home | food and agriculture organization of the united nations · web viewthis lesson introduces...

Food Security Information for Action

Targeting

Lesson 1

Introduction to Targeting

Learners’ Notes

© FAO, 2008

This course is funded by the European Union and implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations

Course - TargetingLesson 1 - Introduction to Targeting

Table of contents

Learning objectives......................................................................................................2

Introduction..................................................................................................................3

What is targeting..........................................................................................................4

Why is targeting important?.........................................................................................5

Targeting process........................................................................................................6

Defining target groups.................................................................................................7

Levels of targeting.......................................................................................................8

Identifying target groups – choosing indicators..........................................................10

Reaching target groups - methods of targeting..........................................................12

The political economy of targeting.............................................................................14

Costs and benefits.....................................................................................................16

Summary................................................................................................................... 18

If you want to know more...........................................................................................19

Annex 1: Pluses and minuses of different targeting methods....................................20

Learners’ Notes 1


Learning objectives

At the end of this lesson you will be able to:

explain the key principles of targeting; understand the steps of the targeting process; understand the suitability of different targeting methods for given situations and

target groups; and recognize the costs and benefits of targeting.

Learners’ Notes 2


Introduction

This lesson introduces the basic principles of targeting within the food security context.

Basically, targeting is the practical process of defining, identifying and reaching the intended recipients of assistance. This involves a whole string of decisions and actions that determine who gets what from a food security programme or emergency distribution.

The aim of targeting is to allocate and concentrate resources on selected population groups, in order to achieve the best possible food security outcomes from a given programme or project.

Learners’ Notes 3


What is targeting

Targeting objectives should be considered at every stage of a food security operation, starting from the initial assessment and design, and continuing through implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

The analysis of who needs assistance, where, when and why; decisions about what kind of aid is needed (and how much); how it should be delivered and how the beneficiaries will be identified, all these affect the targeting bottom line of “who gets what”, which in turn affects the programme’s impact.

Learners’ Notes 4


Why is targeting important?

The targeting of food security programmes (such as food aid distributions, safety nets, input packages for increased production, and so on) has received a lot of attention since the early 1990s. The main reasons for the importance given to targeting are:

Ethical and humanitarian principles. Aid should be given according to need (especially in emergency situations), following the international standards of impartiality and non-discrimination. Targeting by agreed and objective criteria supports these principles.

Efficiency and effectiveness. Targeting maximises the impact and minimises the waste of scarce resources.

Accountability. Donors and their constituencies want to know that their aid actually reaches the poor and needy, and that it has not been diverted through corruption or poor management. Good targeting systems ensure this, and at the same time they generate information about where the resources went. Transparent targeting also enhances the accountability of agencies and projects to beneficiary communities.

Avoidance of harm. Untargeted assistance (particularly food aid), spread too widely and in large quantities, may undermine local production, markets, or social support networks.

Information systems alone cannot ensure successful targeting, because so much depends on the quality of implementation.

However, they have an important role to play in two key phases:

Before an intervention – through vulnerability analysis, needs assessment, and response planning.

During and after an intervention – through monitoring and evaluation. Good feedback information during an operation can be very important in fine-tuning or correcting the targeting.

This lesson provides the basic tools for information providers to understand and influence the design of targeting systems for food security projects and programmes.

Learners’ Notes 5


Targeting process

That there is no rigid approach to targeting of intended beneficiaries; the best approach is one that is transparent and efficient in terms of ensuring that correct beneficiaries receive assistance in a timely manner, and one that promotes targeting accuracy and a sense of fairness among communities.

In practical terms, the process of targeting can be broken down into three key steps:

1. defining; 2. identifying; and 3. reaching the intended beneficiaries.

Learners’ Notes 6


Defining target groups

Who is a particular food security programme intended to help? Where should the benefits be directed (to which places, and which people) in order to achieve the programme’s objectives? These basic targeting questions should be addressed from the very beginning, during vulnerability and needs assessments.

Vulnerability Analysis should include a diagnosis of why certain people are vulnerable, and what they are vulnerable to (malnutrition? destitution? loss of assets or livelihoods?).

