WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/GEN/1115 
10 October 2011 
 (11-4962) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
   
THREE SISTERS STANDARD-SETTING PROCEDURES 
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
INTRODUCTION  
1. The SPS Agreement (Article 3) requires Member s to apply national SPS measures that are 
based on relevant internationa l standards, guidelines and recommendations unless a deviation from 
them can be justified in accordan ce with Article 3.3.  This proce ss is often called "harmonization".  
The WTO itself does not develop these standards.  However, most of WTO Members participate in the development of these standard s in other international bodies. 
2. There are three specific international standard -setting bodies recognized under the Agreement 
(Article 3 and Annex A), often re ferred to as the "Three Sisters": 
 for food safety, the Codex Alimentarius Commission; 
 for animal health and zoonoses, the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE);  and 
 for plant health, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). 
 
Leading scientists in the field and governmental experts on health protection participate in the 
development of these standards, which are s ubject to international scrutiny and review. 
 3. Given the role of the standards developed by  the Three Sisters in the implementation of 
Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Ag reement, it is important that WTO Members 
coordinate at the national and regi onal level, and are able to represent their interests before these 
international bodies. 
4. SPS measures implemented by WTO Members that  conform to international standards are 
deemed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and of GATT 1994 
(Article 3.2). 
5. At the WTO's 2009 workshop on the relationshi p between the SPS Committee and the Three 
Sisters, countries identified the effective communica tion and coordination of the different relevant 
ministries for trade, food safety, animal and plant health at the national and regional levels as one of 
their biggest challenges.  Some WTO Members have suggested that the lack of communication within 
the relevant actors in the SPS area may be due to  the assumption that the standard-setting procedures 
of the Three Sisters operate in the same way. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 2  
 
  6. This document first describes the procedures unde rtaken by each of the Three Sisters in the 
development of standards, guidelines and reco mmendations, as described in publicly available 
resources.  A second section compares these procedur es, highlighting the substantive differences. 
I. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION  
Background  
 
7. The 11th Session of the FAO Conference (1961) established the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission under Article VI of its constitution and adopted its statutes (revised in 1966 and 2006).  
The Conference also recommended setting up a Join t FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme with 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission as its Executive Organ.  In May 1963, the 16th World Health 
Assembly approved the establishment of the Progr amme and adopted the statutes.  The Commission 
held its first session in 1963 and adopted the Rules of  Procedure, subsequently revised several times 
(latest revision in 2007). 
8. The main purposes of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards programme are protecting the 
health of the consumers and ensuring fair trad e practices in the food trade, and promoting 
coordination of all food standards work unde rtaken by international governmental and non-
governmental organizations.  Code x standards and related texts, such as guidelines or codes of 
practice, cover all aspects of food safety and food quality, nutrition and labelling, as well as inspection 
and certification issues and methods of analysis and sampling. 
9. The Codex Alimentarius Commission presently has 185 members (184 member countries and 
one member organization (EU)).  All member nations and associate members of FAO and WHO 
which are interested in international food st andards can apply for membership in the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission.  International government al organizations may participate as observers 
and international non-governmental organizations can apply for observe r status in accordance with the 
Principles Concerning the Participation of Int ernational Non-Governmental Organizations in the 
Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  
10. The Codex Alimentarius Commission previously  met every one or two years until 2003 and 
since then has been meeting regularly once a year (e nd June/early July).  Meetings alternate between 
Rome and Geneva.  
11. The Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission consists of the 
Chairperson and the Vice-chairpersons of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the six regional 
coordinators and seven further members elected by the Codex Alimentarius Commission from the 
following geographic locations:  Africa, Asia, Eur ope, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, 
North America, and South-West Pacific.  Th e Executive Committee normally meets prior to each 
session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
Decision to initiate new work 
12. When a Codex committee proposes to elaborate a sta ndard or related text within its terms of 
reference, it should first consider the priorities est ablished by the Codex A limentarius Commission in 
the Strategic Plan, the relevant outcomes of the critical review conducted by the Executive 
Committee, and the prospect of completing the work  within a reasonable period of time.  It should 
also assess the proposal against the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities .  
13. If the proposal falls outside of  the committee’s terms of refe rence, the proposal should be 
referred to another committee or reported to th e Codex Alimentarius Commission together with 
proposals for amendments to the committee’s terms of reference.  The Codex Alimentarius 
Commission may also decide to establish an Intergovernmental T ask Force, which will proceed  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 3 
 
