Contents

Introduction

Real estate valuation is frequently discussed as though it were governed by a single body of professional standards. In practice, valuation governance is layered. An appraiser or valuer may simultaneously be subject to ethical standards, general professional standards, jurisdiction-specific law, financial reporting requirements, lending rules, agency requirements, and assignment-specific methodological expectations.

In the United States, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) is the dominant professional appraisal standard. Internationally, the International Valuation Standards (IVS) provide a widely recognized general valuation framework. However, neither USPAP nor IVS alone captures the complete structure of modern valuation practice.

Among the other important systems are:

• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Valuation – Global Standards, commonly known as the Red Book;

• European Valuation Standards (EVS), commonly known as the Blue Book;

• Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (CUSPAP);

• Australian and New Zealand guidance issued alongside IVS;

• Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA), commonly known as the Yellow Book;

• American Society of Appraisers (ASA) business valuation standards;

• AICPA Statements on Standards for Valuation Services (SSVS);

• regulatory real estate valuation systems such as Germany’s ImmoWertV; and

• financial reporting frameworks such as IFRS 13 and ASC 820.

A useful comparison requires distinguishing among the different functions these standards perform.

A Functional Classification of Valuation Standards

Not all valuation standards serve the same purpose. A practical taxonomy is:

1. Ethical and professional standards,

2. General valuation standards,

3. Professional practice standards,

4. Statutory and regulatory valuation systems,

5. Purpose-specific valuation standards,

6. Financial reporting standards,

7. Asset-specific valuation standards, and

8. Reporting and data specifications.

The distinction is important because a professional standard governing appraiser conduct is not the same thing as a technical framework defining a basis of value (the kind of value an assignment must produce, such as market value), a statutory valuation formula, or a mortgage reporting specification.

USPAP

The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice are the principal professional appraisal standards in the United States (The Appraisal Foundation 2024). USPAP establishes requirements concerning ethics, competency, scope of work, development of credible assignment results, reporting, and record keeping.

USPAP is deliberately broad. Its function is primarily to establish minimum standards of professional appraisal practice rather than to prescribe a complete technical methodology for every type of real estate valuation problem.

Conceptually,

\[\boxed{ \text{USPAP} \approx \text{Ethics} + \text{Competency} + \text{Scope of Work} + \text{Performance} + \text{Reporting} }\]

USPAP therefore tells the appraiser what must be accomplished, but it generally does not serve as a detailed manual dictating exactly how comparable sales are selected, adjustments are estimated, statistical models are constructed, or market analysis is performed.

International Valuation Standards

The International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) issues the International Valuation Standards, which provide a global valuation framework (International Valuation Standards Council 2024). IVS covers general valuation principles, bases of value, approaches and methods, data and inputs, models, documentation, and particular asset classes.

IVS is broader internationally than USPAP and is especially important for cross-border valuation, financial reporting, institutional investment, and professional practice in jurisdictions that have adopted or incorporated it.

At a high level, IVS functions as a general international valuation framework:

\[\boxed{\begin{aligned} \text{IVS} ={}& \text{General Valuation Principles} + \text{Bases of Value} \\ &+ \text{Approaches and Methods} + \text{Asset Standards} \end{aligned}}\]

IVS is therefore chiefly a framework of technical valuation standards rather than an ethical code.

RICS Red Book

The RICS Valuation – Global Standards, commonly referred to as the Red Book, is among the world’s most important professional valuation frameworks (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors 2024).

The Red Book is especially significant because it incorporates IVS and adds RICS professional requirements, procedural requirements, governance rules, and practice guidance.

This can be represented conceptually as:

\[\boxed{ \text{RICS Red Book} \approx \text{IVS} + \text{Professional Rules} + \text{Practice Requirements} + \text{Application Guidance} }\]

The Red Book and related RICS professional standards address matters such as:

• terms of engagement;

• bases of value;

• inspections and investigations;

• valuation approaches and methods;

• valuation models;

• documentation and records;

• reporting requirements;

• comparable evidence;

• secured lending;

• development property;

• portfolios;

• material valuation uncertainty; and

• other specific applications.

The Red Book is therefore more than an ethics and reporting standard; it also connects high-level valuation standards to practical valuation work.

European Valuation Standards

The European Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGoVA) issues the European Valuation Standards, commonly known as the Blue Book (TEGoVA 2025). In continental Europe, EVS is especially important for real property valuation.

