NOTE: Some content may not display correctly, including tables and figures. See PDF for full details.

1. Executive Summary 

We are so thankful for the PALS project – it got us to where we are. . . We see that people are getting energy efficient electrical appliances. . . we have big improvement in revenues. . .great impact on our economy, our country, our people. – Government Stakeholder, Samoa

     Introduction

Pacific Island Countries (PICs) face adverse effects from climate change, rely heavily on imported diesel fuel to generate electricity at high cost to consumers, and face growing demands for power. In addition, few PICs have pursued energy efficiency to help mitigate these challenges, and often have been used as dumping grounds for “junky appliances” that are inefficient, more costly to run, and lower in quality. 

To address these issues, the Pacific Appliance Labelling and Standards Programme (PALS), with funding and oversight from the Commonwealth of Australia, and regional management from the Pacific Community (SPC), has supported ten PICs since 2012 as they sought to enact legislation and implement Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Labelling (MEPSL) for their highest energy-consuming appliances. The budget for the PALS programme was AU$3 million. The original programme was slated to last three years, but was extended, without a budget increase, to six years, primarily due to slower than anticipated legislative processes. 

This end-of-programme evaluation was conducted in March through May of 2019. It focused on six of ten PICs that participated in PALS: three that passed and one that sought expanded MEPSL legislation – 

Samoa, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Fiji,¹ and two that drafted but did not pass MEPSL legislation – Kiribati and Cook Islands. Evaluation methods included a review of programme materials and relevant literature and 57 in-depth interviews² with PALS stakeholders, including: programme staff, technical advisors and donors; representatives from relevant governmental ministries and departments; appliance retailers, wholesalers, and agents; and other stakeholders. 

This evaluation examines the extent to which PALS met its four desired outcomes:  

• To confirm political commitment for MEPSL 
• To establish enabling environments for MEPSL 
• To support MEPSL adoption and operation 
• To help build region-wide capacity for MEPSL 

This assessment also examines the key challenges PALS encountered during MEPSL’s legislative and implementation processes, and recommends how to mitigate those challenges if similar programmes were to be pursued in the future. 

¹  Fiji passed MEPSL legislation prior to PALS but with support from PALS pursued expanded legislation to cover more appliances. 

²  The lead evaluator worked with  three experienced SPC evaluation staff to conduct the interviews; all interviews, except three, were conducted in-person. 

4

     Progress Toward Desired Outcomes 

Table 1 summarizes the progress PALS made, across the six PICs included in this assessment, toward each of its four desired outcomes, using the key indicators the programme established to measure its success. Based upon a qualitative assessment of key success indicators, PALS made high progress toward three of its four desired outcomes: political commitment, support of MEPSL adoption/operation, and regional capacity building.  PALS’ progress varied from low to high on the fourth desired outcome, establishment of enabling environments. 

Confirm Political Commitment - High.  High level political commitment is key to passing MEPSL legislation and to ensuring it operates successfully. In all six PICs, PALS’ research, technical acumen, and in-person meetings helped convince cabinet level officials to support new or expanded MEPSL legislation. It provided essential support to draft MEPSL legislation in five PICs and to expand MEPSL’s coverage in the sixth PIC. In four of six PICs, ongoing political commitment to MEPSL is documented in national plans and through statements of support from government officials; in a fifth PIC, MEPSL is referenced in an “energy road map.” 

Establish Enabling Environments – Low to High. The key indicators under this outcome provide critical links between confirmed political commitment and the adoption of MEPSL legislation. All PICs said PALS’ financial support for legal advice for legislation was essential, and all applauded the development of the Pacific Appliance Database, an online tool for registering appliances. However, this evaluation suggests that three key indicators, which are connected to PALS’ services and also to ongoing political support, varied significantly across the PICs: having a dedicated and available focal point; having other staff actively involved and trained to support MEPSL efforts; and being able to raise and maintain awareness and support among stakeholders (e.g., high level government officials, consumers, retailers). When PICs scored well on these indicators, they were more likely to pass legislation, have fewer operational challenges, and were more optimistic about the future for MEPSL.  

Support MEPSL Adoption/Operation – High. Three PICs report they would not have passed legislation or be implementing MEPSL without PALS, and one credits PALS with essential support for their efforts to expand appliance coverage (which they still expect to attain). As suggested above, those with more staff and recognition and support from stakeholders appear to have fewer operational challenges and are more optimistic about the future. The two PICs that have drafted but have not passed legislation voiced continuing interest in adopting MEPSL. However, the likelihood of passage is uncertain.   

Help Build Regionwide Capacity – High. PALS has been a central force in expanding MEPSL in the region. Through its Regional Steering Committee meetings and its high quality technical support, it has upgraded an entire region’s attention to the value of high efficiency appliances. Even the PICs that did not pass legislation participated regionally and valued their participation highly. All PIC stakeholders stressed that the MEPSL effort is still fledgling and would benefit greatly from further targeted support. 

Table 1 Overall PALS Progress Scorecard in Six Targeted PICs 

     Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusion 1: Despite multiple challenges, the PALS’ programme logic and activities produced long term, tangible, and valuable results. 

The PALS’ experience, as evidenced through its significant progress toward its desired outcomes, suggests that if the ingredients are right, PICs can leap over more conservative appliance efficiency strategies, such as voluntary compliance, and pursue legislation first. Passing MEPSL legislation first establishes a baseline of high efficiency for appliances entering PICs and provides immediate and lasting benefits. Having MEPSL does not preclude other strategies to encourage consumers to purchase covered appliances sooner or at higher efficiency levels, such as incentive and financing programmes. In addition, while monetized impacts are beyond this assessment, qualitative results from this evaluation, and impact assessments of MEPSL programmes throughout the world, suggest PALS brought good value for money: average cost per PIC was AU$50K per year. 

Nonetheless, as detailed in Table 2 PALS faced many challenges in assisting PICs pursue MEPSL and its success was not uniform. As with many programmes, some challenges were outside of its control and others it could help resolve. The five areas where PALS faced challenges were: 

1. Passing legislation 
2. Operations and enforcement 
3. Maintaining and transferring MEPSL knowledge 
4. Building stakeholder awareness and knowledge 
5. Demonstrating programme value 

As shown in the third column of Table 2, the PALS’ experience with challenges pointed to specific and actionable recommendations that will improve any future PALS-type efforts. All recommendations are forward-looking and high level, and are based on PALS’ evolution over the past six years. They are intended to remind those familiar with PALS about the lessons learned and to help those new to PALS achieve success. These challenges should be addressed in future programme planning documents (e.g., proposals, strategic plans, workplans); in conversations and meetings with PICs; and in evaluation efforts. They can be used as a resource and checklist to: 

• Anticipate and help overcome snags in programme processes and progress 
• Help orient PICs to what it takes to succeed with a PALS-type approach 
• Set reasonable expectations for timing of MEPSL progress 
• Continue and enhance the demonstrated efficacy of a PALS’ approach 

Table 2 Key Challenges and Recommendations 

Special Note on Time to Market for MEPSL Efforts.  The initial timeframe for PALS was based upon a three-year schedule; the PALS experience and experience elsewhere suggests the schedule was too ambitious. As Error! Reference source not found. shows, MEPSL time-to-market within the PICs was well within the time parameters of other countries. Experience with MEPSL in the region may help others adopt faster, but the PALS design should not be viewed not a quick fix. Rather, as stakeholders pointed out, PALS’ strategies and tactics took “a while to build but have a strong chance of sticking.” Its approach is consistent with other successful long-term programmes that require significant changes in how government, businesses, and individuals operate. 