 
  according to the same procedures as Codex committ ees but will be established for a limited duration 
and with a limited mandate.  Examples include th e Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology 
(four sessions in 2000-2003 and three sessions 2005- 2008);  and the Task Force on Antimicrobial 
Resistance (four sessions in 2007-2010).  
14. Proposals generally come from a country or gro up of countries and are generally made at a 
Codex committee or a regional FAO/WHO coordinating committee.  When proposals for new work or 
revision of standards are made for adjourned Committees (still existing but no longer active), the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission may decide to deve lop the standard by correspondence or reactivate 
an adjourned Committee if necessary.  
15. The decision to undertake new work or to revise standards is taken by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, taking into account a critical revi ew conducted by the Executive Committee.   
16. Prior to approval for development, each proposal  for new work or revision of a standard is 
accompanied by a project document, prepared by  the Codex Committee or member proposing new 
work or revision of a standard, detailing: 
 the purposes and the scope of the standard; 
 its relevance and timeliness; 
 the main aspects to be covered; 
 an assessment against the criteria for the establishment of work priorities; 
 relevance to the Codex strategic objectives; 
 information on the relation between the pr oposal and other existing Codex documents; 
 identification of any requirement for and availability of expert scientific advice; 
 identification of any need for technical input to  the standard from external bodies so that this 
can be planned for; 
 the proposed time-line for completion of the new work, including the start date, the proposed 
date for adoption at Step 5, and the proposed date for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission;  the time frame for developing a standard should not normally exceed five years. 
17. The Executive Committee will review the status of development of draft standards against 
this time-line in the framework of the critical review. 
18. The decision to undertake new work or revision of individual maximum residue limits for 
pesticides or veterinary drugs, or the maintenanc e of the General Standard on Food Additives, the 
General Standard on Contaminants  and Toxins in Food and Feed, th e Food Categorisation System and 
the International Numbering System, shall follo w the procedures established by the Committees 
concerned and endorsed by the C odex Alimentarius Commission. 
Elaboration Procedure 
19. The Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Co dex Standards and Relate d Texts consists of 
eight steps, as shown below.  
Step 1:   the Codex Alimentarius Commission decid es, taking into account the outcome of the 
critical review conducted by the Executive Co mmittee, to elaborate a World-wide Codex 
Standard and also decides which subsidiary bod y or other body should undertake the work.  A 
decision to elaborate a World-wide Codex Standard  may also be taken by subsidiary bodies of G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 4  
 
  the Codex Alimentarius Commission in accordance with the above mentioned outcome, subject 
to subsequent approval by the Codex Alimen tarius Commission at the earliest possible 
opportunity.  In the case of Codex Regional St andards, the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
shall base its decision on the proposal of the majority of members belonging to a given region or group of countries submitted at a session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
Step 2:   The Codex Secretariat arranges for the prepar ation of a proposed draft standard.  In the 
case of maximum limits for residues (MRLs) of pesticides or veterinary drugs, the Codex Secretariat distributes the recommendations for ma ximum limits, when available from the Joint 
Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pes ticide Residues in Food and the Environment and 
the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticid e Residues (JMPR), or the Joint FAO/WHO 
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).  Any other relevant information regarding risk 
assessment work conducted by FAO and WHO should  also be made available.  In the cases of 
milk and milk products or indi vidual standards for cheeses, the Codex Secretariat distributes the 
recommendations of the International Dairy Federation (IDF). 
Step 3:   The proposed draft standard is sent to members of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission and interested international orga nizations for comment on all aspects including 
possible implications of the proposed draf t standard for their economic interests. 
Step 4:    The comments received are sent by the Codex Secretariat to the subsidiary body or 
other body concerned which has the power to consider such comments and to amend the 
proposed draft standard. 
Step 5:   The proposed draft standard is submitt ed through the Codex Secretariat to the 
Executive Committee for critical review and to  the Codex Alimentarius Commission with a 
view to its adoption as a draft standard.
2  In taking any decision at this step, the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission will give due considerati on to the outcome of the critical review and 
to any comments that may be submitted by an y of its members regarding the implications 
which the proposed draft standard or any provisions thereof may have for their economic 
interests.  In the case of Regional Standards, all members of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission may present their comments, take part  in the debate and propose amendments, but 
only the majority of the members of the region or group of countries concerned attending the 
session can decide to amend or adopt the draft.  In taking any decisions at this step, the 
members of the region or group of countries concerned will give due consideration to any 
comments that may be submitted by any of the members of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission regarding the implications which th e proposed draft standard or any provisions 
thereof may have for their economic interests. 
Step 6:   The draft standard is sent by the Codex Secretariat to all members and interested 
international organizations for comment on all aspects, including possible implications of the 
draft standard for their economic interests. 
Step 7:   The comments received are sent by the Code x Secretariat to the subsidiary body or 
other body concerned, which has the power to consider such comments and amend the draft 
standard. 
                                                      
2 Without prejudice to the outcome of the critical review conducte d by the Executive Committee and/or 
any decision that may be taken by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at Step 5, the proposed draft standard 
may be sent by the Codex Secretariat for government comments prior to its consideration at Step 5, when, in the 
opinion of the subsidiary body or other body concerned, the time between the relevant session of the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission and the subsequent session of the subsidiary body or other body concerned requires 
such action in order to advance the work.  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Step 8:   The draft standard is submitted through  the Codex Secretariat to the Executive 
Committee for critical review and to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, together with any 
written proposals received from members and in terested international organizations for 
amendments at Step 8, with a view to its a doption as a Codex standard.  In taking any decision 
at this step, the Codex Alimentarius Commission will give due consideration to the outcome of 
the critical review and to any comments that ma y be submitted by any of its members regarding 
the implications which the draft standard or an y provisions thereof may have for their economic 
interests.  In the case of Regional standards,  all members and interested international 
organizations may present their comments, take pa rt in the debate and propose amendments but 
only the majority of members of the region or group of countries concerned attending the 
session can decide to amend and adopt the draft. 
20. The Codex Alimentarius Commission ma y also approve the use of an accelerated procedure 
for the elaboration of these standards, using a five-step elaboration process, as summarised below. 
Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex standa rds and related texts – Accelerated Procedure  
Step 1 - The Codex Alimentarius Commission decides to el aborate a standard on the basis of a two-
thirds majority of votes cast using the accelerated procedure and assigns the work to a committee. 
Step 2 - The Codex Secretariat arranges preparation of a proposed draft standard. 
Step 3 - The proposed draft standard is sent to gove rnments and international organizations for 
comment.  When standards are subject to the accelerated procedure, members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the interested international organizations are notified. 
Step 4 - The Codex Secretariat forwards comments  to the committee for consideration and 
amendments to the proposed draft standard. 
Step 5 - The proposed draft standard subject to the acceler ated elaboration procedures is sent to the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, together with a ny written proposals from members and interested 
international organizations, fo r adoption as a Codex standard.  
 
