WHO Collaborating Centres Management and Design 2007.

SEA-RES-124
Distribution: Restricted
Managerial Guidelines
for Designation and Redesignation
of WHO Collaborating Centres
Contact address:
Research Policy & Cooperation

Department of Health Systems Development
World Health Organization
Regional Office for South-East Asia
World Health House
Indraprastha Estate
Mahatma Gandhi Road
New Delhi – 110002
India
Tel. : (+91 11) 2337 0804

(+91 11) 2337 0809–11
Direct Dial : 23309+Last three digits of extension number
Fax : (+91 11) 2337 0252
(+91 11) 2337 9395
E-mail : registry@searo.who.int
Website : http://www.searo.who.int
http://intranet.who.int/homes/kcs/collaborating_centres
© World Health Organization 2007
The contents of this restricted document may not be divulged to persons other
than those to whom it has been originally addressed. It may not be further
distributed nor reproduced in any manner and should not be referenced in
bibliographical matter or cited.
Contents
Page
Foreword............................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
2. Designation of WHO collaborating centres.................................................... 4
3. Redesignation of WHO collaborating centres ................................................ 9
4. Management and evaluation ....................................................................... 13
5. Responsible technical focal points ............................................................... 15
Annexes
1. Designation form......................................................................................... 17
2. Evaluation checklist ..................................................................................... 25
3. Criteria for evaluation checklist.................................................................... 30
4. Recommended format for annual reports .................................................... 33
5. Redesignation form ..................................................................................... 35
6. Appendix ‘A’ – Title and use of WHO’s name and emblem

on letterheads ............................................................................................. 38
7. Research development committee .............................................................. 39
8. Designation initiated by RO - 2004 ............................................................. 40
9. Designation initiated by HQ - 2004............................................................. 41
10. Redesignation initiated by RO ..................................................................... 42
11. Redesignation initiated by HQ .................................................................... 43
Page iii
Foreword
A WHO collaborating centre is an institution designated by WHO to form
part of an international collaborative network carrying out activities in
support of the Organization's programme at all levels.
WHO collaborating centres participate on a contractual basis in
cooperative programmes supported by the Organization at the country,
intercountry, regional, inter-regional and global levels. They also contribute
to increasing technical cooperation with and among countries by providing
them with information, services and advice, and by stimulating and
supporting research and training.
Under Article 2(n) of the Constitution, the World Health Organization
has to promote and conduct health research for development. Collabora-
tion between and among national and international institutions and their
networks with WHO is recognized as the optimal way to promote and
strengthen health research and related activities. A large network of WHO
collaborating centres has thus evolved over the years and is being
constantly updated according to the needs of health development
programmes of WHO and its Members.
The Guidelines for the selection and management of WHO
collaborating centres have been finalized on the basis of resolutions
WHA50.2 and WHA53.8 as well as EB105.R7, and taking into account the
discussions at the 104th and 105th sessions of the Executive Board and the
Fifty-third World Health Assembly. These guidelines are to be used as a
supplement to the WHO document - WHO Collaborating Centres -
General Information (SEA RES-116) containing general information on the
history, functions and procedures relating to WHO collaborating centres.
The present guidelines are intended to be used by officials of
ministries of health, WHO country offices, technical units (TU) in the
Regional Office and existing/potential WHO collaborating centres in the
South-East Asia Region. The guidelines would facilitate internal processing
of procedures relating to the designation and redesignation as well as
management of WHO collaborating centres in countries of the South-East
Asia Region.
Samlee Plianbangchang, M.D., Dr.P.H.

Regional Director
Page v
1. Introduction
A WHO collaborating centre is an institution designated by the Director-
General to form part of an international collaborative network carrying out
activities in support of the Organization's programme at all levels. A
department or laboratory within an institution or a group of facilities for
reference, research or training belonging to different institutions may be
designated as a centre, one institution acting for them in their relations with
the Organization.
Institutions showing a growing capacity to fulfil a function or functions

related to the Organization’s programme, as well as institutions of high
scientific and technical standing, having attained international recognition,
may qualify for designation as WHO collaborating centres.
The main functions of WHO collaborating centres (WHOCCs) are:
(1) Standardization: WHOCCs contribute to the work of the

Organization in various technical areas of work for the purpose
of standardization of terminology and nomenclature; diagnostic,
therapeutic and prophylactic substances; technologies, methods
and procedures, etc.
(2) Information: WHOCCs are involved and contribute to
synthesizing and disseminating scientific and technical
information and information of interest to the country’s national
health development and/or in the implementation of its
programme.
(3) Services: WHOCCs provide services under three major areas: a)
traditional services such as epidemiological surveillance, for
identification of causal agent(s), (b) development, evaluation and
testing of preventive measures and control; and (c) through
technical cooperation in national health development such as
the Special Programme of Research, Development and Training.
(4) Research: The research function of WHOCCs has acquired a
rapidly growing importance. The large increase in the number of
centres in the course of the last two decades has been due
Page 1
Managerial Guidelines for Designation and Redesignation of WHO Collaborating Centres
mainly to the development of the research component of WHO

programmes.
(5) Training: WHOCCs play an essential role in training, particularly
research training, with emphasis on the strengthening of
institutions, especially research institutions, in the developing
countries.
(6) Coordination: Where WHOCCs of a given network participate
in a collaborative scheme, it may be necessary to assign one or
more of them, chosen in consideration of their quality and
experience, the task of coordinating, promoting, supporting and
harmonizing the work undertaken in common.
The criteria for the selection of institutions for designation as a WHO

collaborating centre are as follows:
(1) The scientific and technical standing of the institution concerned

at the national and international levels.
(2) The place the institution occupies in the country’s health,
scientific or educational structures.
(3) The quality of its scientific and technical leadership, and the
number and qualifications of its staff.
(4) The institution’s prospective stability in terms of personnel,
activity and funding.
(5) The working relationship which the institution has developed
with other institutions in the country, as well as at the
intercountry, regional and global levels.
(6) The institution’s ability, capacity and readiness to contribute to
WHO programme activities, whether in support of country
programmes or by participating in international cooperative
activities.
(7) The technical and geographical relevance of the institution and
of its activities to WHO’s programme priorities.
(8) The successful completion by the institution of at least two years
of collaboration with WHO in carrying out jointly planned
activities.
Page 2
The initiative for proposing an institution to be designated as a

collaborating centre may come from within WHO (WHO country offices,
Regional Office and/or WHO headquarters or even from WHO offices of
other regions) or from outside WHO (WHO expert panel members,
scientific working group members or national senior scientists, institutions
and/or governments).
The procedure for designating institutions as WHO collaborating

centres will ensure that the selection process is as objective and transparent
as possible. Emphasis has been laid on developing a collective evaluation
process involving all staff concerned, including WHO Representatives and
technical and managerial staff at all levels. The final authority to designate a
centre rests with the WHO Director-General. Based upon the assessment of
the collaborative work, the WHO collaborative centre may be redesignated
for an appropriate period of extension.
Page 3
2. Designation of WHO collaborating centres