EVS addresses valuation principles and practice within a European legal, financial, and regulatory environment. It is especially relevant to mortgage lending, banking regulation, secured credit, and property markets.

In Europe, two important professional traditions therefore coexist:

\[\boxed{\text{RICS Red Book}}\]

and

\[\boxed{\text{TEGoVA European Valuation Standards}}\]

They overlap substantially but are institutionally distinct.

Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice

The Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice provide the principal professional appraisal framework for members of the Appraisal Institute of Canada (Appraisal Institute of Canada 2026).

A useful shorthand comparison is:

\[\text{United States} \rightarrow \text{USPAP}\]

\[\text{Canada} \rightarrow \text{CUSPAP}\]

CUSPAP establishes professional practice requirements applicable to appraisal, review, consulting, and related valuation services.

Australia and New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand no longer maintain valuation standards of their own. The Australian Property Institute and the Property Institute of New Zealand require their members to apply IVS in full (the current edition, IVS 2025, took effect on 31 January 2025) and supplement it with Australia and New Zealand guidance papers (Table 9).

These are therefore national applications of IVS, completed by local guidance, rather than separate frameworks operating alongside it.

Thus, the structure can be conceptualized as:

\[\begin{aligned} \text{IVS} &\rightarrow \text{Australia/New Zealand Guidance Papers} \\ &\rightarrow \text{National and Application Requirements} \end{aligned}\]

UASFLA: The U.S. Yellow Book

The Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions apply to valuation assignments involving the United States government’s acquisition of property interests.

These standards are commonly known as the Yellow Book (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 2016).

UASFLA is especially important in eminent domain, right-of-way, and federal land acquisition work because of its close link to federal just-compensation jurisprudence.

It should not be treated as a substitute for USPAP; rather, it is a purpose-specific system.

\[\boxed{ \text{Federal Acquisition Appraisal} = \text{USPAP} + \text{UASFLA} + \text{Applicable Federal Law} }\]

An appraisal may meet ordinary USPAP standards and still fail to satisfy federal acquisition requirements.

Where UASFLA and USPAP conflict, as on linking value to an exposure time (the time the property would have been on the market before a sale at the opinion of value on the effective date, as USPAP defines it), the appraiser invokes USPAP’s Jurisdictional Exception Rule and follows UASFLA (UASFLA §§ 1.2.4, 1.2.7.2).

Business Valuation Standards

Valuation extends beyond real property. Key U.S. business valuation standards include those of the American Society of Appraisers and the AICPA Statements on Standards for Valuation Services (American Society of Appraisers 2022; American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 2007).

These standards become relevant to:

• business enterprises;

• securities;

• intangible assets;

• intellectual property; and

• ownership interests.

Thus, a comprehensive classification of valuation standards should recognize that valuation is a multi-asset discipline.

Financial Reporting Standards

Financial reporting standards strongly influence valuation, but they do not operate the same way as USPAP or the RICS Red Book.

Two important examples are:

• IFRS 13 – Fair Value Measurement (International Accounting Standards Board 2011); and

• ASC 820 – Fair Value Measurement (Financial Accounting Standards Board, n.d.).

These standards define how fair value is to be understood and measured for financial reporting purposes.

The distinction may be expressed as:

\[\text{USPAP / IVS / RICS} \rightarrow \text{How valuation services are performed}\]

whereas

\[\text{IFRS 13 / ASC 820} \rightarrow \text{What accounting measurement is required}\]

Financial reporting standards govern valuation objectives, while professional valuation standards govern the valuer’s conduct and process.

Regulatory Valuation Systems: Germany as an Example

Germany offers an example of a more explicitly regulatory approach: the Immobilienwertermittlungsverordnung (ImmoWertV), a federal regulation, prescribes the methods of real property valuation (Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2021). The contrast with USPAP is fundamental: USPAP is principally a standard of professional conduct and minimum performance, whereas ImmoWertV prescribes methodology by federal regulation.

\[\text{USPAP} \rightarrow \text{Professional Standards}\]

\[\text{ImmoWertV} \rightarrow \text{Statutory / Regulatory Valuation Methodology}\]

This distinction is highly relevant to comparative valuation jurisprudence.

Lending Standards and Assignment-Specific Requirements

Mortgage lending creates another layer of valuation governance.

In the United States, an appraisal may be affected by requirements imposed by:

• Fannie Mae;

• Freddie Mac;

• FHA;

• VA;

• federal banking regulators;

• appraisal regulations under Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA); and

• lender-specific underwriting requirements.