21. Procedures for voting are described in Rule V III of the Rules of Procedures. Rule XII.2 
specifies that “The Commission shall make every effort to reach agreement on the adoption or 
amendment of standards by consensus.  Decisions  to adopt or amend standards may be taken by 
voting only if such efforts to reach consensus have failed.”  
22. Once the Codex standard has been adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, it is then 
published and issued to all member States and Associate Members of FAO and/or WHO and to the 
international organizations concerned.  These publications constitute th e Codex Alimentarius. 
II. WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (OIE) 
Background 
 
23. The OIE is an inter-governmental organization th at was created in 1924, initially in an effort 
to control animal diseases in Europe.  The current ma ndate of the OIE is to im prove animal health and 
welfare worldwide. 
24. The OIE publishes two Codes (for terrestrial  and aquatic animals) and two Manuals 
(Terrestrial and Aquatic) as the principle references for WTO Members.  The Terrestrial and Aquatic G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 6  
 
  Animal Health Codes provide measures to enhance the detection, prevention and control of diseases 
and to facilitate safe international tr ade in animals and their products. 
25. The Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals and the Manual of 
Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals provide a b asis for standardization on veterinary laboratory-
related matters.  
26. The membership of OIE consists of 178 memb er countries.  The OIE maintains permanent 
relations with 45 other interna tional and regional organizations and has regional and sub-regional 
offices on every continent.  
27. The OIE standard-setting procedures, with particul ar reference to the Codes, are outlined in a 
document on the OIE website ("http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internatio na_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/A_OIE_procedures
_stand___recom_2011.pdf ") 
Decision to initiate work 
 
28. Requests for the development of a new chapter or  the revision of an existing chapter of an 
OIE international standard may come from various sources, including OIE delegates, individual 
scientists, other international organizations, industry organizations and non-governmental 
organizations.  
29. Recommendations on new standards and on signi ficant revisions of existing standards are 
developed by small groups of inde pendent experts (ad hoc Groups).  These groups report directly to a 
Specialist Commission, or in some cases via an OIE Working Group, to a Specialist Commission.  All 
draft texts are reviewed by the relevant Specia list Commission, then provided to OIE member 
countries for comment.  All member  comments are reviewed by th e Specialist Commissions, which 
may deal with comments directly or may send them to the ad hoc Group and/or Working Group for 
consideration and advice, as appr opriate.  The reports of ad hoc  Groups submitted to Specialist 
Commissions, as well as the Commission's review of  member comments, are documented in the 
meeting report of the Specialist Commission, which is sent to member countries after each meeting 
and is also placed on the OIE website.  In March of each year, with the report of meetings of the Specialist Commissions held in February, all text s proposed for adoption at the General Session are 
sent to member countries for consideration prior to  presentation to the World Assembly in May for 
adoption.  Twice per year, OIE member countries are given opportunities (normally 60 days) to submit comments in writing.  Although there is no provision for written comments to be presented to 
the General Session, there is opportunity to make oral  statements and to obtain clarification of texts 
before adoption. 
Elaboration Procedure  
 
30. The OIE Strategic Plan sets out the priorities, strategies and overall direction of the OIE's 
work programme, including for the setting of standards.   It is developed under the direct supervision 
of the OIE Director-General (DG) in consultation with the OIE’s governing Council and submitted by 
him to the World Assembly of Delegates for approval once every five years.   
31. Regional Commissions provide important input to the strategic plan and the resolutions voted 
at OIE Global Conferences often identify a need for the OIE to develop standards relevant to matters 
of strategic importance.  
32. When a decision is made to develop a new sta ndard or to significantly revise an existing 
standard, the OIE DG decides how the work will be ma naged, with reference to the terms of reference 
of the four OIE Specialist Commissions:  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (i) The Terrestrial Animal Health Standa rds Commission is responsible for the 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code;  
(ii) The Aquatic Animal Health Standards Co mmission is responsible for the Aquatic 
Animal Health Code and the Aquatic Manual;  
(iii) The Scientific Commission for Animal Diseas es is responsible for drafting scientific 
texts, many of which will eventually be included in the Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code and for the recognition of member  countries' official disease status;  
(iv) The Biological Standards Commission is responsible for the Terrestrial Manual. 
 
33. OIE ad hoc Groups normally comprise up to six scientists with internationally recognised 
expertise in a disease or topic.  Their appointment to the Group is by decision of the OIE DG, taking into account the need for internationally recogni sed expertise and for geographic balance in the 
selection of experts.  In many cases, experts are drawn from the OIE network of more than 260 
Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres.  
34. The OIE DG decides the terms of reference a nd membership of ad hoc Groups convened to 
prepare draft texts on specific topics.  OIE member  countries are informed of  these matters at the 
annual General Session.   
35. The OIE DG may request that a "supporting docum ent" be drafted by an expert, usually an 
official from an OIE Reference Centre.
3  Supporting documents contain the latest scientific 
information relevant to the topic.  They are a va luable resource for use by ad hoc Groups and Working 
Groups in their work, as well as references for OIE member countries 
36. The work programmes of the Specialist Commi ssions are established within the overall 
framework of the OIE Strategic Plan.  Proposals received by these Commissions are evaluated in 
terms of: 
(i) the likely extent of members' support, as evidenced from comments relevant to the 
request and 
(ii) the availability of scientific informa tion needed to develop a standard.  
 
