Now the dust has settled - no pun intended - on the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate programme, (APPCDC) following the inaugural meeting in Sydney in January, it is worth taking a look at it more closely.

Much of the attention so far has focused on the Clean Development and Climate aspect of the group. But, few have looked into the Partnership side of it. That might be the most important bit.

On the surface, it appears the initiative is a legitimate attempt by governments counting around half the world s population as their constituents, the two biggest carbon emitters (China and the US), the highest per capita carbon user (Australia), along with South Korea, India and Japan, to solve global warming problems that all now admit exists.

An eight-point plan to approach the issue of climate change contains some worthy areas of debate and potential reform: cleaner use of fossil energy; renewable and distributed generation; power generation and transmission; aluminum; steel; cement; buildings and appliances; and mining.

According to US President George W Bush: "This new results-oriented partnership will allow our nations to develop and accelerate deployment of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies to meet national pollution reduction, energy security, and climate change concerns in ways that reduce poverty and promote economic development."

But, it's worth wondering just how that might be achieved especially when there is no apparent commitment to any firm results.

Free ride for firms?

The APPCDC seeks to build on the Gleneagles G8 announcement that technological solutions can be found to the problems of climate change.

Detractors see that as a means finding ways to keep using coal and oil rather than seriously developing newer, cleaner technologies such as wind power, solar or hydro-power.

There is a strong argument that the APPCDC is already being characterised as a vehicle to give the private sector a free ride, rather than any attempt to seriously address energy use reductions or pollution control.

Engaging the private sector is considered a central pillar of the programme. It looks like it's the whole foundation.

Even the conservative Economist newspaper characterised it all as more hot air, adding it is hard to imagine big energy companies, or anyone else, taking climate change action without financial incentives or regulations.

The bigger picture is that the APPCDC programme is not just about climate change. It is a very high profile shot at establishing a partnership culture between governments and businesses.

But, there is scant evidence that large-scale partnerships of this kind can succeed in the longer term. The Metramac case in Malaysia, numerous toll road controversies in Australia, and graft scandals in Japan surrounding private-public structures are among the many examples of how the various private-public models can falter.

In many cases, various forms of public-private couplings, including joint infrastructure projects or part privatisation schemes, have been characterised by their lack of proper stakeholder engagement and opaque structure.

Even with the best intentions, in the absence of firm mechanisms to underpin such relationships, such partnerships are opportunities for cronyism, graft and, occasionally, injustice.

In some ways, these partnerships are derived from a so-called Asian Way pioneered in post-war Japan, where relationships between the corporate sector, bureaucrats and governments was highly formalised and, for some time, highly successful.

But, the model has tended to break down as a lack of transparency and accountability has provided fertile ground for corruption, not only in Japan but also in many Asian countries which have copied its model.

Without some form of accountability mechanisms, partnerships such as the APPCDC are doomed to failure, if not in terms of their demise, then certainly in terms of their stated goals. Surely climate change is too vital an issue to approach with such a rickety and corroded model.

JAMES ROSE is a business writer, editor and author specialising in corporate governance in Asia.