Industrial foundation for the prevention of occupational hazards

The evaluation covered the period 9/89-9/91. The project is not achieving its objectives. Due to a conflict in the project design, the strategy and techniques used by FIPRO, while technically competent, address occupational hazards in a superficial or symptomatic rather than a systematic way. At the same time, the fact that employers in El Salvador have limited legal/financial responsibility for occupational injuries means that serious efforts on FIPRO"s part could appear as an attempt to stir up trouble. This in turn compromises FIPRO"s ability to attract the member base it needs to become financially self-sustaining. Overall, the project has improved labor-management relations very little, and there is considerable suspicion of FIPRO on the part of labor at the national level. Additionally, FIPRO services seem to provide subsidies to the richest and most capable companies in El Salvador (including multinational firms) rather than to benefit the poor. Several lessons have been learned. (1) Development projects are more successful when they stem from the self-interest of the group seeking help. (2) Using projects to prevent workplace hazards to improve labor-management relations will be successful only to the extent that workplace conditions are actually improved. (3) Meaningful development requires a legal, political, and economic environment which requires employers to pay the bulk of the costs of workplace injury and disease. (4) When creating projects to improve labor-management relations, labor should be brought in at the design stage. (5) If self-sustainability is not really an objective, it should not be included as such because it makes the project vulnerable to unnecessary criticism. A major action decision is to consider funding FIPRO beyond the 9/92 PACD in order to maintain the Intersectorial Commission on Occupational Safety and Health. Several recommendations to improve FIPRO"s strategy and techniques are included.