Table 3 Estimated Years to Market for MEPSL for Selected Countries 

Conclusion 2: For a modest price, a PALS’ approach provides ongoing and valuable services and insights for PICs, the region, and beyond. 

PALS is a success story with a recognized “brand” in regional governmental agencies. It has built a regionwide network of MEPSL supporters and PALS’ staff and contractors are sought out as trusted advisors. The four PICs that have enacted MEPSL are concerned about a future without PALS, both within their countries and regionwide, since MEPSL is a new endeavor for most of them. While they are committed to MEPSL, they also hope that PALS can continue to provide services until their efforts are further established. Finally, they hope more PICs will adopt legislation so that MEPSL becomes a regional standard. 

Six PICs (including four not included in this assessment) have already made it through the hurdles required to draft legislation. With some continued support, and seeing the success of the other PICs, they may be persuaded to enact MEPSL and thereby expand its regional presence. Papua New Guinea (PNG), in particular, holds the largest single opportunity for energy savings and GHG reductions in the region. 

The PICs interviewed accepted that PALS, if continued, would likely need to change. They offered recommendations for its continued presence as described below.  An initial “ballpark” figure for providing a reasonable subset of these services would be ~AU$250K/year for three years for the six PICs included in this assessment. This budget would help enact MEPSL in Kiribati and Cook Islands, and expand the legislation in Fiji to cover more appliances.  It would also help address technical, market, and regional coordination needs, and help embed MEPSL procedures, tools, and connections within PICS and regionwide. Overall, these steps will ensure a much stronger MEPSL legacy across the South Pacific.^[2]  

Recommendations for Continued PALS Services to Support MEPSL 

These recommendations fall into four categories: PICs with draft legislation only; PICs that began MEPSL in 2016 or later; PICs that began MEPSL prior to 2016; and region-wide recommendations. PICs not included in this assessment are in parentheses. All recommendations have a three-year window. 

PICs with Drafted MEPSL Legislation: Kiribati, Cook Islands (Papua New Guinea [PNG], Tonga, Niue) 

• Develop brief analyses,^[3] using programme intelligence, input from PICs, key indicators from Table 1, and challenges and recommendations from Table 2, to assess if targeted support from PALS would facilitate MEPSL legislation within three years. 
• Proceed to specify and provide needed services in those PICs where the strengths and opportunities are strong and the type of assistance needed is clear, cost-effective, and is likely to result in passage of legislation within three years. 

PICs With MEPSL for 1-4 Years: Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu (Tuvalu) 

• Support refresher training courses and provide technical consultations for stakeholders for three years. 
• Support broader appliance coverage and more stringent standards for three years. 
• Support continued efforts to build awareness/buy-in among all stakeholder for three years 
• Support an energy and cost savings impact study for at least one PIC after three years of MEPSL operation. 

PICs With MEPSL for 5+ Years: Fiji 

• Provide targeted assistance to help Fiji extend MEPSL to other appliances for three years. 
• Conduct a pilot programme to test if incentive and financing strategies can move the market faster or to higher levels of efficiency with a three-year time frame. 

Region-Wide Recommendations 

• Maintain and update the online Pacific Appliance Database (PAD) for three years. 
• Sponsor annual Regional Steering Committee/Regulator Group meetings for three years. 
• Support research for three years to measure other effects of MEPSL, such as its impacts on consumer awareness and purchases; gender equality; safety; and integration of efficiency and renewable energy sources. 

 2. Introduction 

A large number of island States in the Pacific zone are extremely dependent on fossil fuels, and in the coming years, will face major impacts related to climate change (biodiversity, rising sea level, food security, ...). – Jean Hourcourigaray, D. Wary, and S. Bitot, Renewable Energy in the Pacific Islands: An Overview and Exemplary Projects, 2014

On the grid, energy efficient appliances are one of the most cost-effective methods for mitigating climate change. They save money. . ., reduce peak energy demand, and bolster economic and energy security. Off the grid, energy efficient appliances pair with solar-home systems or mini-grids to increase the availability and affordability of energy.— CLASP Website, 2019

GEMS regulations save the average Australian household between $140 and $220 on their electricity bill each year. The bulk of the benefits of GEMS regulations for households are delivered through appliances such as air conditioners, lighting and refrigerators. – Independent Review of the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) Act of 2012, 2018

Along the road, workers strung the first-ever power lines to the small mountain village we would visit. The warrior chief hoped electricity would lift the well-being of his people. I thought, ‘PALS means they will have efficient, costsaving, and safe appliances.’ – Linda Dethman, Lead Evaluator, 2019 

This report presents the final assessment of the Pacific Appliances Labelling and Standards Programme (PALS), conducted from March through May of 2019. The lead evaluator reviewed programme materials and relevant literature, and an evaluation team, made up of the lead evaluator and three experienced SPC evaluation staff, conducted 57 in-depth interviews with program staff, advisors, and donors; governmental ministries and departments; appliance retailers and wholesalers; and other stakeholders throughout the six Pacific Island Countries targeted in this assessment.  Subsequent chapters in this report include: 

• Chapter 3: Evaluation Approach 
• Chapter 4: Progress Toward Desired Outcomes 
• Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 

     Programme Description 

Pacific Island Countries (PICs^[4]) face increasingly adverse effects from climate change, rely heavily on imported diesel fuel to generate electricity at a high cost, and face growing demands for power. In addition, few PICs had pursued energy efficiency to help mitigate these challenges, and often have been used as dumping grounds for “junky appliances” that are inefficient, more costly to run, and lower in quality. 

To address these issues, and with support from PIC leaders, the Commonwealth of Australia^[5], as part of its Fast-start Climate Finance package, authorized funding of AU$3 million for the Pacific Appliance Labelling and Standards Programme (PALS). PALS’ overall strategy has been to assist and advise targeted PICs in adopting and implementing Australia’s and New Zealand’s Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Labeling (MEPSL) for refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and lighting – appliances responsible for a large share of energy use in households. AU$2.74 million was awarded to the Pacific Community (SPC) to implement PALS, with the remaining funds allocated to technical services and other direct costs. The original programme was slated to last three years, but was extended without a budget increase to six years, primarily due to slower than anticipated legislative processes. PALS began in April of 2012 and ended in June 2019. Ten PICs participated in PALS, as shown in Figure 1.^[6] Figure 1 Ten PICs Participating in PALS 

     Programme Purpose, Rationale, and Activities 

The overall purpose of PALS is to strengthen national and regional capacities to adopt, and to effectively and sustainably manage and enforce, MEPSL.  Adoption and implementation of MEPSL promised participating PICs the well-established benefits of energy efficiency, as shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 2 Benefits of Energy Efficient Appliances (EE) through MEPSL 

The PALS programme design rests upon the PICs engaging in a variety of activities to achieve the four desired outcomes shown in Figure 3. This figure also embodies the general “process of support” that PALS provided. The process confirms political commitment to MEPSL; establishes an enabling environment for MEPSL legislation; assists with adoption and implementation; and provides support for increased regional cooperation and capacity. In reality, the MEPSL process has been less tidy and more interactive than Figure 3 shows. 

Figure 3 PALS' Desired Outcomes and Logical Process 

Notably, confirmed political commitment is at the root of successful MEPSL efforts. Without political commitment, legislation cannot be considered, and without continued political commitment, a strong enabling environment cannot be created to support successful MEPSL adoption and enforcement. In the beginning, PALS provided technical input and expertise to help foster cabinet endorsements and create workplans. As the process progressed, PALS supported political commitment through providing funding, tools and training for staff, building greater awareness among stakeholders, and building regional capacity.  