37. Member countries may comment on the Specialist Commissions' work programmes, 
published twice annually.  The reports of the Terre strial Animal Health Standards Commission and 
Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commissions, al ong with their work programmes, are adopted 
annually by the World Assembly. 
38. The Specialist Commissions normally have six members, including at least one representative 
from each of the five OIE regions.  Regional Commissions propose candidates and the World Assembly of Delegates elects the members of Specialist Commissions for a three year term.
4  The 
Specialist Commissions meet twice each year where they examine submissions made by OIE member 
countries and submissions from other sources, and the reports of relevant Wo rking Groups and ad hoc 
Groups.  In the case of the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission, it also considers 
submissions from the Scientific Commission on draft texts for possible inclusion in the Terrestrial 
                                                      
3 The major source of OIE experts is the OIE-designated Reference Centres, comprising Reference 
Laboratories and Collaborating Centres, which number mo re than 260 institutes globally.  Each OIE Reference 
Laboratory has an OIE-designated Expert whose comp etence on a specific pathogen/disease is recognised 
internationally.  Collaborating Centres of the OIE offer experts in specific fields.  The OIE also calls on 
institutes other than OIE Reference Centres as necessary. 
4 The general functioning of Specialist Commissions is described in the OIE Basic Texts 
http://www.oie.int/about-us/key-text s/basic-texts/specialist-commissions/   G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 8  
 
  Code.  The Commissions determine how to incor porate scientific recommendations into the new or 
revised standard.  While submissions from OIE member countries are of greatest importance, 
Commissions also consider scientific information from other sources, including OIE partner 
organisations and both private sector and non-governme ntal organisations, in order to ensure that the 
proposed standards are based on comprehensive and up-to-date scientific information.  
39. Each Specialist Commission compiles a meeting report that includes, as annexed documents, 
the reports of all Working Groups and ad hoc Groups  considered by the Commission.  The meeting 
report also explains how the various submissions were addressed.  OIE member countries and others 
submitting comments are encouraged to provide a scien tific rationale for their comments, to facilitate 
analysis by Specialist Commissions. 
40. On a twice yearly basis, OIE member countries are invited to comment on the 
recommendations in the reports of Specialist Comm issions.  Organisations with which the OIE has 
formal agreements may also be invited to pr ovide advice, depending on the relevant areas of 
expertise. 
41. In reviewing draft new or revised standards in  the Terrestrial and Aquatic Health Codes, 
Commissions consider the extent to which OI E member countries support the recommendations and 
the rationale provided, particularly in the case of cr iticisms of a draft text.  If, after at least two rounds 
of comment, there is widespread support for the pr oposed new or revised standard, the OIE Specialist 
Commissions may decide to submit the chapter for adoption at the following OIE General Session.  If, 
however, significant concern is expressed or if me mber country comments suggest a need for further 
technical work, a Commissions may re-examine the i ssue.  If scientific or technical questions outside 
its expertise are raised, a Commission will normally  ask the Working Group or the relevant ad hoc 
Group to re-examine the issues and provide advice to  the Commission.  Another round of consultation 
with OIE member countries will then be undertaken. 
42. The OIE currently has three "permanent" Wo rking Groups, which are responsible for the 
general management and oversight of the OIE work programme in three thematic areas: 
(i) The Animal Welfare Working Group - reports  to the Terrestrial or Aquatic Animal 
Health Standards Commission, as relevant to the topic;  
(ii) The Animal Production Food Safety Working Group - reports to the Terrestrial or 
Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission, as relevant to the topic;  
(iii) The Working Group on Wildlife – reports to  the Scientific Commission for Animal 
Diseases.  
43. The work programme of each Working Group is presented to the relevant Specialist 
Commission and, via the report of the Commissions , to the World Assembly for information and 
comment annually. 
44. To assist in addressing new themes and signifi cant developments, Working Groups may take 
responsibility for drafting discussion papers and st rategy papers to establish key principles and 
directions for the OIE to follow in standard setting.  In all cases, these papers, along with the 
recommendations of Specialist Commissions, are pr ovided to OIE member countries for information 
and comment.  Once endorsed, Working Group pa pers can provide a framework and guiding 
principles for OIE standard setting.  
45. Members of Specialist Commissions may par ticipate in Working Groups to facilitate 
communication between them and the relevant Co mmission; they may not chair Working Groups.   G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 9 
 
 
  46. The members of Working Groups are nominated by the OIE DG and endorsed by the World 
Assembly of Delegates annually at the General Sess ion.  In addition to representation from the five 
OIE regions, relevant partners of the OIE may participate in Working Groups.  
47. Participation in the process of development a nd adoption of OIE standards is coordinated 
through the permanent national delega te, who is, in most cases, the head of the national veterinary 
services.  The OIE encourages national delegates to nominate, under their authority, focal points on 
seven topics (disease notification;  animal welfare;   animal production food safety;  veterinary 
products;  wildlife;  aquatic animals;  and commun ication) to help the delegate to meet his/her 
responsibilities, particularly in relation to standard se tting.  Experts, industry groups and organisations 
wishing to participate in the process of standards development may send submissions directly to the 
OIE but they are strongly encouraged to provide thei r input through a relevant  national delegate.  OIE 
delegates are informed of new or revised draft st andards and are consulted at different steps of 
development, as mentioned above.   
48. The normal cycle for the adoption of new texts in the Codes is two years, meaning that the 
development of a new text is the subject of cons ultation with OIE member countries on two to four 
occasions during that period.  In the case of emerge ncy situations warranting a more rapid procedure, 
standards may be developed within a shorter period.   Less significant modifications to existing texts 
may also be undertaken in a one year period,  if member countries agree to the proposed 
modifications. 
49. OIE standards can only be adopted at the OIE General Session, the annual meeting of the 
World Assembly of Delegates, which is the OIE’s high est authority.  In nearly all cases, standards are 
adopted by consensus.  If consensus cannot be r eached, a two-thirds majority vote allows for the 
adoption of a standard.  
III. INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION (IPPC)  
Background 
 
