for

sustainable development adopted the FAO definition of land degradation for the project.

According to IGAD, (FAO, 2010), Land degradation is the temporary or permanent productive

capacity of land to provide ecosystem goods and services.

A researcher at IRD (P.Brabant, 2008) puts it that land degradation is a process that diminishes

or destroys the agricultural crop or livestock and forest production capacity of land and it i

largely induced by human activities or can be natural phenomenon aggravated by human

activities. From Pierre Brabant studies in West Africa, he found out that, degradation could have

several impacts on soil functions thus deteriorating the productive capacity of land.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Land degradation has affected land productivity levels and has caused receding pasture in agro

pastoral, pastoral and mixed livelihood zones where livestock keeping forms a major source of

3

income or livelihoods in Africa. This undermined the economies (Gambiza, 2010).According to

UNEP 2008, and Taimi, 2008, and FAO, 2005, an estimate of 65% of Africa’s Agricultural land

is degraded due to erosion and both chemical and physical damage, and about 31% of continents

pasture land and 19% of forests and woodland are classified as degraded.

Globally, Land degradation is increasing in severity and extend in many parts of the world with

more that 20% of all cultivated areas, 30% of all forests and 10%garssland are undergoing

degradation (Bai et al, 2008).

It is for this reasons that, studies and integration of assessment methodologies to bring more

understanding on the concept and the threats posed by land degradation to the economy to

inform the stakeholders in land resource management and the users is necessary to control or

mitigate against the impending impacts of land degradation.

1.2 Objectives

To determine the spatial extent and severity of land degradation at large scale using integration

of geospatial technologies and conduct specific plot scale assessment using landscape function

Analysis (LFA)

1.3 Research Questions

What is the correct state of landscape function and extent of degradation at the site?

What are the Key determinants of Landscape function analysis?

1.4 Land degradation definitions in Ostrom framework Considerations

According to Ostrom’ framework, which lays more emphasis on socio economic and political,

set up.

Group one of the students who participated in land degradation course in Rhodes University

(John Kapoi: Kenya, Leigh-Ann de Wet: RSA, Zanele Linda: RSA), September, 2011, defines

land degradation as the process in which natural resource is depleted by human and natural

activities, that ends up affecting the production system, and the capacity of the land, leading to

accelerated degradation.

4

The group further identified soil as a resource unit, economic value, agriculture and productivity

as a resource system, Government departments, regional authorities and economic blocks as

governance system natural habitat, vegetation, water and river system as related systems and the

users as the community, farmers and various industries around.

1.5.0 Forms of land degradation

Land degradation manifests itself through vegetation which may provide fuel and fodder

becomes increasing scarce, water courses dry up, thorny weeds predominate in once rich pasture

foot paths disappear into gullies soil becomes thin and stony (Michael Stocking, et al ,2000).

1.5.1 Ecological or Biological land degradation.

The ecological or biological land degradation is where the original plant species and animal

species invade a particular area or locality while the original species (flora and fauna) slowly

disappear or are suppressed. (P.Brabant, 2010). From his research in Africa, Brabant observes

that, Biological degradation is however and indication of reduction in organic matter, macro

fauna quantity and biodiversity.

1.5.2 Chemical Degradation

This is degradation where the soil is polluted causing loss of nutrients, excess salinization,

acidification and alkalization (Brabant, 2010)

1.5.3 Wind and Water Erosion.

Wind and Water erosion is the most common form of land degradation in the IGAD economic

region of Africa. It is for this reason that EU and AU through AMESD project committed 1.94

Million Euros for the assessment to identify extent and severity of land degradation at the

regional and national levels and to identify local hotspots for comprehensive assessment. Wind

erosion severity is common in Northern parts of Africa; however the severity by water erosion in

the IGAD block is more prominent with large economic impacts in food security and livelihoods.

1.5.4 Other forms of land degradation:

5

The degradation due to war or conflicts, leaves the land with remnants of explosives,

antipersonnel mines, deformation due to bombings and defoliant sprays and remnants of uranium

munitions. (P.Brabant, 2010)

1.5.4 Causes of land degradation

According to Peter Ikemefuna,et al (2008),The researcher puts it that, Scientists and

development practitioners acknowledge that the worst potent source of land degradation is from

the anthropogenic activities that accelerate changes in land use and land cover through

unsustainable land use. S.Vetter (2005) observes that, the high human and livestock densities and

continuous grazing has led to undesirable vegetation changes and more worrying accelerated the

soil erosion. In my view based on these observations, it is clear that, the socio economic

dynamics coupled with pressure to sustain the economic demands from the populations and poor

planning among the farmers in developing countries at long run leads to land degradation.

S. Vetter (2005) observed that the sedentarization of pastoralist and or supplementary feeding

among the livestock farmers leads to heavy utilization of parts of the range.

A number of causes have been explored by many researchers and professional groups based on

their areas of study. The climatic changes that’s resulted to frequent droughts and heavy

precipitation is one of the main cause of land degradation mainly the wind and water erosion

forms of degradation.