Table 4 describes the basic flow-through logic for PALS in more detail.  It shows: 

• Each of PALS four desired outcomes 
• The activities used to achieve those outcomes 
• The indicators to assess the success of each desired outcome 

To achieve its desired outcomes, SPC works with in-country staff and outside experts to conduct a variety of activities, including foundational market and cost/benefit assessments; assistance with legislation; technical and operational training; public awareness campaigns; and monitoring and evaluation. The programme targets these key stakeholders:  

• Government officials, including lawmakers, energy and climate change officers, consumer protection officers, and revenue and customs officers  
• Private sector importers, retailers, and shipping agents for appliances  Household consumers (of all ages) 

Table 4 PALS Logic: Desired Programme Outcomes, Activities and Success Indicators⁹

⁹                                 This table is adapted from the tracking table in PALS’ progress reports; Databuild’s mid-term assessment; and interviews with stakeholders.  It reflects PALS’s high-level, current logic. 

¹⁰                             Please note that while “confirmed” denotes up-front political commitment, that it’s important to maintain that commitment over time for MEPSL to persist. 

3. Evaluation Approach 

This section describes the evaluation purpose, topics, research questions, and methods, providing a roadmap for conducting this assessment.  

     Evaluation Purpose, Topics and Research Questions 

Purpose 

The purpose of this evaluation is to provide a multi-faceted understanding and assessment of PALS, its progress, and effectiveness. It examines how successfully PALS met its four desired outcomes: 

• Ensure political commitment for MEPSL 
• Establish enabling environment for MEPSL       Support MEPSL adoption and operation
• Help build region-wide capacity for MEPSL 

This evaluation also explores the challenges PALS faced, the recommendations emanating from those challenges, and suggests how PALS continued support would benefit the region. 

Topics and Research Questions  

Table 5 lists the evaluation topics covered in this assessment and their associated research questions.   

Table 5 Evaluation Topics and Research Questions

     Evaluation Methods 

Selection of PICs 

Table 6 shows the 10 PICs participating in PALS and their MEPSL status at the time of this evaluation. The table indicates that five PICs had enacted MEPSL legislation and five had drafted legislation. Of these, SPC selected six PICs to represent the larger group – four that had passed, and two that had drafted, MEPSL legislation. These six PICs, highlighted and listed first in the table, are focus of this evaluation: Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Island, Vanuatu, Kiribati, and Cook Islands.  

Table 6 Status of MEPSL in Participating PICS

Resources Used 

This assessment relied on two types of resources, both of which provided a rich 360 degree view of PALS over time, including:  

• Secondary Resources: This included a review of programme materials (especially technical studies, progress reports, legislation, energy roadmaps, training and meeting presentations, and consumer survey research) and relevant MEPSL literature.  A list of these materials and literature can be found in Appendix A. 
• Primary Resources: The Team conducted a total of 57 interviews, mostly in person and lasting 3060+ minutes, with PALS stakeholders. Respondents represented the PALS donor; the programme’s regional manager and outside consultants; PALS in-country staff; government agencies working with PALS; appliance retailers, importers, and wholesalers; and other stakeholders. The interview guide asked respondents a small number of close-ended rating questions about key PALS’ activities, and a much larger number of probing open-ended questions. 

Table 7 lists the type of respondents the Team interviewed during this assessment, the method of contact, and the number of completed interviews. The number of completed interviews (n = 57) serves as the unit of analysis. Notably, however, 68 respondents participated in the interviews. Since one person usually served as the spokesperson and respondents within one interview generally agreed with one another, interviews with multiple respondents were counted as one interview. The team conducted interviews during April and May of 2019. The questionnaire used for these interviews addressed the evaluation topics and research questions listed in  Table 5.  A copy of the instrument can be found in Appendix B.

Table 7  Number and Type of Interviews 

Analysis Approach and Caveats 

The results and insights presented in this report are largely qualitative, based on secondary and primary sources that are also largely qualitative^[12] and cannot reliably represent larger populations. The number of interviews (n = 57) is fairly robust at the programme level, allowing insights to emerge across respondents types and PICs through a content analysis of themes and compilation of ratings. The number of interviews, and the knowledge of the respondents, varied considerably by type and PIC. In addition, when the analysis is narrowed down to a particular respondent type and PIC, the number of interviews is small and qualitative. Finally, the primary data was collected in the field where some respondents had limited time; in these cases, the Team focused on items essential to understanding how well PALS met its desired outcomes and its overall progress and success.   

4. Progress Toward Desired Outcomes 

This chapter assesses how well PALS progressed toward its four desired outcomes, both overall and, where differences surfaced, for each of the six PICs included in this assessment:  Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati, and Cook Islands. It relies upon the PALS logic of desired outcomes, activities, and success indicators shown Table 4 in Chapter 1.  Each sub-section begins with a “Progress Scorecard” that summarizes to what extent PALS succeeded in progressing toward each desired outcome. 

     To what extent has PALS increased political commitment to MEPSL?   

Summary 

As Table 8 shows, PALS played a critical role in gathering attention and increasing political commitment to MEPSL and energy efficiency, both regionally and within five of the six PICs. All PICs credit PALS with jump starting MEPSL activities or pushing them toward expansion to other appliances.  Notably, however, the level of political commitment while high at the onset, waned over time for the two PICs (Kiribati and Cook Islands) that did not pass legislation. 

Table 8 PALS’ Progress Scorecard: Increased Political Commitment

Further Analysis 

“Essentially, PALS started the Unit’s work in Energy Efficiency Programmes.” - Government Stakeholder, 

Kiribati

PALS began with a strong endorsement from PIC leaders. As referenced in documents^[13] and interviews, PALS arose out of the 42^nd meeting of the Pacific Island Forum Leaders  (September 2011) meeting where the leaders supported a MEPSL appliance programme to produce significant energy savings in their countries.  During this meeting, Australia also gave its support for MEPSL in the Pacific. The confluence of these actions resulted in PALS, with funding from the Australian government and implementation under the guidance of SPC and its consultants. 

PALS set out to ensure even further political commitment to MEPSL through support for market analyses and cost-benefit studies; cabinet endorsements for legislation; workplans in each PIC; and incorporation of MEPSL into national documents.  

PALS then used the market analyses and cost/benefit studies to help further the case for MEPSL in each PIC. PALS regional staff, and some governmental stakeholders who had been working with PALS from the beginning, recalled how the favorable market results, the energy and cost savings, and the other benefits contained in those analyses were important to convincing cabinet members to endorse legislation.  

PALS regional staff and consultants also more directly facilitated the process of getting endorsements for MEPSL from cabinet level officials in each country. While the level of assistance varied, they helped PICs prepare and submit a proposal that outlined the benefits of MEPSL and the details of what needed to be done.  As one stakeholder put it this “got everyone’s attention and made them want to participate.” In addition, the PALS’ regional staff visited each country and spoke with relevant ministries about MEPSL legislation, and followed up in writing.  

Finally, PALS regional staff and consultants worked with PICs to prepare workplans for their participation in MEPSL efforts through PALS, which included obtaining commitments to incorporate MEPSL into national energy policy documents. 

All of these efforts resulted in strong indicators from the Team’s review of documents and from stakeholder interviews that PALS was instrumental in bringing MEPSL to the attention and interest of cabinet members in five of the six PICs (Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Cook Islands), and increasing political commitment in the 6^th (Fiji).  In addition, stakeholders also mentioned that attention to MEPSL also increased attention to energy efficiency more generally, including how it can go hand-inhand with renewable energy efforts. 

