Although many activities can jointly contribute to the climate change strategies of adaptation and mitigation, climate policies have generally treated these strategies separately. In recent years, there has been a growing interest shown by practitioners in agriculture, forestry, and landscape management in the links between the two strategies. This review explores the opportunities and trade-offs when managing landscapes for both climate change mitigation and adaptation; different conceptualizations of the links between adaptation and mitigation are highlighted. Under a first conceptualization of 'joint outcomes,' several reviewed studies analyze how activities without climatic objectives deliver joint adaptation and mitigation outcomes. In a second conceptualization of 'unintended side effects,' the focus is on how activities aimed at only one climate objective-either adaptation or mitigation-can deliver outcomes for the other objective. A third conceptualization of 'joint objectives' highlights that associating both adaptation and mitigation objectives in a climate-related activity can influence its outcomes because of multiple possible interactions. The review reveals a diversity of reasons for mainstreaming adaptation and mitigation separately or jointly in landscape management. The three broad conceptualizations of the links between adaptation and mitigation suggest different implications for climate policy mainstreaming and integration.

The composition of agro‐ecological landscapes is thought to have important implications for the production of major crops through its effects on pollinator abundance and behaviour. We explored the roles of land cover and land cover heterogeneity on bee nest distribution for the giant honeybee Apis dorsata, a key species for coffee pollination, in a complex agroforest landscape. We emphasized scaling and non‐uniform effects by combining two different approaches of spatial analysis, the point‐pattern analysis and surface‐pattern analysis. We found non‐exclusive, positive effects of agroforests, forest fragments and land‐cover heterogeneity on the presence and number of nests. The distribution of nests responded to habitat heterogeneity at small scale (<100 m), forest fragments at medium scale (<300 m) and to agroforest at larger scales (500 m to 2 km). Our multiple approaches highlight that the landscape effects were neither linear nor uniform within the study zone. Nests were consistently located in areas of medium agroforest density or medium to high forest density, but were absent where forest fragments are the most concentrated. The agroforest matrix was particularly important in shaping the size of nest aggregates. Nests tended to be few when there is low tree cover at broad scale, while nests were numerous when agroforest patches are abundant within the bees’ foraging range. Synthesis and applications. Our study revealed that structurally complex landscapes appear to support bee populations. The spatial arrangement of different land covers affected honeybee nest distributions by providing nesting and foraging resources across multiple scales. The results suggest that continued intensification of small forest fragments and expansion of large monospecies plantations will be deleterious to the populations of giant honeybees A. dorsata. Fragmentation of the agroforestry matrix at small scales (100s m) does not, however, appear detrimental for A. dorsata as long as sufficient diversified resources are available at the landscape scale (kms).

The vulnerability of rural communities to climate variability and change in developing countries is widely recognized. However, the question of what factors drive their vulnerability remains subject to different interpretations. This study explored the perceptions of local key informants on the factors influencing the vulnerability of forest communities to droughts and excessive rains in five contrasting socio-ecological zones of the Congo Basin forest. Results from the local level were discussed by national stakeholders. The analysis showed that people agreed on the positive effect of most community assets (physical, natural, human, social and financial) on vulnerability reduction. Diverging views arose with regard to the effects of population density and institutions on vulnerability, as well as to whether the dependence of communities on forest products increased vulnerability. The perceptions of local respondents depended on local contexts and the roles of the respondents in communities. The divergent interpretations revealed in this study underline the challenges faced by adaptation policy-makers and project developers in reconciling the opposing views of multiple stakeholders. National adaptation plans should identify broad priorities that must be converted into specific adaptation plans at the local level. (Résumé d'auteur

No abstract