In order to streamline management procedures, the following general
principle is adopted. The technical programmes/units that initiate the
proposal, at the country or regional level or at WHO headquarters, will be
responsible for managing and evaluating collaborative work with the centre
depending upon where the initiative for designation originated. The first
step for designation will depend upon the source of the initiative for
designation:
(1) Initiated by Institution: An institution which has successfully

collaborated in carrying out jointly planned activities with the
WHO technical programmes for at least two years, at the
country, regional or global level or in combination, may submit a
formal application with the ‘Designation Form’ (See Annex I) for
designation as a WHO collaborating centre in the relevant area
of activity.
(2) Initiated by Government: The national health authorities and/or
any other national authorities related to health development
may initiate a proposal for designation to the Regional Director
or HQ Technical Cluster (EXD/Directors).
(3) Initiated by Technical Units at Regional Office: The technical
units under their programme areas at the Regional Office (RO)
may initiate the designation of a national institution (situated
within the Region) as a collaborating centre, based on the
standard criteria that include a previous two-year successful
collaboration with the proposed institution.
(4) Initiated by Technical Units at HQ or other Regional Offices:
Technical units at headquarters (WHO/HQ) or other ROs may
submit a proposal for designation of a collaborating centre in
countries of the South-East Asia Region.
The technical unit concerned, at the regional level or at WHO

headquarters, will process the application and initiate internal technical
evaluation and the administrative procedure for designation in consultation
with WHO country office (WCO) and respective national authorities. While
doing so, it will be necessary to identify the responsible officers at both the
Regional Office and WHO headquarters who will act as technical focal
points for collaboration with the institution. Both technical units (TU)
responsible for related activities at the Region and WHO headquarters in
Page 4
consultation with WCO, will make a (joint) review of the institution’s work
and potential.
During this initiation process, the technical unit will consult with the
relevant technical focal points at WHO headquarters as well as WRs and
national health authorities. If the technical unit in the regional office would
like to designate a collaborating centre located outside the Region, the
proposal for designation will need to be processed in close coordination
with the regional office where the proposed institution is located. The final
recommendation and communication of designation will be by the
Regional Director of that region.
If the centre does not meet the criteria established by WHO, the
technical unit concerned at the regional office will communicate with the
institution and the government according to the guidance provided by the
Regional Director, for further strengthening of collaboration.
If the centre does meet the criteria, the technical unit concerned has
to further process the application and initiate the process of designation on
the basis of appropriate evidence.
The technical unit (TU) responsible for initiating the designation, at
the regional or HQ level, should provide sufficient evidence of a successful
collaboration with the proposed centre, during the immediately preceding
two-year period.
Documentation Required for Designation
The proposal for designation should include the following documents:
From the Institute
(1) Designation Form (See Annex I): It consists of four parts:

(i) Introduction; (ii) Institutional Profile; (iii) Proposed terms of
reference and (iv) Proposed work-plan (description of the work
activities that the institution would collaborate with, which are
directly and explicitly linked with the WHO technical unit’s
planned activities, and expected results as defined under
WHO’s Programme Budget).
(2) Letter from the Director/Dean/Head of the Institution
expressing interest in being collaborated with WHO, as a WHO
collaborating centre.
Page 5
(3) Curriculum Vitae: the person with overall responsibility for

carrying out the workplan – this may be the director of the
institution or the head of the unit, department etc.
From the Technical Unit

(4) Evaluation Checklist (See Annex II) that facilitates the overall
evaluation of the fulfilment of the designation criteria by the
institution. The Evaluation Checklist is filled on the basis of the
“Criteria for Evaluation Checklist” (Annex III).
(5) Technical Unit’s Justification for recommending the proposed
institution for designation as a WHO collaborating centre
(including the report on successful collaboration during the
preceding two-year period).
(6) Concerned WR’s Concurrence.
(7) Concurrence of the relevant technical unit in WHO/HQ.
(8) A brief write-up from the concerned technical unit to be put up
to the Research Development Committee (RDC) for considering
the institution for designation.
(9) Reports on the site visits, joint evaluation and other necessary
documentation as supporting documents.
The proposal review process should be carried out in consultation

with WHO staff at all relevant levels. Informal consultation should also take
place with relevant national authorities. After review, the technical unit
concerned may need to update the institutional profile, including the terms
of reference and workplan, if necessary. On the basis of this evidence, the
RDC, acting as the Regional Screening Committee (RSC) of WHO-South-
East Asia Regional Office, will submit a recommendation to the Regional
Director (RD) for his decision/guidance.
Once RD agrees with the proposal to designate an institution, the

Research Policy and Cooperation (RPC) Unit in the Regional Office will
forward the proposal, including the proposed period of designation
(normally up to four years) to the unit of Knowledge Communities and
Strategy (KCS) at WHO/HQ, for submission to the Global Steering
Committee (GSC). The GSC will assess the strategic relevance and viability
of the proposal from an inter-regional perspective and communicate its
comments and recommendations back to the RD concerned.
Page 6
The Regional Director, after receiving the recommendation of GSC (if

this is positive), and final approval of designation by the Director-General’s
(DGO) Office, will consult the government concerned officially (as
appropriate) to secure its approval of the proposed designation of the
centre. In the absence of any response from the concerned Ministry (from
the date of issuance of the letter), WHO will assume that the proposal is
acceptable to the Ministry and would proceed by seeking DG’s final
approval.
Once the Director-General approves the designation, the Regional

Director will send formal letters of designation to the Centre, including
information on the privileges and obligations of WHO collaborating centres
(enclosing Appendix ‘A’ – Title and Use of WHO’s Name and Emblem on
Letterheads (Annex 6). The designation of WHO collaborating centres
expires at the end of the period of designation. Other provisions would be
specified in the official designation letter sent to the institution.
Table 1: Summary of step-by-step procedures for designating a

proposed centre as a WHO collaborating centre
(Annexures VIII and IX)
Responsible
Steps Activity
Unit
1. Individuals, Institution(s), National Health Authorities TU/WR
and/or other national authorities, Member States, WHO
Representatives, relevant Technical Units (TU) in
WHO/SEARO, other Regional Offices or WHO/HQ,
may initiate a proposal in consultation with WHO
Country Office (WCO) and Regional Office and
concerned units at WHO/HQ for designation of an
institution as a WHO collaborating centre.
2. Proposal must include the ‘Designation Form’ (to be TU/WR
completed by the Institution), along with a covering letter
from the Director/Head of the Institution. Report on
successful collaboration during the preceding two-years,
proposed terms of reference and draft of the four-year
workplan in relation to the terms of reference, TU’s
justification including a short description of activities and the
Curriculum Vitae of the person responsible overall for
carrying out the workplan – this may be the Director of the
Institution or Head of the unit, department, etc.
Page 7
Responsible
Steps Activity
Unit
3. Preliminary Evaluation Checklist to be completed TU/WR
considering the suitability of the proposal against the criteria
for evaluation. The Evaluation Checklist must be supported
by the site visit reports and any other related documents.
4. Proposal must be supported by technical units at both RO TU/WR
and HQ and the concerned WR. The head of the proposed
institution must also explicitly agree on the proposed ToRs,
workplan, and the title of WHOCC. The time taken for
making the proposal should be within three months from
the time of receipt of the report for designation.
5. The proposal for designation is reviewed at the Regional DPM/RPC
Research Development Committee (RDC), (which acts
as the Regional Screening Committee) through RPC
who is the Secretary of RDC, in the Regional Office for
South-East Asia. The review should be completed within
three months of initiation.
6. Based on the minutes of RDC and the Regional DPM/RPC
Director's decision, the proposal is referred to KCS/HQ,
for submission to the Global Steering Committee.
7. The comments and recommendations of the Global DPM/RPC
Steering Committee are communicated to the Regional
Director for final recommendation.
8. The Regional Director requests the government for DPM/RPC/
comments and approval of designation (as appropriate). WRs
Time taken is six-eight weeks.
9. The recommendations of the Regional Director, with DPM/RPC
the comments and approval of the government, are
submitted to the Director-General for final decision.
Time taken is four-six weeks.
10. Once the Director-General approves the designation, DPM/RPC
an official designation letter is issued, along with
“Appendix ‘A’, Title and Use of WHO’s Name and
Emblem on Letterheads” (Annex VI).
11. The Technical Unit, which has initiated the designation TUs
process, takes over the responsibility of managing and
monitoring the collaborative work through site visits,
annual reports (See Annex IV) etc.
Page 8
3. Redesignation of WHO collaborating centres