50. The IPPC is an international treaty ratified in 1952, first amended in 1979, and then again in 
1997.  The purpose of the Convention is to secure co mmon and effective action to prevent the spread 
and introduction of pests of plants and plant products.5 
51. The IPPC is governed by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM).  The CPM’s 
mission is the cooperation between nations in prot ecting the world's cultivated and natural plant 
resources from the spread and introduction of pests of plants, while minimizing interference with the 
international movement of goods and people.   
52. Membership of the CPM consists of all cont racting parties to the IPPC;  currently 177 
signatories adhere to the Convention.  Countries that wish to become contracting parties to the IPPC 
must deposit their instrument of adherence with the Director General of FAO.   
53. The CPM is directed between sessions by the CPM Bureau, which provides advice and 
administration and makes decisions between annual CP M meetings.  There are two subsidiary bodies 
to the CPM:  
 the Standards Committee and  
 the Subsidiary Body on Dispute Settlement. 
 
                                                      
5 Procedural Manual, International Plant Protection Convention, October 2010, Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2010. G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 10  
 
  54. The IPPC Secretariat is responsible for c oordinating the IPPC work programme, which 
involves: 
 developing International St andards for Phytosanitary Measures (standard setting) 
 providing information required by the IPPC, a nd facilitating informati on exchange between 
contracting parties (information exchange);  and 
 providing technical assistance - especially fo r capacity building - to facilitate the 
implementation of the IPPC (capacity development) 
 55. In the 1990s the IPPC began work on formula ting International Standards for Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPMs).  In November 1993, the Conferen ce of the FAO, at its 27th session, approved the 
first ISPM;  from 1998 the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures adopted the IPPC 
standards, and since 2006 they have been adopted by the CPM.  Ever since, standards covering a wide 
range of topics have been adopted and others are in the draft or consultation phases of the standard-
setting process.  Existing standards are scheduled for periodic review and are then revised as 
necessary.   
56. There are nine Regional Plant Protection Orga nizations (RPPOs) that have coordinating 
functions in their respective regions.  One of their ro les is to help achieve the objectives of the IPPC. 
Decision to initiate work 
 
57. The CPM prepares priority lists for the developm ent of standards and prepares a strategic plan 
to make clear its strategic direc tions and goals.  These activities ar e updated biennially and annually, 
respectively.  
Elaboration procedure  
 
58. Part 3 of the 2010 procedural manual of the IPPC  contains the current standard setting process 
which was adopted as Annex 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CPM in 2008. 
59. The process for developing an ISPM comprises four stages:  
 Stage 1:  Developing the IPPC standard-setting work programme 
 Stage 2:  Drafting 
 Stage 3:  Member consultation 
 Stage 4:  Adoption and publication. 
 
Stage 1:  Developing the IPPC standard-setting work programme 
 
Step 1:   The IPPC Secretariat makes a call for topics every two years.  Detailed proposals for 
new topics or for the revision of existing I SPMs are submitted to the IPPC Secretariat. 
Step 2:   The CPM adjusts and adopts the IPPC st andard-setting work pr ogramme, taking into 
account the strategic priorities identified by the Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance 
working group (SPTA) and the revised work pr ogramme proposed by the Standards Committee 
(SC). 
 60. The SC was established by the CPM as its standard-setting body.  The SC manages the 
standard-setting process and assists in the developmen t of ISPMs which have been identified by the 
CPM as priority standards.  The SC comprises of 25 members drawn from the seven FAO regions  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, Near East, North America, and Southwest 
Pacific).  Each region determines its own procedures to select nominees for the SC. 
61. The SC selects from within its members a subgr oup of seven experts, the SC Working Group 
of seven members (SC-7), to undertake detailed work on draft standards. 
62. The SPTA is an informal working group that prepares specific activities for the CPM relating 
to planning and prioritization of the work programme, including technical assistance, information 
exchange, prioritizing topics for standards, funding issues, and decisions regarding liaison with other 
international and regional organiza tions.  The SPTA meets during the first week of October each year 
at FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy. 
Stage 2:  Drafting 
 
 Step 3:   Development of a specification 
 
 For each topic or technical panel, the SC appoints a steward6, who, in collaboration with 
the IPPC Secretariat, drafts a specification, taking into account the proposal for the topic. 
 The SC reviews the specification and, once a pproved for member consultation, it is then 
made available on the International Phytosan itary Portal (IPP) for a 60 day consultation 
period. 
 Member countries and RPPOs are notified. 
 The IPPC Secretariat compiles the comments, posts them on the IPP and submits them to 
the steward(s) and the SC for consideration. 
 The specification is amended as necessary, finalized and approved by the SC and 
published on the IPP. 
 
Step 4:   An expert drafting group (expert working gr oup or technical panel) drafts or revises 
the standard in accordance with  the relevant specification. 
 
