Monitoring has become a vital element of global sustainability governance, supporting international efforts in biodiversity, climate change, ecosystem restoration, food systems and cultural heritage.^[1],[2]  The global community increasingly sees effective monitoring systems as essential for understanding socio-ecological changes, assessing policy results and guiding adaptive management. ^[3]  The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes the need for monitoring systems that reflect the interconnectedness of development, environment and human well-being. ^[4],[5]  The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) calls for comprehensive monitoring of biodiversity, ecosystem health, nature’s contributions to people, sustainable use, equity and traditional knowledge. ^[6],[7]  Likewise, climate negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) now highlight monitoring of locally led adaptation. ^[8] At the same time, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration emphasizes the importance of monitoring restoration efforts to assess ecological recovery, livelihood results and socio-cultural impacts. ^[9]

Despite these expanding global policy expectations, scientific literature has consistently documented persistent challenges in biodiversity and ecosystem service monitoring. The ongoing IPBES methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (2022–2026) examines existing monitoring approaches, data sources and capacity issues relevant to policy and decision-making to identify monitoring challenges and define options for addressing them. ^[10] Beyond this assessment, empirical studies identify various challenges that contribute to fragmented and uneven monitoring efforts. These include inconsistencies in ecosystem services monitoring, ^[11] gaps in spatial and taxonomic coverage, weak integration of social and ecological indicators ^{[12] ,[13] ,[14] ,[15] ,[16]} and the dominance of sector-specific monitoring, which limits understanding of cross-sector interactions and landscape-scale dynamics. These issues are particularly pronounced in many regions of the Global South, where constraints related to data availability, technical capacity and institutional support remain limited. ^[17],[18] Moreover, global and national monitoring indicators often fail to reflect local values, customary institutions and biocultural knowledge systems, leading to misalignments between global monitoring frameworks and local realities. ^[19],[20]

Within this context, SEPLS provide practical settings for examining how monitoring is conducted under complex social and ecological conditions. In SEPLS management, landscape approaches are leveraged to monitor multiple dimensions, including biodiversity, NCP, production systems, cultural values and governance processes, with attention to their interactions and changes over time across the landscape or seascape. Case studies of SEPLS management illustrate how monitoring can be integrated into ongoing management contexts in which ecological processes, livelihood activities, cultural values and governance arrangements are closely intertwined.

The Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review Vol. 12

This volume will explore how landscape approaches are used in practice to monitor the multifunctionality of SEPLS. In this context, monitoring focuses on the interlinked ecological, production, cultural, social and governance dimensions that sustain SEPLS, yet these dimensions are often only partially reflected in current monitoring approaches. Particular attention will be given to the integration of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) alongside scientific data, the use of ecological and livelihood indicators, participatory assessments and governance-related metrics, as well as to how monitoring outputs inform management and decision-making processes.

Through IPSI case studies, the volume will highlight how diverse actors—including smallholders, Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), local governments, civil society groups and researchers—design, implement and apply monitoring approaches. In doing so, the volume will provide empirical insights into how monitoring can better capture interactions among system components, identify emerging synergies and trade-offs and support more adaptive and inclusive responses under environmental and social change. ^{[21],[22],[23]}

Contributions are encouraged to examine how different monitoring methods and knowledge systems, including scientific approaches, ILK, participatory observations and emerging technologies, are applied, woven or adapted in practice to monitor changes across various landscapes and seascapes. Case studies may also highlight how monitoring evidence is used to inform management actions and policy decisions related to landscape and seascape sustainability. These insights can support monitoring efforts at local, national, regional and global levels, while contributing to the implementation of the IPSI Strategy and Plan of Action for 2023–2030, particularly its objectives on knowledge co-production, resilient landscape management and inclusive governance.

IPSI partners are encouraged to submit case studies that address the following questions, among others:

• Which key ecological, production, cultural, social and governance functions are monitored in your SEPLS, and why are they important for the sustainability of your SEPLS?
• What indicators, approaches and knowledge systems (scientific, ILK or participatory) are used to monitor these functions, and how are they integrated into landscape-level monitoring and management processes?
• What interactions, synergies, trade-offs or feedback have been identified through monitoring processes, and what are their implications for SEPLS management?
• How are monitoring results used to assess progress and inform decision-making in SEPLS management at the community, local government or national levels?
• What challenges, data gaps and capacity needs are present in monitoring multi-functionality, and what innovative solutions or practices have been created to address them?

How to submit a manuscript and what happens after submission 

Eligibility: 

Authors are invited to submit a paper if at least one of the authors belongs to an IPSI member organization. See https://satoyamainitiative.org/about/members/#members

Procedure: 

Authors are requested to submit an abstract (400 words) to the IPSI Secretariat by email (sitr@unu.edu) by 20 February 2026, following the Template for Abstracts.

Selected authors will be requested to submit a full manuscript by 15 April 2026, after receiving confirmation from the editorial team. Authors are requested to follow the Authors’ Guide and the reference style and are encouraged to use the Template for Manuscripts.

After screening, selected authors will be informed in May 2026 and then invited to a Case Study Workshop, tentatively scheduled from 20 to 22 July (in person). This Case Study Workshop will offer an opportunity to receive feedback on manuscripts and engage in discussions with other participants to develop a synthesis paper to be included in the volume. 

Timeline (dates are subject to change): 

20 February 2026:	Deadline for submission of abstracts (400 words)
15 April 2026:	Deadline for submission of full manuscripts
May 2026:	Notification of selected manuscripts
July 2026:	Selected authors participate in the Case Study Workshop
September 2026:	Submission of revised manuscripts
March or April 2027:	Publication

Related documents: 

• Document 2. Author’s Guide
• Document 3. Template for manuscripts
• Document 4.  Spelling Guide
• Document 5.  Reference style
• Document 6.  Abstract format

For inquiries, please contact: 

Dr. Mesfin Sahle Achemo at the IPSI Secretariat (SITR@unu.edu).