Needs Assessments should identify what kind of assistance is needed, where, when and how much. They should assess who needs assistance. If possible, they should describe the social, political and institutional context (because these affect what kind of targeting and delivery methods might be feasible).

All these factors contribute to a clear definition of target groups, which in turn help to generate appropriate targeting criteria and methods.

Look at the examples in the table.

Table 1: Target Groups definitions

Type of vulnerability Possible target group definitions

ECONOMIC vulnerability

Poor areas / groups/ households/ individuals People suffering food insecurity because of inadequate

incomes, livelihoods, market access or entitlements Poorest x% of a population People in specified livelihoods or occupations (locally

defined)

PHYSIOLOGICAL vulnerability

Children under five years old Malnourished children Groups with specific nutritional needs (e.g. the elderly; sick

people; pregnant and breast-feeding women)

SOCIAL vulnerability Unsupported older people, widows or orphans People with disabilities Socially excluded individuals or households

POLITICAL vulnerability

Refugees or displaced people Communities exposed to violence or marginalization

Of course, these are only examples and not a complete list of possible target group definitions. The key point is that the definition of target group(s) must be based on an analysis of the specific situation and context, given the nature of the problem and the objectives of the proposed response.

Learners’ Notes 7


Levels of targeting

Target groups can be defined and identified at the following levels of detail. Most programmes use more than one level of targeting:

Geographical targeting; Group targeting; Household targeting; and Individual targeting.

Geographical targetingGeographical targeting identifies selected areas to receive assistance.It can be applied at various scales, from very large areas (for example, when international donors select countries to focus their resources on) to very small ones (selecting districts or even villages).

For example, FEWS NET produces an overview of food security prospects in Africa: http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/1001478.pdfWithin countries, a more detailed geographical picture can be given (such as the district-level maps of Zimbabwe in this alert): http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/1001436.pdf

Agencies planning interventions in response to this alert will probably go one step further, geographically targeting smaller areas or communities within the prioritised districts.

Areas for geographical targeting may be defined by administrative boundaries, or by more analytical units such as agricultural or climatic regions, or livelihood zones.Areas for geographical targeting may be defined by administrative boundaries, or by more analytical units such as agricultural or climatic regions, or livelihood zones.For longer-term food security programmes, or where the problem is economic vulnerability, the geographical targeting decisions can be less clear-cut. Often, some people in untargeted areas are equally poor or food-insecure as the beneficiaries within the targeted areas.

The main disadvantage of geographical targeting is that it excludes these people. It is important to be aware of this effect, and to assess how big a problem it is in each specific context.

- Almost all food security programmes use some degree of geographical targeting.ExceptionsThe main exceptions are social protection programmes funded by national governments (such as food stamps in the USA, or pension entitlements in Botswana and South Africa). In these programmes, any citizen meeting the eligibility criteria is entitled to the benefits, no matter where they are.

- In practice, geographical targeting is very rarely used alone. Usually it is the first stage in a process, followed by further levels of targeting to select groups, households or individuals within the targeted areas.

Learners’ Notes 8

http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/1001436.pdf

http://www.fews.net/docs/Publications/1001478.pdf


Exceptions The main exceptions are acute emergency situations where immediate action is needed, and screening is not feasible or cannot be done fast enough. In these circumstances, an untargeted “blanket” distribution may be given to everyone within a defined disaster area. This is usually for a short period only.

Group targeting Group targeting identifies sections of the population, usually within geographically targeted areas.It relies on an analysis that these groups are particularly vulnerable or food-insecure in the given situation. Individual assessment of group members is not needed for this level of targeting – usually the groups are defined by observable characteristics (such as gender, age and disability) or agreed social categories (such as widows and orphans). Livelihood groups may also be targeted (e.g. all weavers or fishers, or any other occupational group whose access to food and income has been disrupted).

Household targetingHousehold targeting takes the household as the smallest social and economic unit, and provides resources to be shared among household members.Some form of assessment mechanism for each household is needed at this level.

Beneficiary households may be identified by: the overall household situation (e.g. total household income or assets); the status of the household head (e.g. age, gender, health, occupation); or the presence in the household of a particular target group member (e.g. a

malnourished child or a chronically ill adult).