These requirements do not replace USPAP.

Instead,

\[\boxed{\begin{aligned} \text{Applicable Appraisal Requirements} ={}& \text{USPAP} + \text{Regulation} \\ &+ \text{Agency Rules} + \text{Assignment Conditions} \end{aligned}}\]

The Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD), including later versions such as UAD 3.6, is better classified as a reporting and data specification than as a general valuation standard (Freddie Mac, n.d.).

The U.S. Practice Standards Gap

A significant structural difference appears when U.S. appraisal practice is compared with the RICS system.

The United States has USPAP as an ethical and performance standards framework, but lacks a single, comprehensive real estate valuation practice framework equivalent to the RICS Red Book.

USPAP generally addresses:

• ethics;

• competency;

• scope of work;

• credible assignment results;

• reporting; and

• record keeping.

What it lacks is a unified, detailed body of mandatory or quasi-mandatory practice doctrine specifying how real estate valuation analysis should ordinarily be carried out.

By contrast, RICS publishes its mandatory standards and its advisory application guidance (the VPGAs) in one document.

Thus, a useful distinction is:

\[\boxed{ \text{USPAP} \approx \text{Ethics + Minimum Performance Requirements} }\]

whereas

\[\boxed{\begin{aligned} \text{RICS Red Book} \approx{}& \text{Professional Standards} + \text{Valuation Process Standards} \\ &+ \text{Practice Guidance} + \text{Application Guidance} \end{aligned}}\]

Fragmentation of U.S. Valuation Methodology

The material that collectively performs the function of a Red Book equivalent in the United States is fragmented among many sources.

These include:

• USPAP;

• Appraisal Foundation advisory material;

• Appraisal Institute textbooks and professional literature;

• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac requirements;

• FHA and VA requirements;

• federal banking regulation;

• UASFLA;

• state appraisal statutes and regulations;

• court decisions;

• agency-specific requirements;

• IAAO technical standards for mass appraisal (Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property, Standard on Ratio Studies, and others); and

• customary professional practice.

There is no single document that comprehensively states:

Here is the generally accepted professional methodology for performing a real-property valuation.

The Appraisal Institute partially fills this gap through The Appraisal of Real Estate (Appraisal Institute 2020), along with professional courses, monographs, articles, and other methodological literature.

That body of work describes a general process such as:

\[\begin{aligned} \text{Market Analysis} &\rightarrow \text{Highest and Best Use} \rightarrow \text{Data Analysis} \\ &\rightarrow \text{Approaches to Value} \rightarrow \text{Reconciliation} \end{aligned}\]

However, such methodology is not automatically mandatory merely because an assignment is performed under USPAP.

The U.S. system therefore separates, more sharply than RICS, professional standards from professional methodology.

Three Distinct Levels of Valuation Governance

A useful analytical model separates valuation governance into at least three levels:

\[\boxed{ \begin{array}{ll} 1. & \text{Ethics and Professional Conduct} \\ 2. & \text{Valuation Performance Standards} \\ 3. & \text{Valuation Practice and Methodology Standards} \end{array} }\]

USPAP extensively addresses Levels 1 and 2.

For the appraisal of an individual real property, to which this article limits this claim, the United States lacks a universally applicable Level 3 standard; instead, Level 3 is dispersed across textbooks, professional education, agency rules, lender requirements, regulatory guidance, judicial precedent, and customary professional practice, whereas RICS comes closer to integrating all three levels.

The two classifications overlap rather than map one to one: Levels 1–2 fall within layer 1 of Figure 1, Level 3 within layers 3–4, and layer 2 (IVS) reaches all three Levels.

A Proposed Ontology of Real Estate Valuation Governance

Figure 1 organizes this ontology (a classification of the kinds of rule and how they relate) into six layers, from the most general to the most assignment-specific.

This structure avoids treating every valuation-related rule as the same type of standard.

Toward Valuation Engineering

The distinction between compliance standards and practice standards points to a broader concept: valuation engineering.

A valuation engineering framework would not merely determine whether an appraisal complies with USPAP; it would formalize the analytical process that produces credible valuation conclusions.

Figure 2 sketches such a framework.

This approach recognizes that appraisal compliance and valuation methodology are different.

A valuation may comply procedurally with professional standards while still using weak analytical methods. Conversely, sophisticated quantitative analysis must still meet ethical, legal, and reporting obligations.