Except for Fiji, when government stakeholders were asked if they had “pursued any type of appliance efficiency standards and labeling legislation prior to PALS,” the typical answer was “no.”  As one stakeholder put it: “None at all.  Before the current efforts, no work had been done on [MESPL]  legislation.  Essentially, PALS started the Unit’s work in Energy Efficiency Programmes.”  

Despite PALS’ clear success in fostering support for MEPSL, it’s important to note that all six PICs have some trepidations about the survival and/or expansion of MEPSL over time without PALS. In addition, the level of confirmed political commitment did decrease over time in Kiribati and Cook Islands where legislation was drafted but not enacted. In Kiribati, statekholders reported that the legislation, if enacted, will empower the Consumer Protection Agency, and not the Ministry of Energy, to enforce MEPSL and that this will create challenges operationally.  In the Cook Islands, the director took over as focal point, but had many competing responsibilities; in addition, a renewables project became a higher priority than MEPSL.

 To what extent did PALS help establish enabling environments for MEPSL? 

Summary 

As Table 9 shows, PALS also made significant progress toward establishing enabling environments for MEPSL legislation. PALS identified and often financially supported in-country Focal Points; provided templates and paid for legal expertise to draft legislation; built skills and expertise through training; developed and implemented an on-line registration database (PAD); and supported awareness building efforts among stakeholders.  As indicated in the table, the success of some of these efforts varied widely, especially those that required ongoing high level political commitment that often fell outside of PALS services, such as ensuring ongoing and additional MEPSL staff; cross-training of other staff to back-stop MEPSL efforts; and providing funding for building awareness among key stakeholders (for instance, retailers and consumers).  

Table 9 PALS’ Progress Scorecard: Establish Enabling Environment

Further Analysis 

Among the many activities that PALS undertook to enable PICs to progress toward MEPSL legislation and implementation, four stand out as the most important to stakeholders: 

1. In-country National Coordinators (Focal Points) 
2. Legal expertise for draft legislation 
3. Training and consultations for stakeholders  
4. The on-line Pacific Appliance Database (PAD) 

1.  Focal Points 

“Very quick – if I need any information. . .If we have delays, business gets affected. A day is just like a week for us!”   –Large Retailer, Fiji 

PALS worked with PICs to identify a staff member within each department that spearheaded MEPSL efforts to serve as a Focal Point for PALS. In some PICs, PALS helped fund those positions in three of the six PICs (Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and Samoa) and in others they did not supply funding; in almost all cases, however, the staff members serving as Focal Points had additional job responsibilities. 

When asked how important it was to PALS’ success to have an active Focal Point in place, the large majority of stakeholders, including SPC and PALS staff, government departments, and appliance suppliers, rated this PALS component as very important. They said Focal Points can focus on energy efficiency and MEPSL requirements and provide essential advice and expertise to other stakeholders.  

They said Focal Points are needed throughout the legislative process to work with other cabinet members and other governmental departments but that they are especially important once the new MEPSL legislation is implemented. At that point, they are the people who maintain relationships with other departments and appliance suppliers, answer questions, help with appliance registration paperwork, and troubleshoot the many day-to-day operational issues that arise. As one high-level government official in Samoa said ”If we don’t have personnel on the ground to see that we achieve the objective, it’s just another regulation.”   

Retailers usually gave high praise to their focal points.  One large retailer said his focal point is “Very quick – if I need any information. . .If we have delays, business gets affected. A day is just like a week for us!” Another large retailer said, “They are so helpful, the whole team – even though they think I am annoying, they are always helpful and available.”

The high level of services that Focal Points typically provided within countries usually meant that they were overworked, especially in cases where Focal Points just added PALS obligations onto other work, little other staff were available to support PALS or MEPSL obligations, and/or hiring new governmental staff was very hard. In PICs where greater staff resources exist, staff have been added to a MEPSL team or have been cross-trained to provide back-up, but even in these cases, stakeholders found themselves overbooked. For Cook Islands, the workload requirements for the Focal Point may have been responsible for two individuals, hired in succession, to resign.

2.  Underwriting Legal Expertise 

PALS made it possible [with] legal, technical assistance, and trainings.” -- Government Stakeholder, Samoa 

Lead departments and in-country PALS staff were generally new to drafting and championing legislation, and equally important, to the intricacies of energy standards and labeling. In addition, working with internal governmental attorneys (such as the Solicitor General’s office) usually translated into a very slow process because energy efficiency was unfamiliar to most attorneys and was also likely to be a low priority compared to other legal issues. Finally, the PICs did not have the financial resources to hire outside legal expertise. 

PALS recognized these barriers and encouraged PICs to engage local lawyers who could be dedicated to drafting or expanding MEPSL legislation. They also provided templates on the main issues to be addressed in drafting legislation, legislative training to support staff who worked on the legislation, and funds to underwrite contracting with local lawyers. This assistance proved to be essential in moving legislation forward.  As one governmental stakeholder said, “. . .it was  . .another place where we can get assistance – 100% full assistance and know what it’s good information.”  Another stakeholder explained: “One of the major issues was funding. . .PALS made it possible [with] legal, technical assistance, and trainings.”   

Despite PALS help, the legislative process was not always a smooth or short one.  For one PIC, the templates were not useful and they “had to start from scratch.” For another PIC, the staff thought the legislation could be housed within one act, but right before the legislation was to be considered, found out that it needed to find a new home.  For other PICs, complex legislative processes, outside the control of PALS, have led to delays and disappointments.

3.  Training and Consultations 

“This is ongoing work – an important area.  PALS needs to ensure that countries have the capacity to do 

the work.  The law does not have all the specifics in it.”  -- PALS Regional Staff 

Both governmental and appliance suppliers who had attended PALS training and workshops, or took advantage of individual consulting services, praised them highly. In fact, ongoing training was at the top of stakeholder requests if PALS were to continue. Stakeholders stressed that training was particularly important because (1) stakeholders are new to MEPSL and energy efficiency; and (2) PICs didn’t have the in-country expertise or resources to sponsor training; and (3)implementing and complying with a new law creates many challenges that need to be resolved.   

PALS invested a lot into its training and the results show its training plan worked well and was highly valued.  In Phase 1, PALS helped bring government and retailers together in each PIC for them to 

“understand their responsibilities under the law and the processes required.”  One customs official commented that“It was a real eye opener. . .they introduced it. . .we never knew about it. . . One important part, is that it is for the benefit of the whole country.” 

In Phase 2, targeted MESPL stakeholders came together regionally in Fiji so that they could learn from Fiji’s experience with inspections, filling out registration forms, including correct product classification, working with customs, and reviewing test reports. This study tour (and other training too) exposed participants to the day-to-day requirements of implementing the law.  

PALS planned for a third phase of country-sponsored training after the legislation had passed to involve more stakeholders. PALS delivered the training in one country to help with the pilot testing of the PAD, and other PICs handled their own Phase 3 training, primarily due to time and resources running out for the programme.  In general, this training was more recent and was targeted to other departmental agencies involved with MEPSL (such as customs) and to retailers.  Those who planned the training said it was challenging to gather the resources for conducting training. They said getting governmental stakeholders to attend was manageable, but that attracting retailers was harder. In some PICs, some retailers who were interviewed appeared to have limited understanding of MEPSL requirements. 