TECHNICAL units need to review the progress of collaborative activities
based on the original terms of reference, the workplan, annual reports (See
Annex IV) submitted by the centres as well as reports of the site visits and
other relevant documentations. The technical unit should review the annual
report and supplement further information on the evaluation. The
institutional profile and the workplan may need to be updated to reflect the
latest situation. The terms of reference may need to be revised, if needed.
The centres themselves and the TU should give due attention to the
reporting and evaluation of collaboration since no decision can be made on
redesignation of any centre until the completion of a thorough review of
performance and outputs, and a strategic evaluation of continued relevance
of proposed activities for redesignation, in the light of WHO’s evolving
needs and policy.
Based on the evaluation of the technical and scientific collaboration of

the centre during the existing designation period, the technical unit directly
in charge of managing and monitoring collaboration with the centre,
irrespective of whether at the Regional Office or at HQ, in consultation
with the WHO Representative and with the explicit agreement of the
relevant unit at WHO/HQ, should initiate the process of redesignation, at
least eight months before the end of the designation period.
The TU will submit the proposal for redesignation to RPC/SEARO for

review and placing before the SEA Regional Research Development
Committee (RDC) for its consideration, at least three months before the
end of the designation period. (See Section 4 on Management and
Evaluation, for more details).
Documentation Required for Redesignation

The proposal for redesignation should include the following documents:
From the Institute

(1) ‘Redesignation Form’ (See Annex V) It consists of four parts :
(i) Basic Information; (ii) Annual Reports; (iii) Proposed revised
terms of reference and (iv) Proposed workplan to be prepared in
relation to the terms of reference.
Page 9
(2) Letter from the Director/Dean/Head of the Institute expressing

interest in being redesignated as a WHO collaborating centre.
(3) Curriculum Vitae: The person with overall responsibility for
carrying out the workplan – this may be the Director of the
institution or the Head of the Unit, department etc. (in case of
any change)
(4) Annual Reports of the past three years (the fourth year report to
be submitted to the technical unit at the end of the fourth year)
based on the workplan and the terms of reference established at
the start of the redesignation period. Annual Reports to be
submitted preferably in the “Recommended Format for Annual
Reports” (Annex IV).
From the Technical Unit
(5) Technical Unit’s Justification for recommending the proposed

institution for redesignation (based on annual reports, site visits
and other relevant information) as a WHO collaborating centre.
(6) Concerned WR’s Concurrence
(7) Concurrence of the concerned technical Unit in WHO/HQ.
(8) A brief write-up from the concerned technical unit to be put up
to the RDC for considering the institution for redesignation.
The Regional Screening Committee (RDC), in the Regional Office

proposes to the Regional Director to decide on either:
Ø Redesignation of the institution with an appropriate period of

extension, in consultation with the government concerned, or
Ø Discontinuation as a WHO collaborating centre.
Once the Regional Director approves the redesignation, the RPC

Unit/SEARO will send a formal letter of redesignation to the institution,
including information on the privileges and obligations of WHO
collaborating centres.
When the Regional Director decides to discontinue collaboration, the

Regional Office will issue a letter of thanks to the institution, after receiving
concurrence for discontinuation from the concerned WR, Technical Unit
and TU/HQ.
Page 10
Table 2: Summary of step-by-step procedures for redesignating a

centre as a WHO collaborating centre
(Annexures X and XI)
Responsible
Step Activity
Officer
1. Eight months before the expiry of the designation period, TU/WR
the technical unit responsible for managing the WHOCC,
reviews past performance and relevance of continued
collaboration taking into account the annual reports,
WHO’s evolving needs and policies (reference should be
made to WHO Programme Budget and the technical
unit’s expected results). This evaluation will provide
technical background for final recommendation.
2. The TU in SEARO is responsible for managing the TU/WR
WHOCC, in consultation with the WHO Representative
and the Technical Unit in HQ on redesignation or
discontinuation. The agreement of the HQ technical
counterpart is required. Similarly, any HQ proposal for
redesignation or discontinuation of collaboration has to
be supported by SEARO’s technical counterpart.
3. If redesignation is to be effected, the institution in TU/WR
collaboration with the technical units in SEARO and HQs,
completes the ‘Redesignation Form’ (See Annex V) for a
specified period (not more than four years). The
‘Redesignation Form’ must be updated to reflect the latest
situation.
4. If the technical unit in consultation with the technical unit TU/WR
in HQ, feels that formal collaboration status is no longer
justified or required, the conclusion that there is no need
for redesignation procedure should be submitted to RDC
through RPC/SEARO.
5. The Regional Research Development Committee (RDC) DPM/RPC
(Regional Screening Committee) will review the proposal
for redesignation/ discontinuation. The minutes of the
RDC will be submitted to the Regional Director for
decision (before the end of the designation period).
6. If redesignation is proposed and approved by the Regional DPM/RPC
Director, a redesignation letter will be issued within a
specified period of time.
Page 11
Responsible
Step Activity
Officer
7. The technical unit responsible for managing the centre TU
during its earlier designation period will continue to be
incharge of managing technical collaboration unless
otherwise specified and notified to the technical and
administrative counterparts.
8. Once the decision about discontinuation is made, the DPM/RPC
Regional Director will issue a "Thank You" letter to the
collaborating centre.
Page 12
4. Management and evaluation

Management of collaboration with a WHO collaborating centre is the
responsibility of the relevant technical programme officers in the
Organization who initiated the designation process, whether at WHO
headquarters or in the region. Interaction between technical units in
regions and WHO headquarters will ensure that the centre’s collaboration
is available to the whole Organization.
Technical units should copy to their counterparts (at SEARO or HQs)

any relevant and useful information on technical collaboration (plans,
reports, activities) with the WHOCC they are in charge of as this will
enhance opportunities to make full use of the WHOCC and also possibly
increase interest and support for the centre from other parts of the
Organization.
Administrative focal points should always be included on the copy list

of all official correspondence on administrative matters. This will also
facilitate speedy processing of procedures, updating of records and related
information on the global WHOCC database.
The designated focal points within the relevant technical units, at the
Regional Office and WHO/HQ, will manage and coordinate the work of
collaborating centres. The global and regional focal points of Research
Policy and Cooperation will act as coordinating focal points for statutory
information and procedures on collaborating centres. Overall guidelines
and schedules have also been developed for the management and
monitoring of collaboration with the centres and they are common to all
regions and programmes.
Successful collaboration requires that particular attention be paid to

the joint preparation of the centre’s terms of reference and workplans. This
should involve the institution and the technical units concerned at all levels.
The workplan should comprise clearly-defined objectives and

expected results explicitly related to those of WHO as set out by its
Governing Bodies and its Programme Budget. WHO should dedicate its
own staff time and other resources, although not necessarily direct financial
support, to ensure that collaboration can develop in a useful manner.
Page 13
The programme manager concerned bears the main technical

responsibility for evaluation of the work performed by the WHO
collaborating centre, assisted as necessary by the global and regional
advisory committees on health research, and by outside expertise, such as
members of expert advisory panels, depending on the magnitude and
complexity.
Monitoring takes place on a continuing basis. WHO collaborating

centres must submit annual reports on the implementation of
collaborative activities. This report should reflect the progress achieved in
respect of the workplan, underlining possible difficulties and formulating
suggestions for improvements for future collaboration.
A final evaluation takes place at the end of the four-year designation

period. It includes an assessment of WHO’s support for, and actual use of,
collaboration with the centre.
No decision may be made on redesignation of any centre until

completion of a thorough evaluation of its past performance and
rigorous assessment of the continued relevance of this collaboration in
view of WHO’s evolving needs and policy.
To facilitate management, cooperation and networking, a global

information system on all WHO collaborating centres has been developed,
to be accessible worldwide to WHO staff, WHO collaborating centres, and
eventually Member States and the public health community at large.
Regular meetings at country and regional levels and on specific topics
support the exchange of experience and collaboration between centres.
Page 14
5. Responsible technical focal points