Valuation engineering can therefore be represented as:

\[\boxed{\begin{aligned} \text{Valuation Engineering} ={}& \text{Standards} + \text{Methodology} + \text{Statistics} \\ &+ \text{Jurisprudence} + \text{Risk Analysis} + \text{Workflow Engineering} \end{aligned}}\]

Under this formulation, the missing U.S. practice standards layer becomes particularly important.

Comparative Summary

Conclusion

International valuation governance is best understood as a layered system, not a single hierarchy of competing standards.

USPAP remains the principal professional appraisal standard in the United States. IVS provides a broad international valuation framework. RICS adds an important professional practice layer, integrating IVS with detailed procedural, technical, and application guidance. EVS performs a similar but distinct function within continental Europe, while other national and purpose-specific systems address particular jurisdictions and valuation purposes.

The comparison reveals a notable structural feature of U.S. real estate valuation: the United States lacks a single, generally applicable set of professional practice standards equivalent to the RICS Red Book.

Instead, U.S. valuation methodology is distributed among professional literature, government regulations, agency rules, court decisions, lender requirements, and customary practice.

This distinction suggests that future efforts to formalize valuation practice should separate four questions:

1. What ethical and professional obligations govern the valuer?

2. What constitutes technically acceptable valuation performance?

3. What analytical methods constitute defensible professional practice?

4. What additional jurisdictional or assignment-specific rules apply?

A formal valuation engineering framework could provide the missing integration among these layers. Such a framework would complement USPAP rather than replace it, while providing an explicit methodological architecture comparable in function, though not necessarily in institutional form, to the practice-oriented structure of the RICS Red Book.

Coverage and the Standards in Force

Coverage

The Journal aims to cover every country whose nominal gross domestic product exceeds US$100 billion — the International Monetary Fund’s nominal projection for 2026 (International Monetary Fund 2026) — together with a small number of jurisdictions below that threshold, included either because wealth is concentrated there out of proportion to their size, of which the Cayman Islands is the type case, or for completeness of a region already covered, of which the smaller member states of the European Union are the type case.

Some jurisdictions are not included because their governments are authoritarian (the lowest band of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2025 (Economist Intelligence Unit 2026)) and their court records are difficult to access. This is a practical limit rather than a rule: where the law and the decisions of such a jurisdiction could be reached, it is surveyed.

The roster

Table [tab:roster] lists the jurisdictions above the threshold, grouped as the Journal’s Recent Court Decisions installments group them, with GDP in US$ billions. Among countries above the threshold with authoritarian governments, this issue surveys Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia and Oman, and does not survey China (with Hong Kong), Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Venezuela or Belarus. The standards of all of them are recorded in the regional tables below where a research pass reached them, since the comparative argument of this article does not depend on which jurisdictions the court installments reach.

The standards in force, by region

Each table below records, for one region, the governing valuation standard, the body that issues or enforces it, its legal status, its relation to the International Valuation Standards, its current edition, and whether a statutory license or register gates practice. Statutory means binding by law or regulation; professional means binding on members of a body; advisory means neither. A dagger () marks a fact the research pass could not confirm against a primary source.

Three patterns recur and are worth naming before the tables. First, formal adoption of IVS by statute or regulation is now common outside the Anglo-American world: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai, South Africa, Nigeria, Malaysia, the Philippines, and, for insolvency work, India, all require their valuers by law, within the domains the tables give, to apply IVS or a national standard built on it. Second, the regulatory-methodology model this article illustrates with Germany’s ImmoWertV has close relatives in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Peru, Argentina, Poland, Czechia and Vietnam, each of which fixes methods by ministerial rule rather than by professional standard. Third, in much of Latin America (including Central America and the Dominican Republic) and South Asia the operative rule is a bank supervisor’s collateral regulation and a register of approved valuers, with no general valuation standard at all.

Notes. South Africa and Nigeria are the African cases of a statutory body adopting IVS as binding. OHADA’s Uniform Acts do not regulate valuation; the Uniform Act on Securities (2010) merely refers to an expert’s valuation on foreclosure. No pan-African standard exists: AfRES is a research society without a standard-setting mandate, and no East African Community mutual-recognition arrangement for valuers was found. Sources: (South African Council for the Property Valuers Profession 2025; Republic of South Africa 2000; Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers 2018; Republic of Kenya, n.d.; Institution of Surveyors of Kenya 2025; Ghana Institution of Surveyors, n.d.; Daily News Egypt 2026; Association Marocaine des Experts Immobiliers 2017; United Republic of Tanzania 2016; Parliament of Uganda 2025; Republic of Rwanda 2010; Dablo Law Firm 2025; International Valuation Standards Council, n.d.-b).