Governmental stakeholders recalled they had attended introductory training for MEPSL and PALS, regional study tour workshops, and training on the PAD.  As one government stakeholder said, “Yes, it was important because the trainings introduced and informed us on the usefulness of the star ratings and how they worked.”  Another said the PAD training and study tours were really important – “They helped us with compliance.  For example, people have a tendency to deceit and to find loopholes, so the training fortified us.”^[14]  

Retailers who attended Phase 3 trainings regarded this training as essential and valued it – “Very important to keep us updated and that we do everything right – follow what the ministry wants us to do.” They said they needed to understand the new law and what it meant to their operation. They especially noted the importance of the training for PAD, which they hoped would make registration much more convenient and routinized.^[15] “The permit one was very important; previously the [Focal Point] filled out the permits, but now we have to do it.”

One major concern about training was that, in some cases, it needed to happen earlier; customs officials in more than one PIC felt the MEPSL process should have included them more since they are so affected by the law.  Overall, though, the major concerns are that there has not been enough of it and that it needs to continue.  As one PALS stakeholder said, “This is ongoing work – an important area.  PALS needs to ensure that countries have the capacity to do the work.  The law does not have all the specifics in it.”   

1. The Pacific Appliance Database 

“The database – it’s the easiest one to quantify and measure – the database is the tangible thing.” – Government Stakeholder, Australia

The PAD had been rolled out in three PICs at the time of this evaluation and was at its very early stages in one. Still, it was clear that all stakeholders valued its benefits in streamlining compliance and the practical application of the training.  As one retailer explained: “When we really understood what was going on, training was really informative.  The guy [who] showed us how it was going to be done and we tried out the on-line system.  I felt confident at the end.”   

The major challenges that stakeholders identified for the PAD are two-fold: incorporating lighting, which is a more complicated product than any other regulated products due to its many models, and keeping the database maintained and up to date. 

1. Other Activities 

PALS encouraged but was less directly involved with two activities: formation of a National Steering Committee (which was the responsibility of each PIC) and creating and launching public opinion campaigns. Only those most directly involved with PALS and MEPSL would likely to be aware of a steering committee and some of these stakeholders were unsure if they had one. But most seemed to think they did have a network of in-country experts that they sometimes tapped for assistance and thought that, at times, it had been useful (especially in the beginning of the MEPSL process). 

On the other hand, all stakeholders said that public awareness campaigns “for everyone” were extremely important to the success of MEPSL. PALS provided funds to PICs to enable them to carry out national awareness campaigns through various media; some PICs also sponsored campaigns.  PALS prepared  awareness materials at the regional levels, such as the  Appliance Savings Calculator, brochures, and pullup banners. Each PIC that had passed legislation got the word out to retailers, the consuming public, and other actors likely to intersect with MEPSL, within the time and resources they had, and with varying success. Stakeholders pointed to the use of multiple, and largely local media, such as: local radio and TV shows, newspapers, and for retailers, their own advertising; social media outlets, such as Facebook, and texting, especially for younger people; community involvement activities (such as school children making videos in Samoa); trained sales staff at retailers; and door-to-door outreach. 

     To what extent did PALS assist adoption and operation of MEPSL? 

Summary 

Three PICs reported that MEPSL legislation would not have passed without PALS. Fiji praised PALS for its help with expanding coverage and Kiribati said they would not have progressed without PALS.  From an evaluation perspective, this is an unusual level of kudos, a high achievement, and a pragmatic programme legacy, especially given all the challenges outside of the control of an advisory program such as PALS. 

Table 10 PALS’ Progress Scorecard: Support MEPSL Adoption and Operation

Further Analysis 

“[We have to] undertake the health, environment, immigration – now on top of that plate was the Energy Efficiency Act.”  --Customs Official, Samoa 

Much of the analysis behind PALS progress toward this desired outcome has already been discussed, since passing legislation was based upon the activities discussed under creating an enabling environment.  This outcome is a benchmark for MEPSL, and in several PICs enforcing the legislation, is still in fairly early stages. 

Compliance and coordination with customs officials emerged as an especially important area for stakeholders in each PIC that had passed legislation. The relationship between those responsible for MEPSL implementation and customs officials is a complex one. MEPSL has added responsibilities to customs officials who may not be adequately staffed to handle them. In addition, the rules and procedures around compliance are still being developed, which makes enforcement murky in some situations.  Customs officials like clarity, in part because they have so many roles to play on behalf of multiple agencies: “[We have to] undertake the health, environment, immigration – now on top of that plate was the Energy Efficiency Act.” In addition, some customs officials emphasized that a good part of their job is to facilitate trade and that slowdowns in enforcement will affect trade. Finally, customs officials in most PICs thought they should have been involved earlier and also be more included in regional meetings. At the same time, several customs representatives reported that they enjoyed the greater collaboration and training across departments that PALS encouraged. 

It was often within this context (but also in discussing public awareness) that the issue of “individual appliance shipments” arose.  In all the countries, relatives and friends that have moved to other countries ship goods back to their home countries. One customs agent reported that as many as 200 shipments arrive every two weeks and that they often contain appliances (which may or may not be adequately declared for purposes of MEPSL). Thus, more non-compliance surfaced with these shipments and dealing with them is time consuming and sometimes fraught with high emotion. Stakeholders stressed how important it was to ensure that shipping agents were aware of the new regulations and that they were informing their customers of the requirements. 

Other compliance issues arose around particular retailers; while most retailers in most PICs were very supportive of MEPSL, some did not make themselves available for interviews and government stakeholders said that specific retailers were resisting compliance, especially if the carried cheaper product lines that did not meet MEPSL standards. 

     How well did PALS manage regional activities? 

Summary 

Overall, PALS received high marks for regional capacity building among PICs that had passed legislation, participated in regional meetings, and provided the necessary paperwork. PALS regional staff were praised, and donor feedback stressed the responsiveness of regional staff and their attention to tracking. The PALS and MEPSL staff interviewed as part of this evaluation were passionate about doing their jobs well, although in some cases meeting all the job requirements was “overwhelming.” 

Table 11 PALS’ Progress Scorecard: Help Build Regional Capacity for MEPSL

Further Analysis 

The major missing success indicator in building regional capacity is the lack of a roadmap that will provide further support to PICs as they embed MEPSL into their country’s culture, policies, and procedures. Stakeholders are concerned about staff workloads and lack of back-up, lack of services that will support knowledge transfer (such as ongoing training), and how they will keep up with new developments that affect MEPSL, such as more stringent standards. Beyond that, PICs want to get lighting product registration and enforcement under control (it’s not in the PAD), and push further into coverage of other appliances. Finally, while not discussed in the interviews, established MEPSL programmes face ongoing challenges with how to move the market to stock and sell products at the higher end of efficiency – that is, the products with more stars. 

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 

[A Phase 2 PALS will need to] be structured according to where the countries are now.  Those who haven’t gotten legislation and those that do not have any at all. Those that have legislation – expanding appliances, awareness tracking, awareness building, impacts, check testing of appliances. And capacity building – further refresher courses. And ensuring that the data they have collected, what can they make out of it – how do they package all these data to present to gov’t?   -PALS Regional Staff

     Conclusions and Recommendations 

Conclusion 1: Despite multiple challenges, the PALS’ programme logic and activities produced long term, tangible, and valuable results. 