Technical units at RO or HQ: The relevant programme officers (technical
units), which initiate the designation process, are responsible for the
management of technical and scientific collaboration with the centre. These
technical units will ensure, that the collaborating centres under their
responsibilities maintain their technical links with all parts of the
organization. They are also responsible for regular monitoring and
evaluation, including site visits, with the full involvement of the WHO
Representatives and other relevant technical units.
WHO Representatives and their staff: WHO Representatives and

relevant professional staff (international and national) in the WHO country
office will ensure geographical, scientific and technical relevance of the
centre before initiation of application/proposal as a WHO collaborating
centre. In addition, they are uniquely placed to monitor and facilitate
coordination with the centres and communicate with the technical units at
both the Regional Office and WHO/HQ for evaluation of institutional
needs and viability of potential centres. Their contribution to proposals for
designation, redesignation or diversification of collaboration is therefore
needed and encouraged.
Regional and Global Focal Points: The Knowledge Communities and

Strategies Unit (KCS/HQ), within the Department of Knowledge
Management and Sharing (KMS/HQ), at WHO/HQ is the focal point at the
global level for coordinating statutory information and procedures on
collaborating centres. The KCS Unit at WHO/HQ is responsible for
maintaining the global database of WHO collaborating centres and acts as
the Secretariat to the Global Steering Committee. The Research Policy and
Cooperation (RPC) Unit within the Department of Director – Programme
Management (DPM/SEARO) in the Regional Office will act as the focal
point for coordination in relation to WHO CCs in the Region, and is
responsible for maintaining the regional database, while RPC is the
operational officer responsible for overall coordination.
Regional Screening Committee: The Regional Research Develop-

ment Committee (RDC) of WHO/SEARO, chaired by DPM, with all
Department Directors as members, RA-RPC as the Secretary and other ‘P’
staff to be co-opted/invited as and when required (as suggested by DPM)
has to function as the Regional Screening Committee for WHO
collaborating centres. The Regional Research Development Committee will
Page 15
review proposals from the technical units for designation, redesignation,

and discontinuation of WHO collaborating centres in accordance with the
existing standard of WHO procedures.
Global Steering Committee: The Global Steering Committee (GSC)

acts as an interregional body advising the Director-General on issues
pertaining to WHO collaborating centre designations and policy.
The functions of the GSC include:
(1) Reviewing proposals from the Regional Screening Committees

regarding the designation of new WHO collaborating centres;
(2) Reviewing proposals for redesignation or discontinuation of
WHO collaborating centres in the absence of a consensus
between headquarters and regional technical units;
(3) Serving as a forum to discuss issues regarding WHO
collaborating centre's policy; and
(4) Recommending actions to address the recommendations of the
IOS evaluation of the WHO collaborating centres and develop a
strategy for their implementation.
The first two functions are performed electronically and on a regular

basis.
For the third and fourth functions, the GSC normally meets at least
once a year, or on a needs basis. The GSC may designate subgroups among
its members to focus on specific-issue areas. The recommendations of the
subgroups are presented to the GSC and are open to plenary discussion.
The GSC submits its recommendations to the Director-General.
The ADG/EIP is the Chairman of the GSC, who delegates this function
as appropriate.
The membership of the GSC includes one member from each

regional office as designated by the Regional Director, one member from
each cluster as designated by the Assistant Directors-General, one
representative from DGO and one representative from KMS/HQ.
KMS/HQ serves as the Secretariat of the GSC.
Page 16
Annex 1
Collaborating Centres
DESIGNATION FORM
This form is to be electronically completed by the proposed WHO Collaborating Centre
The designation form consists of four parts:
Part I – Introduction
Part II – Institutional profile
Part III – Proposed terms of reference
Part IV – Proposed workplan
Institution name:
Exact name of the department/unit/section/laboratory, etc. which would act as the WHO
Collaborating Centre:
City and country of location:
Exact proposed title as WHO Collaborating Centre:
Part I – Introduction
The introduction should give brief background information (max. 2 pages) on:
1.1 The origin of the proposal (external or internal), the technical programme which is
sponsoring the request for designation, and the reasons for the proposed designation as a
WHO collaborating centre;
1.2 Detailed description of the two-year collaboration period; the steps that have led to this
proposal, e.g. site-visits by WHO staff and consultants, previous participation of the
institution in WHO projects, emphasis placed by national authorities and the institution
itself on activities related to WHO's programmes, and the joint development of a
workplan.
Page 17
Part II – Institutional Profile
2.1 Institution name:

2.2 Exact name of the department/unit/section/laboratory, etc. which will act as the WHO
collaborating centre:
2.3 City and country of location:
2.4 Name of the director of the institution:
2.5 Name of the head of the proposed WHO collaborating centre (i.e. the person with
overall responsibility for carrying out the workplan) – this may be the director of the
institute or the head of the unit, department, etc :
2.6 Address of the institution :
2.7 Telephone :
2.8 Fax :
2.9 E-mail :
2.10 Web site :
2.12 Title proposed for the WHO collaborating centre, including its main function and the
area of activity in which collaboration will take place (e.g., WHO Collaborating Centre
for research on…, "for reference on…"; "for training in…", "for assessing technologies
in…", etc.)
2.13 Institutional 1. Is the proposed institution:

characteristics Public Private Mix
2. If the response above is "private" or "mix",
please clarify:
3. The proposed institution is a (or part of a):
University Hospital Research institute
Ministry Academy Other kind of institution
4. If the response above is "other kind of institution", please
clarify:
Page 18
2.14 Funding situation of the 1. Source of funding

candidate institution: Public Private Mixed
2. If the response above is "private" or "mixed",
please give details and list the sources:
3. The entities funding the proposed institution are:
Non profit entities Entities for profit
Mixed
4. If the response above is "entities for profit"
or "mixed", please give details and list
the entities:
5. Average distribution of funding during the last 2
years
0-25% regular (core) funding
over 75% regular (core) funding
2.15 During the last two years, did Yes No

the proposed WHO If yes, does/will it continue to receive such funding?
collaborating centre receive
funding from commercial Yes No
companies (i) engaged in Provide a detailed account including a list of the
activities relating to tobacco, companies, their line of business, the level of their
arms, alcohol, or other funding, if those funding have already been
activities that may be exhausted or are still being used, and, in case of (ii),
incompatible with WHO's their interest in the activities of the proposed
work; or (ii) having a direct collaborating centre.
interest in the activities of the
proposed collaborating
centre?
2.16 Does the proposed Yes No

collaborating centre produce if "Yes", overall number of publications during the last
any significant documents or 2 years
products other than articles 1-5 6-10 over 11
such as books, guidance if "Yes", are they available on the internet?
materials, guidelines,
memoirs, methodologies, if "Yes", please provide the internet address
procedure for evaluation, etc: (http://www.)
Page 19
2.17 During the last two years, did the proposed collaborating centre participate at
1) National conferences: Yes No
If "Yes" has been selected:
1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings over 7 meetings
2) Regional-international conferences: Yes No
If "Yes" has been selected:
1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings over 7 meetings
2.18 During the last two years, did 1) National conferences: Yes No
the proposed collaborating 2) If "Yes" has been selected:
centre organize (conduct or 1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings
co-organize) over 7 meetings
3) Regional-international conferences:
Yes No
4) If "Yes" has been selected:
1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings
over 7 meetings
2.19 Please respond only if the Yes No

proposed collaborating centre If "Yes", which ethical guidelines are you
is involved in research. Are following:
projects submitted to an
ethical review body? if not relevant, please select
2.20 Actual number of support

staff
2.21 Number of years in operation less than 5 years 5-9 years

more than 10 years
2.22 Number of years of the less than 5 years 5-9 years

Head/Director in the more than 10 years
proposed collaborating centre
2.23 Is the candidate institution Yes No

part of a network? If "Yes", at which level:
national regional/international
If "Yes", please indicate the name of the network:
2.24 Is the candidate institution in Yes No

charge of a newsletter, If "Yes", please indicate the name(s), and if it available
bulletin? in the internet, please also indicate the internet
address:
Page 20
2.25 If the candidate institution is if not applicable

involved in research: please
provide a complete list of
articles published during the
last two years.
2.26 During the last two years, has 1. WHO Representative (WR) Yes No
the candidate institution been 2. WHO Regional Office (RO) Yes No
in contact / collaboration
(participation in joint 3. WHO Headquarters (HQ) Yes No
conference, implementation 4. National Ministry of Health Yes No
of project, research project, 5. Other ministries? Yes No
etc.) with:
6. if "yes" to question 5, please indicate
which one:
7. Councils (e.g. with the Research Council or
equivalent) Yes No
which one:
9. Other international agencies, foundations, UN
agencies, etc. Yes No
which one:
11. NGO's: Yes No
which one:
13. Other structures: Yes No
which one:
2.27 Does the proposed Yes No