 Regular process:  The resulting draft standard is submitted to the SC.  The SC or SC-7 
reviews the draft at a meeting and decides whether to send it for member consultation, or 
to return it to the steward(s) or to an expe rt drafting group, or to put it on hold.  In the 
case where only the SC-7 meet s, comments from any SC members will also be taken into 
account. 
 Special process:  The resulting draft standard is submitted to the SC at any time by e-
mail.  The SC decides by e-mail whether to se nd it for member consultation, or to return 
it to the steward(s) or to an expert drafti ng group, or to place it on the SC agenda for a 
decision on how to proceed.  
 63. The technical panels were established to de velop standards under special process.  Five 
technical panels are currently established: 
 Technical panel 1:  Technical panel to develop diagnostic protocols for specific pests 
 Technical panel 2:  Technical panel on pest free areas and systems approaches for fruit flies 
                                                      
6 Stewards are senior plant health  officers or scientists who are fa miliar with the standard setting 
process, they are drawn from the SC if possible or from the membership of the expert drafting group. T 
The steward oversees the technical panel or assist s with the development of standard throughout the 
entire standard setting process, providing a linkage between the expert drafting group and the SC. G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 12  
 
   Technical panel 3:  Technical panel on phytosanitary treatments 
 Technical panel 4:  Technical panel on forest quarantine 
 Technical panel 5:  Technical panel on the glossary. 
 64. Technical panel members work according to th e specifications approved by the SC and the 
procedures included in the IPPC Procedural Manual. 
65. The expert working groups are comprised of six to ten participants, representing a wide 
geographic area, including a member of the SC.  The expert working group does not allow observers, but may invite representatives of industry or ot hers to provide expertise, however they cannot 
participate as members.   
66. The selection of experts for the working gro up is done by nomination:  nominations are 
requested at the time of adoption of  the work programme or specifica tions for standards are suggested 
at the Interim Commission, or later when the specifications are put on the IPP.  Governments, 
National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) or RPPOs nominate experts to the Standards 
Committee;  the Standards Committee designates th e members of the working group and submits a 
list to the Interim Commission Bureau and IPPC Secr etariat for confirmation.  Finally, the list of 
members of the expert working group, and representa tives of industry or others, are added to the IPP. 
Stage 3:  Member consultation 
 
 Step 5:   Member consultation 
 67. Following clearance by the SC, the IPPC Secret ariat sends the draft standard for member 
consultation to contracting parties, NPPOs, RPPO s and relevant interna tional organizations for 
consultation.  The draft standard is also posted on the IPP.  The length of the consultation period is 
100 days.  Comments are submitted through the IPPC contact point.  Comments are by written 
submission to the IPPC Secretariat (preferably by electronic means, e.g. e-mail) following guidelines, 
using the template supplied by the IPPC Secretariat.  
 Regular process:  The IPPC Secretariat compiles the comments and submits them to the 
steward and the SC for consideration. 
 Special process:  The IPPC Secretariat comp iles the comments and submits them to the 
technical panel and the SC for cons ideration (possibly by e-mail).  
 
 Step 6:   Review of the draft ISPM prior to the CPM meeting 
 
 Regular process:  Considering the comments, the SC-7 and the SC revise the draft 
standard.  The SC decides whether to forw ard the modified draft to the Commission for 
adoption, or to put it on hold, return it to the steward or to an expert drafting group, or 
submit it for another round of member cons ultation.  A summary of major issues 
discussed is produced as part of the SC report and posted on the IPP.
7  
 Special process:  If no one changes the draft text, the draft standard is submitted to the 
CPM for adoption.  If the draft standard is changed as a result of comments, the draft is submitted to the SC.  In consultation with the relevant technical panel, the SC examines 
the draft standard and, if appropriate, modifi es it.  The SC decides (possibly via e-mail) 
whether to forward the modified draft standa rd to the CPM for adoption, or some other 
                                                      
7 The CPM-4 (2009) replaced the previous text of "A summary of major issues discussed and of SC 
reactions to substantive comments that were not incorporated into the standard is produced as part of the SC 
report and posted on the IPP", (CPM-4 (2009), Paragraph 126.6).  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 13 
 
 
  action such as to put it on hold, return it to th e steward or to a technical panel, or submit it 
for another round of member consultation. 
 
Stage 4:  Adoption and publication 
 
 Step 7:   Adoption 
 
 Regular process:  Following approval by the SC , the draft standard is included on the 
agenda of the CPM meeting for adoption.  Th e IPPC Secretariat sends the draft standard 
for member consultation to contracting parti es, NPPOs, RPPOs and relevant international 
organizations for consultation at least 14 days before the CPM meeting, following 
guidelines. 
 Special process:  The draft standard is in cluded on the agenda of the CPM meeting for 
adoption.  If no formal objection8 is received up to 14 days pr ior to the CPM meeting, the 
draft standard will be adopted without discu ssion.  If a formal objection is received at 
least 14 days prior to the CPM meeting, the draf t standard is returned to the SC.  The SC 
decides, possibly via electronic means, how  to proceed, including the possibility of 
submitting it to the CPM for adoption through the regular process.  Formal objections 
should be posted on the IPP as soon as possible to ensure that contracting parties are aware of them before the CPM meeting. 
 68. The CPM meets on an annual basis (March/April)  and formally adopts the ISPM according to 
Rule X.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commissi on.  Rule X.2 states that where consensus is not 
reached on a proposal for the adoption of a standard  which has been introduced before the CPM for 
the first time, the proposed standard shall be re ferred back to the appropriate body of the CPM, 
together with its comments thereon, for further co nsideration.  If the standard is submitted for 
adoption the second time and no consensus is obtained, Rule VI of the CPM is applicable and a voting 
procedure is undertaken according to that rule.  The media time for approval of a new standard in the 
IPPC framework is 3.5 years.  
 Step 8:   The IPPC Secretariat publishes the ISPM, including posting it on the IPP. 
 69. Transparency is encouraged in the IPPC standa rd-setting procedure, for its improvement, a set 
of recommendations have been made by the ICPM: 
 All country comments should be published on the IPP; 
 The IPPC Secretariat should produce and make ac cessible a generic summary of SC reactions 
to classes of comments made during the country consultation; 
 Members of the SC should report back to countries in their regions;  and 
 Guidelines for members of the SC to be developed should incorporate guidance on this 
reporting function of SC members. 
 