The PALS’ experience, as evidenced through its significant progress toward its desired outcomes, suggests that if the ingredients are right, PICs can leap over more conservative appliance efficiency strategies, such as voluntary compliance, and pursue legislation first. Passing MEPSL legislation first establishes a baseline of high efficiency for appliances entering PICs and provides immediate and lasting benefits. Having MEPSL does not preclude other strategies to encourage consumers to purchase covered appliances sooner or at higher efficiency levels, such as incentive and financing programmes. In addition, while monetized impacts are beyond this assessment, qualitative results from this evaluation, and impact assessments of MEPSL programmes throughout the world, suggest PALS brought good value for money: average cost per PIC was AU$50K per year. 

Nonetheless, as detailed in Table 2 PALS faced many challenges in assisting PICs pursue MEPSL and its success was not uniform. As with many programmes, some challenges were outside of its control and others it could help resolve. The five areas where PALS faced challenges were: 

1. Passing legislation 
2. Operations and enforcement 
3. Maintaining and transferring MEPSL knowledge 
4. Building stakeholder awareness and knowledge 
5. Demonstrating programme value 

As shown in the third column of Table 2, the PALS’ experience with challenges pointed to specific and actionable recommendations that will improve any future PALS-type efforts. All recommendations are forward-looking and high level, and are based on PALS’ evolution over the past six years. They are intended to remind those familiar with PALS about the lessons learned and to help those new to PALS achieve success. These challenges should be addressed in future programme planning documents (e.g., proposals, strategic plans, workplans); in conversations and meetings with PICs; and in evaluation efforts. They can be used as a resource and checklist to: 

• Anticipate and help overcome snags in programme processes and progress 
• Help orient PICs to what it takes to succeed with a PALS-type approach 
• Set reasonable expectations for timing of MEPSL progress 
• Continue and enhance the demonstrated efficacy of a PALS’ approach 

Table 12 Key Challenges and Recommendations 

Special Note on Time to Market for MEPSL Efforts.  The initial timeframe for PALS was based upon a three-year schedule; the PALS experience and experience elsewhere suggests the schedule was too ambitious. As Error! Reference source not found. shows, MEPSL time-to-market within the PICs was well within the time parameters of other countries. Experience with MEPSL in the region may help others adopt faster, but the PALS design should not be viewed not a quick fix. Rather, as stakeholders pointed out, PALS’ strategies and tactics took “a while to build but have a strong chance of sticking.” Its approach is consistent with other successful long-term programmes that require significant changes in how government, businesses, and individuals operate. 

Table 13 Estimated Years to Market for MEPSL for Selected Countries 

Conclusion 2: For a modest price, a PALS’ approach provides ongoing and valuable services and insights for PICs, the region, and beyond. 

PALS is a success story with a recognized “brand” in regional governmental agencies. It has built a regionwide network of MEPSL supporters and PALS’ staff and contractors are sought out as trusted advisors. The four PICs that have enacted MEPSL are concerned about a future without PALS, both within their countries and regionwide, since MEPSL is a new endeavor for most of them. While they are committed to MEPSL, they also hope that PALS can continue to provide services until their efforts are further established. Finally, they hope more PICs will adopt legislation so that MEPSL becomes a regional standard. 

Six PICs (including four not included in this assessment) have already made it through the hurdles required to draft legislation. With some continued support, and seeing the success of the other PICs, they may be persuaded to enact MEPSL and thereby expand its regional presence. Papua New Guinea (PNG), in particular, holds the largest single opportunity for energy savings and GHG reductions in the region. 

The PICs interviewed accepted that PALS, if continued, would likely need to change. They offered recommendations for its continued presence as described below.  An initial “ballpark” figure for providing a reasonable subset of these services would be ~AU$250K/year for three years for the six PICs included in this assessment. This budget would help enact MEPSL in Kiribati and Cook Islands, and expand the legislation in Fiji to cover more appliances.  It would also help address technical, market, and regional coordination needs, and help embed MEPSL procedures, tools, and connections within PICS and regionwide. Overall, these steps will ensure a much stronger MEPSL legacy across the South Pacific.^[17]  

Recommendations for Continued PALS Services to Support MEPSL 

These recommendations fall into four categories: PICs with draft legislation only; PICs that began MEPSL in 2016 or later; PICs that began MEPSL prior to 2016; and region-wide recommendations. PICs not included in this assessment are in parentheses. All recommendations have a three-year window. 

PICs with Drafted MEPSL Legislation: Kiribati, Cook Islands (Papua New Guinea [PNG], Tonga, Niue) 

• Develop brief analyses,^[18] using programme intelligence, input from PICs, key indicators from Table 1, and challenges and recommendations from Table 2, to assess if targeted support from PALS would facilitate MEPSL legislation within three years. 
• Proceed to specify and provide needed services in those PICs where the strengths and opportunities are strong and the type of assistance needed is clear, cost-effective, and is likely to result in passage of legislation within three years. 

PICs With MEPSL for 1-4 Years: Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu (Tuvalu) 

• Support refresher training courses and provide technical consultations for stakeholders for three years. 
• Support broader appliance coverage and more stringent standards for three years. 
• Support continued efforts to build awareness/buy-in among all stakeholder for three years 
• Support an energy and cost savings impact study for at least one PIC after three years of MEPSL operation. 

PICs With MEPSL for 5+ Years: Fiji 

• Provide targeted assistance to help Fiji extend MEPSL to other appliances for three years. 
• Conduct a pilot programme to test if incentive and financing strategies can move the market faster or to higher levels of efficiency with a three-year time frame. 

Region-Wide Recommendations 

• Maintain and update the online Pacific Appliance Database (PAD) for three years. 
• Sponsor annual Regional Steering Committee/Regulator Group meetings for three years. 
• Support research for three years to measure other effects of MEPSL, such as its impacts on consumer awareness and purchases; gender equality; safety; and integration of efficiency and renewable energy sources. 

6. Appendix A: Resources 

Hourcourigaray, Jean, D. Wary, and S. Bitot (Airaro), Renewable Energy in the Pacific Islands: An Overview and Exemplary Projects, Agence Francaise de Development, 2014.   

https://www.afd.fr/en/renewable-energy-pacific-islands-overview-and-exemplary-projects

CLASP Website https://clasp.ngo/who-we-are

Tebbutt Research, Survey of Consumer Awareness and Use of Energy Rating Labels in Pics: Regional Report , 2018 

Michaelis, Charles, Evaluation of PALS Programme Report, Databuild, prepared for the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, October 2015. 

Wilkenfeld, George, The Costs and Benefits of Introducing Standards and Labels for Electrical Appliances 

in Pacific Island Countries, George Wilkenfeld and Associates, for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, September 2011 

International Institute for Energy Conservation – Asia (IIEC Asia), September 2012 (separate PIC volumes), Technical Analysis of Appliance Markets to Support the Pacific Appliance Labelling and Standards (PALS) programme, Prepared for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) by  

Wilkenfeld, George, Energy Labelling and Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Appliances and 

Lighting in Fiji; expanding the coverage of the programme to additional products, George Wilkenfeld and Associates for the Department of Energy, Fiji and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, October 2014 

Wilkenfeld, George, Energy Labelling and Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Appliances and 

Lighting: Impacts in PALS Countries, George Wilkenfeld and Associates for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, January 2015 

PALS progress reports: January to June 2014 and January to June 2018, prepared by Makereta Lomaloma, SPC 

Education materials for Samoa and Fiji 

Appliance Labelling and Standards in the Pacific; presented at Sustainable Energy for SIDS, Vienna, June 2015 

Various Presentations – Regional Steering Committee 

7. Appendix B: Interview Questionnaire 

Final PALS Interview Guide  (4/6/2019) 

[Interviewer: Fill in background information about respondent below] 

Name                                                                Date

Telephone                                                          Email  

Respondent Type (indicate one):   

1. Director                           2. Focal Point    3. Retailer         4. Customs 5. Other [fill in] 

Table 14 Correspondence Table Of Desired Outcomes, Research Questions, Interview Items, Respondents

Section 1:  Notes and Introduction  

Important notes to the Team; thanks for reading and good luck!