Collaborating Centre produce
a regular report on the work If "Yes", is there a version available on the
performed, providing internet/web site? Please provide the internet address
information on the centre's (http://…).
activities?
Page 21
2.28 Capacity building/training 1) Initial Technical/Vocational Training:

courses provided by the Yes No
proposed collaborating centre if "Yes", please indicate the number of courses in
if not applicable the last 2 years, the approximate duration and
number of people trained in total:
2) Undergraduate training:
Yes No
if "Yes", please indicate the number of courses in
the last 2 years, the approximate duration and
3) Graduate training:
Yes No
4) Continuing education / professional training:

Yes No
5) Other types, please specify:
2.29 Organizational chart (1 page);

PASTE HERE
2.30 List of professional staff of the WHO collaborating centre with an indication of their
qualifications (do not include full CVs) (2 pages max.):
Page 22
2.31 Facilities available (e.g. laboratories, training facilities, documentation centre, etc.) (2
pages max):
2.32 List of relevant publications during the recent years (max two pages):
Part III – Proposed terms of reference

The proposed terms of reference of the WHO collaborating centre should be presented as bullet
points and briefly describe the scope of the activities that the institution would perform as a
WHO collaborating centre. It should give a general framework to the cooperation between the
institution and WHO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

The proposed workplan should cover the four years of designation and include detailed
information on the concrete activities of the institution as a WHO collaborating centre with
specific actions to be carried out, specifying:
Ø name of the activity

Ø the person responsible
Ø description of the activity
Ø the expected outcome
Ø links with the objectives of WHO/relevant WHO programme
Ø corresponding activities in the WHO technical programme(s) concerned
Ø financial provisions
Ø dissemination of the results
Ø the deadline
Ø annex providing more detailed information can be attached
Page 23
The workplan may be submitted in the following format:
Activity 1: Title:
Responsible person:
Description:
Concrete expected outcome:
Links with WHO activities:
Source of funding of the activity:
Dissemination of the results:
Timeframe of the activity:
Page 24
Annex 2
EVALUATION CHECKLIST
This evaluation form is to be electronically completed and signed

by the WHO Responsible Officer
The evaluation checklist consists of 3 parts:

Part I – Basic information
Part II – Evaluation
Part III – Institution’s potential collaboration with WHO
Institution name: _______________________________________________________________

Collaborating Centre: ___________________________________________________________
City and country of location: _____________________________________________________
Exact proposed title as WHO Collaborating Centre: __________________________________
PLEASE AVOID USING ACRONYMS or IF SO, INDICATE THEIR COMPLETE MEANINGS
Page 25
Part I – Basic Information
1.1 Name of the WHO responsible officer signing this evaluation: _____________________
1.2 Unit/Department/Location: _________________________________________________
1.3 Name of the WHO Area of Work (AOW)/Programme/Sub-programme which you are
representing: _____________________________________________________________
1.4 Number of WHO CCs under this WHO Area of Work (AOW)/Programme/Sub-
programme being currently considered: ______________________________________
programme in this country:
programme in this region:
programme world wide (six WHO Regions):
(updated information regarding questions 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 may be found in the WHO Collaborating
Centres database: http://whocc.who.int/)
Part II – Evaluation
2.1 Please rank the level of fulfillment by the proposed institution of the following criteria for
designation of institutions as a WHO collaborating centres on a scale from 1 to 5.
1 = low 2 = fair 3 = average 4 = good 5 = important
Scientific and technical standing of the institution concerned at the national and
international levels
Place the institution occupies in the country's health, scientific or educational
structures
Quality of its scientific and technical leadership, and the number and qualifications of
its staff
Institution's prospective stability in terms of personnel, activity and funding
Working relationship which the institution has developed with other institutions in the
country, as well as at the intercountry, regional and global levels
Institution's ability, capacity and readiness to contribute to WHO programme
activities, whether in support of country programmes or by participating in
international cooperative activities
Technical and geographical relevance of the institution and its activities to WHO's
programme priorities
Successful completion by the institution of at least two years of collaboration with
WHO in carrying out jointly planned activities
Page 26
2.2 Referring to the table, would you like to

provide any remarks / additional
information?
2.3 During the last two years, have you or Yes No
any other staff from your department or
the WR's office visited the proposed
collaborating centre (WHO CC)?
2.4 Have you been previously working / Yes No
teaching/consulting for the proposed Any additional comments you want to add:
collaborating centre or have any
particular link with the centre that could
potentially affect your evaluation?
2.5 According to the workplan, does the Yes No
proposed collaborating centre have the If "No", please specify what steps are being
capacity to carry out the workplan? taken by the candidate institution and/or
the WHO Technical Unit to provide
capacity to carry out the workplan.
2.6 Are any capacity building/training Yes No
courses provided by the proposed
collaborating centre?
2.7 Does the proposed collaborating centre Yes No
act as instigator, catalyst, leader or If "yes", provide details
facilitator of projects in this area?
2.8 Was the WHO Representative within Yes No
the country consulted OR informed
about this proposal ?
2.9 During the last two years, did the Yes No
proposed WHO collaborating centre If “yes”, does/will it continue to receive
receive funding from commercial such funding?
companies (i) engaged in activities
relating to tobacco, arms, alcohol, or Yes No
other activities that may be incompatible Provide a detailed account including a list
with WHO's work; or (ii) having a direct of the companies, their line of business, the
interest in the activities of the proposed level of their funding, if that funding has
collaborating centre. already been exhausted or is still being
NB: Please verify that in the Designation Form, used, and, in case of (ii), their interest in
completed by the proposed WHO CC, the the activities of the proposed collaborating
question 2.26 on funding from commercial centre.
companies is answered.
Page 27
Part III – Institution’s potential collaboration with WHO

3.1 Please indicate the importance of activities performed by the proposed collaborating
centre, relevant to your programme on a scale from 1 to 5.
1 = low 2 = fair 3 = average 4 = good 5 = important
Collection, collation and dissemination of information