The rapid urbanization as a result of rural urban migration pushing housing demand in urban

areas high, leading to massive clearance of land for development contributes to land degradation

because in the process clearance of once protected and encroachment of forests or undisturbed

areas for construction takes place.

The poor farming methods or practices among the farmers in rural areas, contributes to this

menace. The high population growth in agricultural areas, may compromise the situation further

The poverty among the farmers in rural agricultural areas, and the lack of investment capacity,

leads to poor farming practices hence degradation. (P.Brabant, 2010)

6

Land tenure system in some rural areas especially communal land, suffers from degradation

because of poor land management in this systems. The overgrazing and trampling of livestock

leaves this type of land degraded. This case was observed in Mgwalana communal land in

Peddie, in Republic of South Africa, and several pastoral regions of Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia

under Africa Monitoring of Environment for Sustainable Environment (AMESD) Land

degradation index mapping service. The same observation was made in East Africa by S.Vetter,

2005 where overgrazing was identified as a problem in communal land tenure system areas

Overstocking and overgrazing which leads to removal of vegetation cover that protects soil from

forms of erosion, leads to land degradation. According to S. Vetter, 2005, the susceptibility of

soils to grazers’ induced changes such crusting, compaction and accelerated erosion is related to

texture, with sandy soil being more resilient than clay soil in arid areas.

The armed conflicts, insecurity and rural population movement is one of the cause of land

degradation in war torn countries (P.Brabant, 2010)

HIV and AIDS pandemic. The population suffering from this pandemic, most often do not

engage in there daily duties as opposed to the healthy population’s population energies are

weakened by the effects of this disease and for farmers, the farms are left unattended, and

managed and as a result, soil may be washed away by erosive rainfall, Peter Ikemefuna et al,

2008 observes that, HIV and AIDS Pandemic have significantly compounded the problem of

non-management of land and hence are degraded through service loss of mature population and

loss of farm labor and agricultural knowledge (Peter Ikemefuna, et al 2008.

7

2.0 Material and Methods

2.1 Site description

The Site of investigation lies in west Pokot district of Kenya, at a GPS coordinate point of N:

01o 19’ 50.4’’ E 035o,03’ 27.8’’ at an altitude of 1628m above the mean sea level.

Thorny short acacia bushes with patches of grass and other short woody vegetation characterize

the site. The soil type is a mix of sandy loam and silty loam with high stoniness (gravel)

contents.

The terrain characteristics is sloppy with rough surface nature with its aspect sloping towards

the north western part of the district.

2.2 Materials

The main materials utilized for this assessment in the field are very simple and easily available.

The materials includes; the tape measure, at least 30 to 100 m, GPs to be able to reference the

position for time series monitoring over the same transect, pegs to mark beginning and end of

the transect, a bottle of water for soil slate test, and cryptogram testing,

The timer or watch are used to record beginning and the end of the assessment, the camera,

paper clipboard and the writing pens or pencil for data entry purposes

2.3 Methods

The landscape function assessment (LFA) involves three main steps. In step 1 and 2 involves the

details of transects, identification of landscape profile characterizations to set up the transect

though determination of slope aspect, lithology, soils and vegetation type is determined. Step 2

mainly involves location of transect, planning and identification of patches and inter patches for

assessment.

In step 3 of the methodology, the soil assessment in the query zone, litter, rain splash, perennial

vegetation cover, cryptogram cover, crust brokenness, soil erosion type and severity, deposition

materials, soil surface roughness, surface resistance, slate and texture assessment is undertaken

in detail.

8

3.0 Results

3.1 Land surface function

The site of investigation comprised of the patches and inter patches along the transect line, where

the mean length of grass patch taking 0.26, shrubs 0.95, litter 0.5 and weed 0.19.The table below

shows the mean length from the LFA analysis.

Landscape

Zone Mean Zone Length (m) %Bare Soil 0.00 0.0Grass 0.26 56.5Weed 0.19 24.3Shrub 0.95 12.6Litter 0.50 6.6Total 100.0

The proportion coverage in the study site is represented in the graph below. The grass takes the

larger proportion I width cover, which implies its dominance in the area, however, bare soil takes

a larger cover share.

Grass takes the larger proportion implying that the site is covered by grass, which helps in

controlling the surface run off.

9

Patches Patch zone Code Width (cm) No MeanGrass GP 586 33 17.8Weed WP 544 19 28.6shrub SP 52 2 26.0Total 1182 54 21.9

From the table above, grass cover dominates the site with a width of 586cm as compared to the

weed patch with width of 544 cm

The table below shows the average number of patches in 10m, patch area index among others

Number of Patches/10m 35.9Total Patch Area 3.7 sq. m.Patch Area Index 0.02Landscape Organisation Index 0.93Average Interpatch Length (m) 0.50 mRange Interpatch length 0.1 to 1.4 m.

The key determinant features in this study are the grass, the shrubs and the weed. The table

below shows the proportions held by each feature in the study area.