1. The introduction:  Make it your own so you can engage respondents.  Also, knowing more about the respondent’s frame of reference will help you adapt questions when needed.  
2. Preparing: We are using the same guide for all respondents, so some wording may need to be adjusted to fit the respondents knowledge/situation.  So, please become familiar with it beforehand. I practiced it out loud.  Of course after 1 or 2 interviews, though, you will be an expert! 
3. Asking questions and probing: Ask all the relevant questions, including all the ratings.  Feel free to probe if someone brings up an interesting point.  If someone is hesitant, you may need to give them a bit of time and also do some neutral prompting (“anything else you can think of?”).  It’s important not to be leading, but sometimes people need some more time or help. 
4. Ratings: In quite a few cases, I had to circle back to the ratings after they told me in words how important or challenging something was.
5. Notes:  I know it’s hard to take verbatim notes, but please do the best you can write down things in respondents’ own words and NOT to interpret their answers. Try to be a complete and accurate as possible. It would also be great to have good quotes we can use (anonymously) to tell a better story. 
6. Timing: The full interview took +/- 60 minutes; the retailers took 30-40 minutes.
7. Frame of Reference: In Fiji, all the government officials knew about PALS, but 2 of 5 retailers did not knowPALS as a separate programme from MEPSL efforts. They did know about MEPSL and S&L. Please be sure to establish what shorthand/acronyms respondents know and how they refer to things. Then, we can give them more background where needed (basic SPC and PALS descriptions are below).  As you go through the questions, you may need to remind them that 

PALS provided support – like technical assistance, training – to establish the country’s MEPSL/S&L and we are trying to find out how important that support was. Still, some respondents may not be able to distinguish PALS from the larger MEPSL efforts.

BEGIN: I’m [fill in name, relevant title/organization] and thanks for meeting with me today about the

Pacific Appliance Labelling and Standards programme – known as PALS -- that the Pacific Community or SPCis implementing to support the establishment of mandatory Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Labeling (or MEPSL – “mepsel’) in (County).   

I know I just used a lot of terms and want to check if these terms are familiar to  you – SPC, PALS, and MEPSL, Standards & Labeling?  Which of these terms do you know/use? I want to make sure my questions are clear and that we are “on the same page” as we talk [If needed, provide more information.] 

• If not familiar with SPC, explain in your own words or read: (From the SPC website) The Pacific Community (SPC) is the principal scientific and technical organisation in the Pacific region, proudly supporting development since 1947. They are an international development organisation owned and governed by 26 country and territory members.
• If not familiar with PALS and/or MEPSL: In 2012 SPC began to provide Pacific Island Countries with technical assistance to help establish and implement mandatory Mandatory Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Labelling (check for familiarity with MEPSL and S&L) programmes through PALS.  SPC provides various types of support to establish these mandatory standards in each country, such as help to draft legislation, training, technical assistance etc.   

If needed: SPC may deliver other programmes in your country, but today we are going to focus on services that PALS provides to MEPSL (the programme that SPC runs to help the MEPSL effort).   

I’m one of the evaluators working on a final assessment for PALS.  My goals in talking with you today are to find out how well PALS has progressed, it’s successes and challenges, and how the future looks for standards and labeling in your country. We are including six countries in this review:  

1. Fiji (enacted) 
2. Samoa (enacted) 
3. Solomon Islands (enacted) 
4. Cook Islands (drafted) 
5. Vanuatu (enacted) 
6. Kiribati  (drafted) 

I want you to know this interview is confidential and your name will not be used in any reporting we do.  Feel free to give me your honest opinions. Also feel free to ask me to clarify questions and also to say you don’t know the answer to any question.   

If you have any documents that will help me in this evaluation effort, please let me know as we go along. I’d also like you to know that I will ask you questions where I ask you to rate something, and also questions where I’d like you to tell me more. I do have specific questions we need to discuss, so I would greatly appreciate your help in answering each of them as completely as you can. 

I will be taking notes while I am talking with you and I will do my best to take down your answers accurately, so please bear with me. Do you have any questions before we begin?   [circle one]   Yes     No 

[If questions, record here and answer, then continue to Section 2]

Section 2: Respondent Background/Understanding of PALS 

*******All Respondents******* 

First, I’d like to know a bit more about your background with PALS and your views on what PALS is trying to accomplish. 

1. What is your title and, briefly, your responsibilities?  

1. What has been (FP: your responsibilities) (your involvement) with PALS (or PALS activities that support MEPSL/S&L) and for how long?   

1. (DO NOT ASK RETAILERS) Who else do you work with closely on PALS and what do they do? 

1. What are the major things PALS is trying to accomplish?  PROBE: What challenges is PALS trying to address? 

1. Who are the major stakeholders or audiences that PALS (MEPSL efforts) needs to reach to be successful?  Who needs to be at the table to discuss mandatory efficiency S&L for appliances? 

Section 3: Outcome 1 -- Confirmed Political Commitment To S&L 

*******Directors And Focal Points Only***** 

Now I’d like you to tell me more about how PALS has progressed in [country].  

1. First, prior to the PALS programme, had your country pursued any type of appliance efficiency standards and labeling legislation? 
   1. Yes  -- Can you tell me how far along that legislation was before joining PALS? 

1. No
2. Don’t know 

I’m now going to start a series of questions that have a similar format.  First I’ll ask to you rate an aspect of PALS. Then I’ll ask you to tell me more about the reasons behind your rating. 

1. Just to confirm, mandatory Minimum Appliance Efficiency Standards and Labeling (which I’ll refer to as [fill in right acronym]) legislation has been (enacted – for Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu) (drafted – for Kiribati and Cooks) in (Country), is that correct?  Please think back through that legislative process.  On a scale from 0 to 10, with zero being not all challenging, and 10 being extremely challenging, how challenging was it to get government support for MEPSL/S&L legislation?  [Circle one] 

 0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

            Not at all challenging                                                                               Extremely Challenging  

1. Can you tell me more about any challenges you faced in (enacting) (drafting) legislation? 

1. Can you tell me more about efforts that helped the process of (enacting) (drafting) legislation? 

1. What lessons did you learn from the process of (enacting) (drafting) legislation? 

1. Did [Country] receive assistance from PALS to draft its MEPSL/S&L legislation? 
   1. Yes
      1. On a scale of 0-10, how important was PALS’ assistance in getting your S&L legislation drafted, with 0 being not important and 10 being extremely important. 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not at all Important                                                                                   Extremely Important     

1. Please tell me more about the reasons behind your rating of _____? [fill in number] 

1. What types of PALS’ assistance worked best?   

1. What types of PALS’ assistance worked less well? 

1. No  
2. Don’t know 

9.    In addition to having (enacted) (drafted) MEPSL/S&L legislation, have the Standards and Labelling requirements been put into any country workplans, Energy Roadmaps, National Energy Policies, Energy Strategic Plans, or any other national level documents – either in draft or final form? 

1      Yes – What documents are they in? 

2      No

3      Don’t know 

Section 4: Outcomes 2, 3, 4 – Enabling Environment, Operations, and Capacity Building 

**** Respondents Vary As Marked***** 

Now I’d like to know more about how PALS is operating in [Country].