Standarization of terminology and nomenclature, of technology, of diagnostic,
therapeutic and prophylactic substances, and of methods and procedures
Development and application of appropriate technology
Provision of reference substances and other services
Participation in collaborative research developed under the Organization’s
leadership, including the planning, conduct, monitoring and evaluation of research,
as well as promotion of application of the results of research
Training, including research training
Coordination of activities carried our by several institutions on a given subject
Implementing WHO’s mandated work and programme objectives
Developing and strengthening institutional capacity in the country and the region
Other activity, please describe:
3.2 Referring to the table, would you like
to provide any remarks / additional
information on the selected activities
or any other activity you want to
highlight? If any other activity
highlighted, please indicate as well its
importance on a scale from 1 to 5
(1=low, 2=fair, 3= average, 4=good
and 5=important).
3.3 Please list / describe briefly within the
space the concrete technical
contributions provided by the
proposed collaborating centre to
WHO activities during the pre-
designation period (the last two
years). (be aware that by signing this
form you acknowledge that the
proposed institution has been working
with WHO for at least the last two
years)
Page 28
3.4 Please list / describe briefly the Ø WHO programme:

benefits and relevance of the Contribution:
proposed collaborating centre 's
activities provided to WHO Ø WHO programme:
programmes (or WHO Regional Contribution:
Programme) at national / local level
Ø WHO programme:
(if applicable):
Contribution:
3.5 Please list and describe briefly the

benefits and relevance of the
proposed collaborating centre 's
activities to WHO programmes (or
WHO Regional Programme) at
regional /international level:
3.6 Please list/describe briefly outline the

ability of the proposed collaborating
centre to carry out the activity
related to the WHO programme.
I support the application:

as submitted
with modifications
I do not support the application

(NB: please provide some information)
By signing the Evaluation Checklist you also certify to have read and checked that all the
information given by the proposed collaborating centre in its Designation Form is correct to the
best of your knowledge.
Signature:
Unit/Department/HQ or Region: _____________________________
Date:
Page 29
Annex 3
Criteria for Evaluation Checklist

FOR INTERNAL USE BY WHO SCREENING COMMITTEES AND
TECHNICAL PROGRAMMES, TO ASSESS RELEVANCE AND EFFICIENCY
Article 3.5 of the Regulations for Study and Scientific Groups, Collaborating Institutions and
Other Mechanisms of Collaboration (Basic Documents of WHO) establishes the criteria for
designation of new WHO collaborating centres:
“Designation
3.5 The criteria to be applied in the selection of institutions for designation as a WHO
collaborating centre are as follows:
(a) the scientific and technical standing of the institution concerned at the national and
international levels;
(b) the place the institution occupies in the country's health, scientific or educational
structures;
(c) the quality of its scientific and technical leadership, and the number and
qualifications of its staff;
(d) the institution's prospective stability in terms of personnel, activity and funding;
(e) the working relationship which the institution has developed with other institutions in
the country, as well as at the intercountry, regional and global levels;
(f) the institution's ability, capacity and readiness to contribute to WHO programme
activities, whether in support of country programmes or by participating in
international cooperative activities.
(g) the technical and geographical relevance of the institution and its activities to WHO's
programme priorities.
(h) the successful completion by the institution of at least two years of collaboration with
WHO in carrying out jointly planned activities.”
This form is being proposed to help technical programmes and screening committees at
regional and global level assess:
(a) the relevance of a proposed institution and workplan;

(b) how effectively collaboration with the institution has been managed;
(c) how it could be improved, in terms of management and usefulness/ impact;
(d) alternative cooperation mechanisms and their cost-effectiveness.
Page 30
To guide this screening and evaluation process, a few questions have been listed; the
questions, however, may vary greatly depending on the nature of the institution, the type of
collaboration involved, and the results expected from that collaboration.
Ø RELEVANCE – of the institution, and of ongoing and proposed activities
The relevance of collaboration with any centre should be monitored on a continuous

basis, i.e. at the time of nomination, and during and after implementation of
activities. Relevance should be analysed in the light of WHO’s overall policy and the
priorities and expected results which the relevant WHO technical programmes have
set for themselves in the current programme budget.
Useful questions could include:

- Does WHO need external collaboration in the field of work of this proposed
institution; will this benefit WHO’s priority programmes, and in which way?
- During previous collaboration with the institution, has the relevance of its work
to WHO programme priorities been proven and in which way?
- Is the work of this collaborating centre still relevant to the new policy of the
Organization and the evolving needs and capacity of the technical programme
concerned?
- Considering that the centre itself has introduced changes in its policy, objectives
and infrastructure, how do these changes affect the relevance of its work from
the point of view of WHO?
- Is this the best centre to provide the type of support needed on the specific
technical issues of particular importance to this WHO programme?
- What is the (potential) strategic asset of this collaborating centre to build up
capacity - in this specific area of health development, and - in this country and
region?
Ø PROGRESS AND EFFICIENCY in implementing collaboration
During the implementation of collaboration, efficiency and compliance with the

workplan need to be monitored.

- Is the time frame being followed?
- What resources have been committed? - by the centre? - by WHO? Have they
been sufficient or has additional support been required?
- Is the budget adequate? Sufficient? Insufficient? Has all the budget been spent?
- Have the activities been implemented as originally planned by the staff
concerned?
- Have alternative approaches (better methods) been considered? Have they been
proposed to/by the WHO programme? For what reason?
Page 31
- Have actions been well coordinated with the WHO counterpart? What seem to
be the main strengths/weaknesses?
- Have actions been well coordinated with the relevant network (where
applicable)? What seem to be the main strengths/ weaknesses?
Ø EFFECTIVENESS
Measuring effectiveness indicates the extent to which a programme/service/ institution

is successful in meeting its targets, producing the results it originally planned, and
achieving demonstrable and sustainable impact.
In this regard, useful questions could include:

- Have the objectives and targets set out in the workplan been reached? Fully?
Partly? What were the main problems?
- Are the results achieved those which were originally planned? In which way do
they differ?
- Had pre-set criteria been defined to help achieve the expected results, and have
they been used?
- Were the expected results produced at the expected time?
- In case of discrepancy from the original workplan and criteria, the reasons should
be analysed to help review planning.
Ø QUALITY AND IMPACT of collaboration
In addition to measuring effectiveness, it is useful to analyse the delivery and quality

of collaborative activities and the actual use of the outcome (products/services) of the
collaboration.
Where applicable, it is also helpful to measure the overall impact of a programme,

service or institution, on given indicators such as the health status and related
components of the social and economic development of the population concerned.

- Have the results of this collaboration significantly influenced the behaviour of the
target population - in the country/region in which the centre operates? - in other
countries/regions, through coordination with WHO?
- Has the collaborating centre taken measures, in consultation and coordination
with WHO, to disseminate information to other centres and/or countries?
- Have the criteria for quality of the expected results been met?
- Has the cost of achieving these specific results with this centre been compared
with the potential cost and effectiveness of other centres, providers of similar
services, and alternative cooperation mechanisms?
- Has the possibility of improving the delivery, quality and impact of results been
discussed between the collaborating centres and WHO? How, and what was the
result?
Page 32
Annex 4
RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR ANNUAL REPORTS

Annual Report (Year/2000...)
Annual Reports must be annually submitted by WHO collaborating centres for each year of their
current designation period. Reports should be sent to the WHO technical programme
immediately concerned which, in its turn, will provide comments on the centre’s performance as
well as information on WHO’s input and the use the Organization has made of this collaboration.
Title of the Collaborating Centre: __________________________________________________

Exact name of the department/unit/section/laboratory, etc. which acts as the WHO
1. Implementation of the workplan. For each main activity:
1.1 Work performed in relation to the terms of reference:

Ø how the activity was implemented
Ø publications and other outcomes
Ø evaluation (e.g. evaluation of a course by the participants)
Ø difficulties (if any)
1.2 Recommendations, where applicable, for:
Ø further implementation of the activity
Ø revision of the terms of reference
Ø preparation of the terms of reference of the next designation period (4 years)
Ø related activities (e.g., follow-up and monitoring)
Page 33
2. Collaboration between the centre and WHO:
Ø visits by WHO staff (HQ and/or Regional Office) to the centre