It is important to establish an agreed definition of “household” in the local context, without going into too much anthropological detail. For example, the World Food Programme generally defines a household for food aid distribution purposes as a woman and the people she cooks for. This can be applied in most cultural contexts, even if it cuts across the actual social structures.

Individual targetingIndividual targeting, in food security contexts, is most often applied to nutritional and health programmes that screen beneficiaries through direct measurement (such as weight-for-height and other anthropometric indicators) or medical referral.

Learners’ Notes 9


Identifying target groups – choosing indicators

Once the target group has been clearly defined, it is possible to derive indicators which will enable the programme implementers to decide that one person (or household, or area) is eligible while another is not.

The definition of the target group will logically suggest which kind of indicators are appropriate.

Table 2: Types of indicatorsIndicator Description

Nutritional indicators

Nutritional indicators are appropriate when the problem has been diagnosed as malnutrition or vulnerability to malnutrition, and the target group is defined as currently malnourished people or members of physiologically vulnerable groups. Malnutrition may be a late indicator. Targeting by nutritional status alone excludes vulnerable groups who are not yet malnourished. Nutritional surveys and screening require technically trained staff.

Socio-economic indicators

Socio-economic indicators are appropriate when the target group is defined as economically vulnerable, and when food insecurity is considered to be closely linked with poverty and livelihood constraints. Income, assets and other livelihood factors can be difficult and expensive for outsiders to assess beyond the geographical level. Therefore, in many food security programmes, household-level socio-economic criteria are applied through community-based targeting.

Demographic indicators

Demographic indicators (gender and age) are relatively easy to apply. They are appropriate at group level, when the target population is defined as physiologically or socially vulnerable.

Meteorological andproduction indicators

Meteorological and production indicators are widely used for geographical targeting, in combination with other dimensions of food security. They are less useful at group, household and individual levels, although sometimes household production is used as an indicator of income or food access.

Some targeting indicators are categorical - that is, they are basically Yes / No questions. For example, a person’s gender is either male or female.

Others are continuous – that is, a whole range of values is possible. For example, income; weight; number of livestock owned; kg of grain produced; age. For continuous indicators, a threshold or cut-off point must be set before they can be applied as targeting criteria.

There are standardized thresholds for nutritional and age criteria. For other indicators, particularly socio-economic ones, the thresholds must be set according to the local context.

Learners’ Notes 10


Characteristics of good targeting indicatorsKey considerations in selecting indicators Two key considerations in selecting targeting indicators are validity and practicality.

1) VALIDITYIndicators must be strongly associated with the target group in the specific local context, so that they will identify the right people.For example, gender may be suggested as an indicator for targeting poor and economically vulnerable households. This is valid in some contexts, where female-headed households are poorer and more vulnerable than their male neighbours – but in other contexts this is not true. Local analysis is always needed.

2) PRACTICALITYAlways keep in mind how the suggested indicators will be applied. Can they be measured or observed? Who by, and how? Do they need complex data collection and analysis (and if so, is the necessary time and capacity available)? These questions go hand in hand with choosing targeting methods.For example, household grain stocks may be a very valid indicator of short-term food security – but in many storage systems they are impossible to observe, and potential beneficiaries have a strong incentive to under-report them.

Key qualities of indicators Targeting indicators should be:sensitive (that is, they will always correctly identify a target group member);specific (they will correctly exclude non-target group members); feasible (given the time, resources and capacities available); acceptable to the beneficiaries and their community; andtransparent or verifiable, so that targeting decisions can be checked and challenged by monitoring staff or community members.



Reaching target groups - methods of targeting

The next questions are: How will our indicators be applied? How will we ensure that the assistance actually reaches the intended beneficiaries?

Targeting methods can be broadly grouped according to who makes the decision to include or exclude people. Beneficiaries may be selected by:

project or government staff (administrative targeting); their own neighbors or representatives (community-based targeting); their own choice (self-targeting); or market conditions (market-based targeting).

Many successful programmes use more than one of these targeting methods.Let’s have a look at these methods...