Notes. Communiqué III-62.1 replaced Communiqué Serial VIII No. 45 of 2006; BDDK requires bank-collateral valuation by BDDK- or SPK-authorized firms but publishes no standard of its own. Taqeem’s own account is that IVS are “the core standards … and are therefore mandatory”, with fines, suspension and imprisonment for breach. Dubai and Abu Dhabi license separately; there is no federal UAE standard. Israel’s standards were partly modeled on Fannie Mae guidelines and have no formal IVS integration. Sources: (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 2020; Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu 2017; Türkiye Değerleme Uzmanları Birliği 2017; Sermaye Piyasası Lisanslama Sicil ve Eğitim Kuruluşu, n.d.; International Valuation Standards Council 2021, 2019, 2018, n.d.-a; Government of Dubai 2015; Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Kingdom of Bahrain 2022; Sultanate of Oman 2025; Financial Regulatory Authority, Egypt, n.d.; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, n.d.; Aqarat, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Qatar, n.d.; Times Kuwait 2026).

Notes. The ASEAN Valuers Association (1981) is a cooperation body with no binding standard, register or mutual recognition; the ASEAN mutual-recognition arrangements do not include valuation. Harmonization comes through IVSC membership and the IVSC Asia office in Singapore. Sources: (Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers, n.d.; Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, n.d.; Lembaga Penilai, Pentaksir, Ejen Harta Tanah dan Pengurus Harta Malaysia 2025; Kementerian Keuangan Republik Indonesia 2014; Penilaian.id 2025; Valuers Association of Thailand, n.d.; Bank of Thailand 2019; Bureau of Local Government Finance, Department of Finance, Philippines 2018, 2025; Government of Viet Nam 2024; Vietnam Valuation Association, n.d.; DFDL 2023; Brunei Darussalam 2009; ASEAN Valuers Association, n.d.).

Notes. India runs several regimes at once: the Companies Act register administered by IBBI through Registered Valuer Organisations; the ICAI standards binding on chartered accountants for Companies Act work; the insolvency regulator’s 2026 circulars making IVS mandatory for IBC valuations; the Wealth-tax register, which survives the abolition of the tax; RBI empanelment rules for bank collateral; and the 2013 land-acquisition statute’s formula for compensation. The Draft Valuers Bill 2020 was never enacted; the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill 2026 would name IBBI the Valuation Authority. No SAARC-level instrument exists. Sources: (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 2026; Taxmann 2026; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 2018; Reserve Bank of India 2007; Pakistan Banks’ Association 2026; The Daily Star 2024; Sri Lanka 1975; Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2020; Nepal Rastra Bank, n.d.; Ministry of Finance, Royal Government of Bhutan 2023; CA Maldives 2025).

Notes. UPAV, the Pan-American union of valuation associations (Lima, 1949), joined IVSC as an institutional member in October 2017 after resolving to adopt IVS, and leads the Spanish and Portuguese IVS translations; its own Normas UPAV are advisory. Chile’s NCh 3658 is the country’s first valuation standard and remains voluntary. Peru’s RNT is a prescriptive, tariff-based methodology of 208 articles. Sources: (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas 2019; Conselho Monetário Nacional 2018; Conselho Federal de Engenharia e Agronomia 1990; Tribunal de Tasaciones de la Nación 2025a, 2025b; Instituto Nacional de Normalización 2021; Congreso de Colombia 2013; Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi 2026; Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento 2016; República Oriental del Uruguay 1983; Superintendencia de Bancos del Ecuador 2020; Autoridad de Supervisión del Sistema Financiero 2015; Banco Central del Paraguay, n.d.; International Valuation Standards Council 2017).