Ø visits by the centre staff to WHO (HQ and/or Regional Office)
Ø use of the centre staff by WHO
Ø support provided by centre staff for courses cosponsored or organized by WHO (HQ
and/or Regional Office)
Ø WHO financial support to the centre through contractual or Technical Services
Agreement
Ø other type of support provided by WHO
Ø any other collaborative activities
Ø any difficulties encountered in the collaboration
Ø suggestions for increased and improved collaboration with WHO.
3. Collaboration with other WHO collaborating centres:
Ø name(s) of the other WHO collaborating centre(s) with which the centre has
collaborated
Ø name of the network of collaborating centres to which the centre belongs
Ø nature of the collaboration
Ø outcome of the collaboration
Ø suggestions for increased and improved collaboration with other WHO collaborating
centres
Page 34
Annex 5
REDESIGNATION FORM
This form is to be electronically completed by the proposed WHO Collaborating Centre no
later than 6 month before the expiration of the designation
The Redesignation form consists of four parts:

Part II – Annual reports
Part III – Proposed revised terms of reference
Title of the Collaborating Centre: __________________________________________________
Page 35
1.1 Name of the Director of the institution: _______________________________________
1.2 Name of the Head of the proposed WHO Collaborating Centre (i.e. the person with
overall responsibility for carrying out the Workplan) - this may be the Director of the
Institute or the head of the unit, department, etc.:_______________________________
1.3 Address of the institution :
1.4 Telephone :
1.5 Fax :
1.6 E-mail :
1.7 Web site : __________________________________________________
Please attach the three following updated documents:

1.8 Organizational chart (1 page);
1.9 List of professional staff of the WHO Collaborating Centre with an indication of their
qualifications (1 page);
1.10 Facilities available (e.g. laboratories, training facilities, documentation centre, etc.) (1
page);
Part II – Annual reports
Include in this part a copy of all annual reports that the collaborating center submitted to WHO
during the current period of designation/redesignation (e.g. if the original
designation/redesignation was for 4 years, at least 3 annual reports are required). Do not include
a general report of the institution as a whole but only regarding its activities as WHO
Collaborating Center. The reports should be as detailed as possible, and in accordance with the
workplan submitted at the beginning of the four years period. Please refer to and follow the
Recommended format for annual reports of WHO Collaborating Centres.
Part III – Proposed revised terms of reference
The proposed revised terms of reference of the WHO Collaborating Centre should be presented
as bullet points and briefly describe the scope of the activities that the institution would perform
as a WHO Collaborating Centre during the following redesignation period.
Page 36
The proposed workplan should cover all the years of redesignation and it can be presented as an
executive summary. It should include information on the concrete activities of the institution as a
WHO Collaborating Centre with specific actions to be carried out, specifying:

Ø the person responsible
Ø description of the activity
Ø the expected outcome
Ø links with the objectives of WHO/relevant WHO programme
Ø corresponding activities in the WHO technical programme(s) concerned
Ø financial provisions
Ø dissemination of the results
Ø the deadline
Ø annex providing more detailed information can be attached
Page 37
Annex 6
Appendix ‘A’
Title and Use of WHO’s Name and Emblem on Letterheads
After designation, an institution is known by the official title “WHO Collaborating Centre”, these
words being followed by a concise indication of the sphere of activity covered by the centre, e.g.
WHO Collaborating Centre for research on ………………….….………...….for reference on
…….……………..………….…… for standardization of procedures on ………………………..
A WHO Collaborating Centre may use the name of WHO or World Health Organization
and the WHO emblem in its letterhead under the conditions set forth below.
(a) The WHO name and emblem are to be used solely for correspondence related to the
institution’s activities as a collaborating centre.
(b) If the term WHO or World Health Organization is used in the letterhead, the
characters of these terms should be of the same size as those for the title of the
centre. The title of the centre is WHO Collaborating Centre followed by a concise
indication of the sphere of activity covered by the centre e.g. WHO Collaborating
Centre for research on ………………...…. for reference on ………………..….., for
standardization of procedures on …………….
(c) If the language used by the Centre for its letterhead is a language other than the
official languages of the World Health Assembly (Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian and Spanish) or other languages used officially by regional offices, then one
of the latter should also be included.
(d) Any letterhead using WHO’s name should include the title under which the
institution has been designated, as indicated in the official letter of designation.
(e) The size of the WHO emblem and the characters of the title of the centre should be
smaller than the size of the characters of the name of the institute.
All other uses of WHO’S name and emblem require the Director-General’s prior approval.
A WHO flag can be obtained upon request for use by the centre on certain occasions –
and not on a permanent basis – (e.g. on World Health Day, 7 April; on the occasion of any
official event related in some way to the World Health Organization) and provided it is
displayed in conformity with the WHO Flag Code and Regulations (sent at the same time as the
flag).
Page 38
Annex 7
Research Development Committee
Terms of Reference
Ø To advise the RD in matters relating to research policy, promotion and cooperation
Ø To review and implement the recommendations of SEA-ACHR and any other
regional and global meetings in the area of RPC
Ø To function as “Regional Screening Committee” for review, evaluation and
recommendation for designation, redesignation and discontinuation of WHO
Ø To review proposals to support the national networks of national centres of expertise
and link the national networking into a regional networking
Ø To review the outcome/results of research studies, which are funded through WHO
Regular and Extra-budgetary resources; and to recommend on how to integrate
them in the respective Technical Unit’s area of work
Ø Any other matters assigned by the Regional Director
Composition
1. Chairman – Director, Programme Management (DPM)
2. Secretary – Regional Advisor, Research Policy and Cooperation (RA-RPC)
3. Members – All Department Directors
Other “P” staff to be coopted/invited as and when required
(suggested by DPM)
Periodicity
The designation proposals are approved electronically by the Global Screening Committee
Members (GSC) as and when they are forwarded to WHO/HQ. This procedure ensures speedy
approval, though the GSC continues to meet bi-annually to discuss policy issues.
Reporting
The Secretary to the RDC will be responsible for arrangements of the RDC meeting and draft
minutes. The final report will be submitted to DPM/RD for guidance and approval.
(Approved by SMGST, 12 July 2004)
Page 39
Annex 8
Page 40
WHO Collaborating Centres
Designation initiated by RO - 2004
Prerequisites: 1. The proposed institution should have been collaborating with WHO for at least the last two years
2. The criteria of article 3.5 of the Regulations for Study and Scientific Groups, Collaborating Institutions and Other Mechanisms of
Collaboration (Basic Documents of WHO) is entirely fulfilled.
TU(RO) submits the proposal TU(HQ) reviews proposal RSC(RO) reviews proposal
to TU (HQ) with: If the proposal is endorsed, TU(HQ) sends memo to
1. Designation form TU (RO): If the proposal is endorsed, RO
2. Evaluation checklist through 1. Director of TU submits it by memo to RPC(HQ)
2. RPC to be reviewed by GSC
Proposal should be sent by memo 3. Your ADG
copy to 1. RPC(RO)
through 1. RPC (RO)
copy to 1. RPC (HQ) and TU (RO) submits proposal to RSC
GSC reviews proposal
If TU(HQ) and TU(RO) do not agree on the proposal,
the GSC will decide.
If the proposal is endorsed,
RPC(HQ) sends it to the DG for
The institution is officially a WHO RD (RO) sends letter of designation to the reviewing.
collaborating centres since that day. Institution
RPC(HQ) enters the designation in copy to: 1. RPC(HQ)
the official database: 2. TU(HQ)
http://whocc.who.int 3. Government DGO reviews proposal
If the proposal is endorsed, DGO
DG: Director General informs RD(RO)
ADG: Assistant Director-General
DG approves proposal
GSC: Global Screening Committee copy to 1. RPC(HQ)