70. Explanatory documents, manuals and similar doc uments on ISPMs are available on the IPP to 
help countries implement provisions  of the IPPC and ISPMs:   
 ISPM 5 - Glossary of phytosanitary terms; 
                                                      
8 A formal objection should be a technically supported objection to the adoption of the draft standard in 
its current form, sent through the official IPPC co ntact point. The IPPC Secret ariat would not make any 
judgement about the validity of the objection – an objection with some technical discussion of the issue would 
be accepted as a formal objection. G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 14  
 
   ISPM 17 - Pest reporting; 
 ISPM 18 - Guidelines for the use of i rradiation as a phytosanitary measure; 
 ISPM 20 - Guidelines for a phytosanitary import regulatory system; 
 ISPM 31 - Methodologies for sampling consignments;  and 
 IPPC's standard-setting procedures are flexible and periodically reviewed. 
 
IV. COMPARISON OF THE THREE SISTERS STANDARD-SETTING PROCEDURES 
71. The procedures implemented by the Three Sisters in the development of standards, guidelines 
and recommendations can be compared throug h consideration of five basic questions: 
1. How does new work get on the agenda? 
2. How are standards prepared? 
3. What is the role of expert? 
4. What opportunities do Members have to provide input to draft standards? 
5. How is a standard adopted? 
72. As is evident from the preceding sections, there are many similarities in the standard-setting 
procedures of Codex, IPPC and OIE.  There are, however, a number of differences.  The following 
side-by-side presentation of the processes of the Thr ee Sisters, structured according to the above 
questions, facilitates the identification of similarities and differences. 
 
      
   G/SPS/GEN/1115
 Page 15COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE THREE SIS TER'S STANDARD-SETTING PROCEDURES 
 
 
SSP Codex OIE IPPC 
Getting new 
work on the 
agenda Codex member(s) or Codex 
Committees may propose new work to 
the relevant Codex Committee;  when 
the relevant committee agrees, the 
proposal is forwarded to the Codex 
Executive Committee/ Codex 
Alimentarius Commission for approval.  
Each proposal for new work is 
accompanied by a project document, 
prepared by the Member or Committee. 
 
The decision to unde rtake new work (or 
to revise standards) is taken by the 
Codex Commission taking into account 
a critical review conducted by the 
Executive Committee. Request for the development of a new 
chapter  or the revision of an existing 
chapter of an OIE international standard 
may come from various sources, including 
OIE delegates, individual scientists and 
other international organizations, industry 
organizations and non-governmental 
organizations.  Resolutions from OIE 
Global Conferences are an important input. 
  
The OIE Director-General, in consultation 
with the World Assembly, approves the 
new work, taking into account the overall 
direction of the Strategic Plan and the 
resources available to OIE headquarters. The IPPC Secretariat calls for submissions for 
topics to be included in the standard-setting 
work programme.  A call is made every two 
years and request submi ssions are sought from 
National Plant Protection Organizations 
(NPPOs), Regional Plant Protection 
Organizations (RPPOs), and the WTO-SPS 
Committee.  The call is posted in the 
International Phytosanitary Portal.  Other 
organizations, such as the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, and the Commission’s 
technical panels can also respond to the call. 
 
The Phytosanitary Commission adjusts and 
adopts the IPPC standard-setting work 
programme, taking into account the strategic 
priorities identified by the Strategic Planning 
and Technical Assistan ce working group and 
the revised work programme proposed by the 
Standards Committee. 
Preparation of 
the standard The Codex Secretaria t arranges for the 
preparation of a proposed draft 
standard.  The Codex Commission 
decides which subsidiary body or other 
body should undertake the work. When a decision is made to develop a new 
standard or to significantly revise an 
existing standard, the OIE Director-
General decides how the work will be 
managed, with reference to the terms of 
reference of the four OIE Specialist 
Commissions.   For each topic or technical  panel, the Standards 
Committee appoints a steward, who, in 
collaboration with the IPPC  Secretariat, drafts a 
specification, taking into account the proposal 
for the topic.  The St andards Committee reviews 
the specification;  if approved, it is then made 
available on the International Phytosanitary 
Portal for a 60 day consultation period  
  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 16 
SSP Codex OIE IPPC 
Role of experts In the case of maximum residue levels 
of pesticides or veterinary drugs, the 
Codex Secretariat distributes the 
recommendations for maximum limits, 
when available from the JMPR and/or 
JECFA. Any other relevant information 
regarding risk assessment work 
conducted by FAO and WHO is also 
made available.  In the cases of milk 
and milk products or individual 
standards for cheeses, the Secretariat 
distributes the recommendations of the 
International Dairy Federation.  Codex 
may request specific scientific 
information from the expert 
groups/committees. Expert groups are convened, with normally 
six members.  Experts are drawn from the 
OIE network of Reference Centres, taking 
into account internationally recognised 
scientific expertise and geographical 
balance.  The OIE Director-General may 
request the preparatio n of a "supporting 
document" containing the latest scientific 
information relevant to the topic.  These 
are a valuable resource for ad hoc Groups, 
Working Groups and OIE Members.  The 
Specialist Commissions determine how to 
incorporate appropriat e risk management 
recommendations into the Codes, based on 
the recommendations of experts and the 
comments of OIE Members.  An expert drafting group (expert working group 
or technical panel) drafts or revises the standard 
in accordance with the re levant specification.  
The resulting draft standard is submitted to the 
Standards Committee.   
 