The European layer above the national ones. EVS 2025, the tenth edition of TEGoVA’s Blue Book, took effect on 1 January 2025; the RICS Red Book Global edition effective 31 January 2025 incorporates IVS in full. Neither binds a valuer except through a member association’s rules or national adoption. The European Union’s own instruments bind lenders and member states, not valuers: the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014/17/EU, art. 19) requires reliable valuation standards and names IVSC, TEGoVA and RICS in its recitals; the Capital Requirements Regulation as amended by CRR3 defines mortgage lending value and property value and requires an independent, qualified valuer applying prudently conservative criteria (art. 229); and the EBA loan-origination guidelines require collateral to be valued to “applicable international, European and national standards”. They reach valuers through national law, of which BelWertV, ECO/805, Lei 153/2015 and Poland’s 2023 regulation are the instances, or through professional adoption. Germany’s two-value system, market value under ImmoWertV and mortgage-lending value under BelWertV, is the model case; Spain’s ECO/805 is both methodology and mortgage-value rule, applied to firms rather than persons; the Netherlands alone lets the valuer choose EVS or IVS per engagement. Sources: (Republika Srbija 2016; TEGoVA 2025, n.d.; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors 2024; European Parliament and Council 2014, 2024; Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2021, 2022; Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière 2025; Ministerio de Economía 2003; Banco de España, n.d.; Tecnoborsa 2025; Nederlands Register Vastgoed Taxateurs 2025; Minister Rozwoju i Technologii 2023; Republik Österreich 1992; Slovenská republika 2004).

Notes. Japan’s standards were first issued in 1964, rewritten in 2002 to add discounted cash flow and a securitized-property chapter, and last revised in 2014; the Land Price Publication Act (1969) obliges appraisers and public acquirers to use the published standard-site prices as the benchmark. Korea’s Act of 2016 splits appraisal from the official-price statute, makes the published standard land price the statutory basis for land, and delegates methods to a ministerial rule that prescribes a principal method per asset type; its Practice Standards carry separate chapters for collateral, financial-reporting and compensation appraisals. Taiwan’s Technical Rules fix an eight-step procedure and four methods, including a land-development analysis method. China’s 2016 law obliges compliance with appraisal standards issued by State Council departments and the associations. Sources: (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism 2014; Japan 1963; Japan Association of Real Estate Appraisers 2023; Republic of Korea 2023; Republic of China (Taiwan) 2024; Ministry of the Interior, Republic of China (Taiwan) 2013; National People’s Congress 2016; China Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and Agents, n.d.; Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors 2024).

Notes. The United States row is deliberately split. USPAP is the conduct-and-performance layer; the second row is the practice layer, and it is scoped by domain: the Yellow Book for federal acquisition, the IAAO standards for ad valorem work, the Interagency Guidelines and the GSE guides for lending, the Appraisal Institute’s standards for its members, and the AICPA and ASA standards for business valuation. General real-estate valuation is the domain with no entry in that second row, which is the structural claim of this article stated as a table. The old joint Australian and New Zealand standards have been superseded: both institutes now list IVS as mandatory and their own guidance papers as best practice. Sources: (Real Estate Council of Alberta, n.d.; The Appraisal Foundation 2024; International Association of Assessing Officers, n.d.; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2010; Freddie Mac, n.d.; Appraisal Institute, n.d.; American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 2007; Appraisal Institute of Canada 2026; Ordre des évaluateurs agréés du Québec 2025; Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions 2017; Consumer Protection, Government of Western Australia, n.d.; Property Institute of New Zealand 2025).

Notes. No Commonwealth Caribbean jurisdiction checked has a statutory valuer license; the Red Book functions as the standard through RICS-qualified members, and whether the local institutes formally adopt it could not be confirmed. Only Mexican bodies and UPAV appear in the IVSC directory for the region. Sources: as listed for the Caribbean and Central America research pass; the primary pages consulted are the IVSC member directory (International Valuation Standards Council, n.d.-b), the Mexican federal statutes, the Dominican Superintendencia de Bancos regulations, Puerto Rico’s Department of State, the Panamanian Superintendencia’s compiled Acuerdo 4-2013, and the Honduran, Salvadoran and Nicaraguan supervisors’ valuer registries.

Notes. Russia’s cadastral valuation is a separate regime under Federal Law 237-FZ (2016), carried out by regional budgetary institutions under Rosreestr methodology, to which the FSO do not apply; the Constitutional Court ruled on it on 14 July 2026. The research pass for this region ran with search engines unavailable, so Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan rest on what could be reached directly and are flagged accordingly; the common claim that Georgia adopted IVS by law found no support in any reachable source. Sources: (Republic of Azerbaijan 2023; Russian Federation 1998, 2016; Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation 2022; Menes, n.d.; Republic of Armenia 2021; Government of the Republic of Armenia 2022; Republic of Kazakhstan 2018; Republic of Uzbekistan 1999; Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 2001; Republic of Belarus 2006; TEGoVA, n.d.; International Valuation Standards Council, n.d.-b).

References