First, I know that the Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP, a World Bank programme) has explored what they refer to as a “whole system in a room” approach, where they bring together policy makers, budget holders, donors, NGOs, water user groups, etc. to work things out together. I’m not sure how widely they have done this, but I know it was done (and documented) with some success with local government in Ethiopia at least.

Second, which follows on from the previous example, this idea seems to have a lot in common with the official “dialogue” mechanisms that have often been the way “donor harmonisation” principles have been operationalised. The Water Sector Working Group (WSWG) in Tanzania, for example, brings together representatives of key donors, the Ministry of Water and other related ministries, and civil society to discuss issues of service delivery, policy, budgets, performance monitoring, etc.

There are hundreds of such working groups / task forces / coordination committees / etc. across the developing world wherever there are numerous donors around. There are probably a hundred such groups in Tanzania alone.

In terms of purposes and membership I don’t think there’s much difference between these groups and what you’re describing in Tajikistan. The only significant different I can see is that Oxfam acts as the convenor, whereas these working groups are largely donor-driven.

If that makes it work, great. It would certainly be worth comparing (and hopefully contrasting) your experience with these official dialogue mechanisms.

My experience of such working groups is exactly as Manu has it: http://ow.ly/gT5Z8

On top of which, my experience is that the effect of these groups is to concentrate decision making power into fewer and fewer hands (those with financial muscle and policy gatekeepers) rather than opening it up. I concluded that if civil society wants to achieve change it is better off mobilising public and/or media pressure outside of these processes rather than engaging from within.