The expert working groups are comprised of six 
to ten participants, representing a wide 
geographic area, including a member of the 
Standards Committee.  The selection of experts 
for the working group is done by nominations 
from governments, NPPOs or RPPOs to the 
Standards Committee. 
Opportunity of 
Members to 
provide input There are four opportunities to 
comment along the 8-step standard-
setting procedure (twice in the 
accelerated procedure): 
1. At step 3 on the proposed draft 
standard; 
2. At step 5, when the proposed 
standard is submitted to the 
Commission for adoption as a draft 
standard; 
3. At step 6, once it has been adopted as 
a draft standard; 
4. At step 8, when the draft standard is 
submitted to the Commission for 
adoption as a Codex standard. 
 
Submitted comments are sent by the 
Codex Secretariat to the subsidiary 
body for consideration at the session of 
the Committee, which may amend the 
draft in the light of the comments. There are four opportunities to comment.  
Twice a year, OIE member countries are 
invited to comment on the 
recommendations in the reports of 
Specialist Commissions.  Organizations 
with which the OIE ha s formal agreements 
may also be invited to provide advice, 
depending on the relevant areas of 
expertise.  Following clearance by the Standards 
Committee, the IPPC Secretariat sends the draft 
standard for member consultation to contracting 
parties, NPPOs, RPPOs and relevant 
international organizations for consultation.  
The draft standard is post ed on the International 
Phytosanitary Portal.  The length of the 
consultation period is 100 days.  Comments are 
submitted through the IPPC contact point.  
Considering the comments received, the 
Standards Committee may d ecide to forward the 
modified draft to the Phytosanitary Commission 
for adoption.  When the draft standard is 
included in the agenda for adoption, the IPPC 
Secretariat sends the draft standard for member 
consultation to contracting parties, NPPOs, 
RPPOs and relevant international organizations 
for consultation at least 14 days before the 
Phytosanitary Commission meeting.  
   G/SPS/GEN/1115
 Page 17SSP Codex OIE IPPC 
Adoption of the 
standard When the draft standard reaches step 8, 
it is submitted to the Codex Executive 
Committee for review and is adopted by 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
 
Codex Standards are mainly adopted by 
consensus among Members, and 
decisions to adopt or amend standards 
may be taken by voting only if efforts to 
reach consensus have failed. 
 
The Codex procedure allows the 
creation of a standard in one year;  for 
many standards steps 6 and 7 are 
omitted and the majority of work is 
completed in 2 - 4 years 
 OIE standards can only be adopted at the 
OIE General Session, the annual meeting 
of the World Assembly of Delegates, 
which is the OIE’s highest authority.  In 
nearly all cases, standards are adopted by 
consensus.  If consensus cannot be 
reached, a two-thirds majority vote allows 
for the adoption of a standard.   
 
The normal cycle for the adoption of new 
texts in the Codes is two years.   In the case 
of emergency situations warranting a more 
rapid procedure, standards may be 
developed within a shorter period.  Less 
significant modifications to existing texts 
may also be undertaken in a one year 
period, if member countries agree to the 
proposed modifications.   
 The Phytosanitary Commission adopts the 
standards according to rule X.2 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Commission.  Rule X.2 states 
that where consensus is not reached on a 
proposal for the adoption of a standard which 
has been introduced before the Phytosanitary 
Commission for the first time, the proposed 
standard is referred back to the appropriate 
body, together with its comments thereon, for 
further consideration.  If the standard is 
submitted for adoption the second time and no 
consensus is obtained, Rule VI of the 
Phytosanitary Commission is applicable and a 
voting procedure is undertaken.  IPPC's 
standard-setting procedures are flexible and 
periodically reviewed.  The media time for 
approval of a new standard in the IPPC 
framework is 3.5 years.  
  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 18 
ANNEX 1 - CODEX STANDARD-SETTING PROCEDURE FLOWCHART
Discussion  
paper  Start  Critical  
review  Elaboration/  
Negotiation/  
consultation  Adoption /  
decision
T 1 
T 5 
T 8 Proposed draft standard
Project  
document  T2
elaboration  T3
consultation  T4
negotiation  
Draft standard  T6
consultation  T7
negotiation  
Codex  
standard  Executive  
Committee  
CommitteeCommission  T 5 Endorsement by
general committees
T 8 T 1 
Committee  
consultation  consultation  
consultation G/SPS/GEN/1115 
 Page 19 
 
 
  ANNEX 2 - OIE STANDARD-SETTING PROCESS FLOWCHART 
 
  
 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/1115 
Page 20 
ANNEX 3 - PICTORAL SCHEME OF THE IPPC STANDARD-SETTING PROCEDURE 
  
 
    
 
    
 
    
 
     
 
    
__________