Approval should be sent by memo to RD(RO)
HQ: Headquarters
copy to 1. RPC(HQ)
RD: Regional Director
RPC: Dept of Research Policy & Cooperation RD (RO) writes consultation
RSC: Regional Screening Committee If Government agrees, RD (RO) writes a
RO: Regional Office letter to Government
TU: Technical Unit memo to DG. copy to RPC (HQ)
Annex 9
Designation initiated by HQ - 2004
Prerequisites: 1. The proposed institution should have been collaborating with WHO for at least the last two years
Collaboration (Basic Documents of WHO) is entirely fulfilled.
TU(HQ) submits the proposal TU(RO) reviews proposal RSC(RO) reviews proposal
to TU (RO) with: If the proposal is endorsed, TU(RO):
1. Designation form If the proposal is endorsed, RO
1. informs TU (HQ) on its concurrence, and
2. Evaluation checklist submits it by memo to RPC(HQ)
2. submits it to RSC (RO)
to be reviewed by GSC
Proposal should be sent by memo If TU(HQ) and TU(RO) do not agree on the
through 1. Director of TU proposal, the GSC will decide.
2. RPC
3. Your ADG GSC reviews proposal
copy to 1. RPC(RO) RD (RO) sends letter of designation
to the Institution If the proposal is endorsed,
The institution is officially a WHO copy to: 1. RPC(HQ) RPC(HQ) sends it to the DG for
collaborating centres since that day. 2. TU(HQ) reviewing.
RPC(HQ) enters the designation in 3. Government
the official database:
http://whocc.who.int DGO reviews proposal
DG approves proposal
If the proposal is endorsed, DGO
DG: Director General Approval should be sent by memo to informs RD(RO)
ADG: Assistant Director-General RD(RO)
GSC: Global Screening Committee copy to 1. RPC(HQ)
copy to 1. RPC(HQ)
HQ: Headquarters
RPC: Dept of Research Policy & Cooperation RD (RO) writes consultation
RSC: Regional Screening Committee If Government agrees, RD (RO) letter to Government
RO: Regional Office writes a memo to DG. copy to RPC (HQ)
Page 41
TU: Technical Unit
Annex 10
Page 42
Redesignation initiated by RO
Prerequisites: 1. The proposed institution should have submitted an Annual Report on time for each year of designation.
Collaboration (Basic Documents of WHO) continues to be entirely fulfilled.
TU(RO) submits the proposal TU(HQ) reviews proposal RSC(RO) reviews proposal
to TU (HQ) with:
If the proposal is endorsed, TU(HQ) sends memo If the proposal is endorsed, it is
1. Redesignation form to TU (RO):
(including the annual reports of at least the
submitted to the RD
through 1. Director of TU copy to 1. KCS(HQ)
last 3 years of designation) 2. KCS
3. Your ADG
Proposal should be sent by memo copy to 1. RPC(RO)
through 1. RPC (RO)
copy to 1. KCS (HQ) and TU (RO) submits proposal to RSC
If TU(HQ) and TU(RO) do not agree on the

proposal, the GSC will decide.
The institution is officially redesignated as RD approves proposal and

ADG: Assistant Director-General a WHO collaborating centre since that send letter of designation
GSC: Global Screening Committee day. KCS(HQ) enters the redesignation in to the institution
HQ: Headquarters
the official database: http://whocc.who.int copy to: 1. KCS(HQ)

KCS: Knowledge Communities and Strategy 2. TU(HQ & RO)
RPC: Dept of Research Policy & Cooperation 3. Government
RSC: Regional Screening Committee
RO: Regional Office
TU: Technical Unit. This is, your unit or department.
Annex 11
Redesignation Initiated By HQ
Prerequisites: 1. The proposed institution should have submitted an Annual Report on time for each year of designation.
Collaboration (Basic Documents of WHO) continues to be entirely fulfilled.
TU(HQ) submits the proposal TU(RO) reviews proposal RSC(RO) reviews proposal
to TU (RO) with:
1. Redesignation form If the proposal is endorsed, TU(RO): If the proposal is endorsed, it is
(including the annual reports of at least the last 1. informs TU (HQ) on its concurrence, and submitted to the RD
3 years of designation) 2. submits it to RSC (RO) copy to 1. KCS(HQ)
Proposal should be sent by memo
If TU(HQ) and TU(RO) do not agree on the
to → RD
attention → Your counterpart proposal, the GSC will decide.
through → 1. Director of TU
2. KCS
3. Your ADG
copy to → 1. RPC/RO
The institution is officially redesignated RD approves proposal and

as a WHO collaborating centre since sends letter of designation
that day. KCS(HQ) enters the to the institution
redesignation in the official database: copy to: 1. KCS(HQ)
ADG: Assistant Director-General http://whocc.who.int 2. TU(HQ &RO)
GSC: Global Screening Committee
HQ: Headquarters
3. Government
KCS: Knowledge Communities and Sharing
RPC: Dept of Research Policy & Cooperation
RSC: Regional Screening Committee
RO: Regional Office
Page 43
TU: Technical Unit. This is, your unit or Department.

WHO Collaborating Centres Management and Design 2007.

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

WHO Collaborating Centres Management and Design 2007.

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SEA-RES-124

Research Policy & Cooperation

Tel. : (+91 11) 2337 0804

© World Health Organization 2007

2. Designation of WHO collaborating centres.................................................... 4

3. Redesignation of WHO collaborating centres ................................................ 9

4. Management and evaluation ....................................................................... 13

5. Responsible technical focal points ............................................................... 15

2. Evaluation checklist ..................................................................................... 25

3. Criteria for evaluation checklist.................................................................... 30

4. Recommended format for annual reports .................................................... 33

5. Redesignation form ..................................................................................... 35

6. Appendix ‘A’ – Title and use of WHO’s name and emblem

7. Research development committee .............................................................. 39

8. Designation initiated by RO - 2004 ............................................................. 40

9. Designation initiated by HQ - 2004............................................................. 41

10. Redesignation initiated by RO ..................................................................... 42

11. Redesignation initiated by HQ .................................................................... 43

Samlee Plianbangchang, M.D., Dr.P.H.

Institutions showing a growing capacity to fulfil a function or functions

The main functions of WHO collaborating centres (WHOCCs) are:

(1) Standardization: WHOCCs contribute to the work of the

mainly to the development of the research component of WHO

The criteria for the selection of institutions for designation as a WHO

(1) The scientific and technical standing of the institution concerned

The initiative for proposing an institution to be designated as a

The procedure for designating institutions as WHO collaborating

2. Designation of WHO collaborating centres

(1) Initiated by Institution: An institution which has successfully

The technical unit concerned, at the regional level or at WHO

Documentation Required for Designation

The proposal for designation should include the following documents:

From the Institute

(1) Designation Form (See Annex I): It consists of four parts:

(3) Curriculum Vitae: the person with overall responsibility for

From the Technical Unit

The proposal review process should be carried out in consultation

Once RD agrees with the proposal to designate an institution, the

The Regional Director, after receiving the recommendation of GSC (if

Once the Director-General approves the designation, the Regional

Table 1: Summary of step-by-step procedures for designating a

3. Redesignation of WHO collaborating centres

Based on the evaluation of the technical and scientific collaboration of

The TU will submit the proposal for redesignation to RPC/SEARO for

Documentation Required for Redesignation

From the Institute

(2) Letter from the Director/Dean/Head of the Institute expressing

From the Technical Unit

(5) Technical Unit’s Justification for recommending the proposed

The Regional Screening Committee (RDC), in the Regional Office

Ø Redesignation of the institution with an appropriate period of

Once the Regional Director approves the redesignation, the RPC

When the Regional Director decides to discontinue collaboration, the

Table 2: Summary of step-by-step procedures for redesignating a

4. Management and evaluation

Technical units should copy to their counterparts (at SEARO or HQs)

Administrative focal points should always be included on the copy list

Successful collaboration requires that particular attention be paid to

The workplan should comprise clearly-defined objectives and

The programme manager concerned bears the main technical

Monitoring takes place on a continuing basis. WHO collaborating

A final evaluation takes place at the end of the four-year designation

No decision may be made on redesignation of any centre until