Zone code Fetch No Mean Proportion %Bare Soil BS 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00Grass GP 8.5 33 0.26 0.56 56.48Weed WP 3.65 19 0.19 0.24 24.25Shrub SP 1.9 2 0.95 0.13 12.62Litter L 1 2 0.50 0.07 6.64Total 15.05 56 1.90 1 100

This implies that, the grass patches is dominant in this area and during the dry season, this may

dry up leaving the land bare and vulnerable to surface run off.

3.2 Soil surface assessment

The soil stability under grass patch revealed that the stability is high under it as well as under the

weed patch. The table below shows the analysis in LFA.

10

Stability

FeaturesMax score BG GP WP L SP

Soil Cover 5 1 4 4 2ln 1Litter Cover (simple) 10 1 2 3 3 2Cryptogam cover 4 1 1 1 1 3Crust broken-ness 4 2 1 1 2 1Erosion type & severity 4 2 4 3 2 0Deposited materials 4 4 4 4 4 4Surface resist. to disturb. 5 5 5 4 1 1Slake test 4 3 3 2 2 3Total 19 24 22 15 15Divide by 40 40 40 35 36% 47.50 60.00 55.00 42.86 41.67

The infiltration under this assessment was found to be high under the shrub patch and litter, this

allows the water and minerals to infiltrate into the soil under it necessitating growth and

saturation of the soil.

Infiltration/runoff

FeaturesMax score BS GP WP L SP

Per. basal / canopy cover 4 1 4 3 1 3Litter cover, orig & incorp. 30 1 3 5.985 5.985 3Soil surface roughness 5 1 1 4 1 1Slake test 4 3 3 2 2 3Texture 4 3 3 2 2 2Surface resist. to disturb. 10 6.6 6.6 1 10 10Total 15.6 20.6 17.985 21.985 22Divide by 57 57 57 57 57% 27.37 36.14 31.55 38.57 38.60

This implies that, the nutrients cycling are high inn this patches. The table below shows the

nutrient cycling in these patches.

11

Nutrient cycling status

FeaturesMax score BS GP WP L SP

Per. basal / canopy cover 4 1 4 3 1 3Litter cover, orig & incorp. 30 1 3 5.985 5.985 3Cryptogam cover 4 1 1 1 1 3Soil surface roughness 5 1 1 4 1 1Total 4 9 13.985 8.985 10Divide by 43 43 43 43 43% 9.3 20.9 32.5 20.9 23.3

4.0 Conclusion

The land under investigation is degraded but the degree of degradation is low.

The key determinant landscape features are bare soil, grass weed, shrubs and litter under the

patches. This features helps in controlling the rate of surface run off in the area, they intercept

the soil mass moved, and control the run off speed.

5.0 Reference

1. Brabant P.2010: A land degradation Assessment and Mapping methods; a standard

guideline proposal

2. D.J Tongway, N.L Hindley, 2005: Landscape Function Analysis: Procedure for

Monitoring and assessing Landscape.

3. D.L Dent and Z.G Bai, 2008: Assessment of land degradation using NASA-GIMMS: A

case study in Kenya.

4. Elinor Ostrom et al, 2009: Ageneral framework for analyzing sustainability of social

ecological systems

12

5. Karen Wentzel, 2002: Determination of Overall soil erosion potential in Nsikazi District

(MpumalangaProvince, South Africa) Using Remote Sensing and GIS

6. L.C Stringer and M.S Reed, 2006: Land degradation Assessment in Southern Africa:

Integrating local and scientific knowledge bases.

7. Michael Stocking and Niamh Murnaghan, 2000: Land degradation guidelines for field

Assessment.

8. P.Brabant,S.Darraco, K Egue, V.Simonneuax, 1996: Human Induced land degradation

status map of degraded index rating.

9. Peter Ikemefuna, Ezeakund Alaci, Davidson: Analytical Situation of Land degradation

and Sustainable Management Strategies in Africa

10. R.J Scholes, 2009 Syndrome of dry land degradation in Southern Africa

11. S.Vetter, 2005: Rangeland at equilibrium and Non-equilibrium: Recent development in

the debate.

12. S.Vetter, W.M Goqwana,W.J Bond.W.W Trollope: Effects of Land tenure, geology and

topography on vegetation abd soils of two grassland types in South Africa.

13. Taimi Sofia Kaplanga, 2008: A review of Land degradation Assessment Methods

14. Torrion Jessica. A, 2002: Land degradation detection, Mapping and Monitoring in the

Lake Naivasha Basin, Kenya

15. Vargas R. R.Omuto C. T.Njeru L. 2007: Land degradation Assessment of a selected

study area in Somaliland. The application of LADA-WOCAT Approach FAO-SWALIM,

Project Report L-10, Nairobi, Kenya

13

6.0 Appendix

Pictures

Kopoch area Rhodes University

Local Inhabitants of the study site Dr. J. Gambiza and the Participants,Nov, 2011

Kapoi in Kopoch site1, Kenya Kapoch Site 2