1. (ALL) As you may know, PALS has a Focal Point – a local contact to provide MEPSL/S&L support in (country).[If FP, acknowledge you are talking with the FP] [IF RETAILERS, ask by name if they’ve worked with the FP—if YES, continue with question. They all knew Vashal and Asnil by name in Fiji but not the term Focal Point]  

On a scale of 0-10, with 0 being not important and 10 being extremely important, how important has it been for S&L efforts to have a Focal Point contact in [Country]? 

0.…..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not at all Important                                                                                   Extremely Important     

a. Please tell me more about the reasons behind your rating of ____. [fill in] 

1. (DO NOT ASK CUSTOMS OR RETAILERS) To your knowledge, does (or did) PALS have a National Steering Committee or working group to support(ed) MEPSL/S&L work in [Country]? [In Fiji, there was a working group at the start, but no one knew it as a Steering Committee; it remained as a loose support group over time.]
   1. Yes
   2. No
   3. Don’t know 

1. If Yes: On a scale of 0-10, how important has the Steering Committee/Working Group been to establishing implementing MEPSL/MEPSL/S&L activities in (Country), with 0 being not at all important and 10 being extremely important. 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not at Important                                                                                       Extremely Important 

1. Please tell me more about the reasons behind your rating of ____. [fill in] 

1. Have you or members of your staff attended any PALS’ sponsored training or workshops or study tours, such as an initial training to introduce the programme or technical training about the standards and requirements? 
   1. Yes – What type training did you or your staff attend?  [Add details they mention about the training]

1      Training to introduce PALS/MEPSL/S&L  

2      Technical assistance workshops or study tours, such as going to Australia or Fiji to technical training 

3      Training for the on-line appliance database registration system  4     Other type of training, please specify here: 

1. If received training: On a scale of 0-10, how important has the training PALS provided been to implementing MEPSL/S&L efforts in (Country), with 0 being not important and 10 being extremely important? 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not at all Important                                                                                   Extremely Important 

1. And your reasons behind this rating please? [fill in] 

1. No  
2. Don’t know 

1. [DO NOT ASK CUSTOMS OR RETAILERS – In Fiji they weren’t invited.] Have you or any of your staff attended regional steering committee meetings for PALS, when all the countries (FPs) participating in PALS meet and exchange information about how their MEPSL/S&L efforts are going?  

1. Yes 

1. If attended regional meetings: On a scale of 0-10, how important were these regional steering committee meetings to implementing MEPSL/S&L efforts in (Country), with 0 being not important and 10 being extremely important. 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10 

                 Not at all Important                                                                                   Extremely Important     

1. And your reasons behind this rating please? [fill in] 

1. No 
2. Don’t know 

1. (Did you conduct) (Did you receive) any individual consultations or technical assistance from PALS staff or representatives – for instance, where they answered your individual questions? 

1. Yes – Please tell me about these consultations [fill in]

1. If received individual consultations: On a scale of 0-10, how important have these individual consultations for retailers and importers been to MEPSL/S&L efforts in (Country), with 0 being not at all important and 10 being extremely important. 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not At All Important                                                                      Extremely Important 

1. Can you please give me to the reasons behind our ratings.? [fill in] 

1. No  
2. Don’t know 

1. Are you familiar with any public awareness campaigns – for instance, on radio, TV, newspapers, in the schools, or through other media -- that PALS may have supported or advised on, that are intended to increase awareness of appliance efficiency standards and labels?  
   1. Yes  
   2. No
   3. Don’t know 

1. If aware of public awareness campaigns: On a scale of 0-10, how important have these campaigns been to implementing MEPSL/S&L efforts in (Country), with 0 being not at all important and 10 being extremely important. 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

           Not At All Important                                                                                       Extremely Important 

1. And the reasons for your rating please? [fill in] 

1. What types of consumer awareness activities have been conducted?  Which activities have worked the best?   Which ones have worked less well? 

1. (DO NOT ASK COOK AND KIRIBATI) Compliance and enforcement of efficiency Standards and Labelling can sometimes be a challenge.  On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all challenging, and 10 being extremely challenging, how challenging has it been to ensure the appliances that are sold in (Country) comply with MEPSL/S&L requirements? 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not At All Challenging                                                                  Extremely Challenging  

a. And the reasons for your rating please? [fill in] 

1. Now thinking back over all the topics we’ve been discussing, how important have PALS services been to supporting your country’s capacity to implement an MEPSL/S&L programme in (Country)?  Again, please use the same 0-10 point scale where 0 means PALS was not at all important, and 10 means it was extremely important. 

0……..1……..2……..3……..4……..5……..6……..7……..8……..9……10

                 Not at all Important                                                                                   Extremely Important 

a. Please tell me more about the reasons behind your rating of ____. Please be as specific as you can. [fill in]  

Section 5: Other Overarching Goals and Questions 

**** Respondents Vary As Marked***** 

Thank you for staying with me through all these rating questions. Your perspectives are really important. I now have some wider wrap-up questions to ask you.

1. What have been the biggest benefits or results from having the PALS’ programme support MEPSL/S&L efforts here?  What are the biggest benefits from having MEPSL/S&L for appliances? 

1. Probe: Have there been any outcomes or impacts related to PALS or MEPSL/S&L efforts that you didn’t expect? 

1. [ASK GOV’T, FPs except Customs] Do you know of any plans to track or monitor results from MEPSL/S&L efforts – such as energy or financial savings?  If Not: Would having more feedback about MEPSL/S&L results be useful to you?  How would you use it? 

1. [ASK RETAILERS/CUSTOMS] Would it be helpful to you to have more feedback about the results of MEPSL/S&L efforts – such as the energy or money saved, or any other impacts? 

1. [GOVERNMENT, FPs, CUSTOMS ONLY] What are the most important lessons you’ve learned from being part of MEPSL/S&L efforts?  

1. [ALL] What, if any, have been the biggest challenges in working with the PALS programme or with MEPSL efforts more generally? 

1. [ALL] How would you rate the success of (Country) efforts to date to implement a mandatory (MEPSL/S&L) programme?  Would you say these efforts have been very successful, somewhat successful, not too successful, not at all successful, or are you unsure about the level of success?  

1. Can me more about the rating you chose? 

1. What are the key challenges or hurdles that remain for MEPSL/S&L efforts in your country?  How can those challenges best be met?   

1. Is some form of the PALS programme still needed for the future [it closes in June 2015]?  If YES: What role should PALS play going forward? 

1. FOCAL POINTS ONLY: It seems PALS and MPERSL efforts have worked better in some countries than in others. In which countries do you think PALS has been most successful?  Less successful?  Do you have any perspectives on why the level of success varied from country to country? 

1. PROBE [if needed]: What role did the political systems play in supporting or not supporting PALS? 
2. PROBE: What role did communities play in supporting or not supporting PALS’ policies? 
3. PROBE:  What role did the private sector play In supporting or not supporting PALS’ policies? 

1. Finally, do you have any further advice or opinions you’d like to share about your experiences with the PALS programme or with MEPSL/S&L efforts more generally. 

Thank you so much for your thoughts and time today.  Your opinions are essential to the success of our assessment of the  PALS programme.   

I don’t know if it is possible, but if it is possible to distribute a summary of this evaluation, would you be interested in receiving one?   Yes     No  

Finally, may I contact you via email if I need to clarify any of your answers?    Yes     No  

Thank you again for your time and thoughts!