Administrative targetingIn administrative targeting, beneficiaries are selected by outsiders (such as project managers or government officials), using objective, measurable and standardized criteria.

Administrative targeting generally requires systematic collection, analysis and recording of targeting data. This is the type of approach used in means-tested welfare systems in developed countries. At the household and individual level, administrative targeting could involve a detailed household survey. Alternatively it could use quicker procedures such as project staff visually assessing household assets, or measuring the weight and height of children.In situations where capacity is weak, or information systems are absent, administrative targeting may not be feasible for socio-economic targeting at household or individual level. However, most targeting by nutritional indicators and all geographical targeting is carried out by professionals and comes under administrative targeting.Let’s have a look at these methods...

Community-based targetingIn community-based targeting, beneficiary households or individuals are selected by members of the community. Targeting decisions may be made by established leaders, by specially elected committees, or by the whole community in an open meeting.

Community-based targeting is widely used in both development and relief programmes. It is particularly favored where administrative capacity is limited, or where community empowerment and capacity-building are among the programme’s objectives. Some agencies use community-based targeting as a matter of policy. Procedures and institutional forms for community-based targeting vary widely, depending on local culture, social and political structures, and the degree of involvement by relief and development agencies. Indicators may be set by agency staff or by the community. Actual selection of the beneficiaries is done by the community, therefore data collection and analysis are not needed. Participatory methods such as wealth-ranking are sometimes used as a basis for community targeting decisions.



Self-targetingIn self-targeting, the beneficiaries themselves decide whether or not to participate in a programme, depending on the benefits offered and the costs involved.

Designing a programme so that the intended target-group will participate, while non-targeted people choose not to, needs careful analysis to set the right costs and benefits. Benefits for participants include the monetary value and status of the food or other assistance offered.Sometimes an “inferior” commodity is offered that the better-off will not want. In employment programmes such as food-for-work or cash-for-work, the rate of payment should be set low enough that anyone who can earn more elsewhere, or who values their leisure-time more highly than the payment offered, will choose not to participate

On the cost side, the main self-targeting factors are the time and effort required from beneficiaries (working, travelling or waiting), and the social stigma of receiving targeted assistance. For example, in some societies manual labour, wages in food or being identified as a ‘charity case’ are considered shameful. These factors discourage people from applying for aid unless they really need it. However, most relief and development agencies find it unethical to use stigma as a deliberate targeting factor.

Market-based targetingIn market-based targeting, there is no direct selection of beneficiaries.Instead, interventions are made in the market to influence the supply or demand of the food that the target group buy, or the commodities they sell.

Like self-targeting, market-based targeting relies on good analysis of the market situation of the intended target group.

Examples of market targeting are: releasing grain stocks onto markets in targeted areas (to increase the supply and therefore bring down or stabilize the price); purchasing livestock during a food crisis (to provide income to livestock owners, and to keep up the price of their main asset); andsubsidizing or controlling the price of selected staple foods eaten mainly by the poor.

A further type of targeting method often used in food security contexts is institutional targeting. In this approach, beneficiaries are identified as those attending or resident in schools, hospitals, clinics or orphanages. Obviously, the targeting effect of this method depends entirely on who attends those particular institutions, in the local context.For example, children attending school in food-insecure areas are often a small minority of their age group, and relatively privileged. This is not always the case – local information is needed.

See Annex 1: Pluses and minuses of different targeting methods



The political economy of targeting

To be successful, a targeting system must take account of the existing governance and power structures in beneficiary countries and communities. If this aspect is ignored, there may be unnecessary conflict or high levels of “leakage”– that is, benefits may go to the powerful and their favoured groups instead of the needy.

Information systems can contribute to effective targeting design by analysing the social and political context, i.e. the power structures and interest groups involved in targeting, during vulnerability and needs assessments.

Two sets of questions should be asked, about:

The existing social organisation and power structures How are decisions made in this community, and who by? What is the capacity of local government or community institutions, and who do they represent? Do they have experience of targeting? How successful was this experience? Do the suggested target group definitions fit with local social structures?

The “political capital” of target groupsWhat is the position of the intended target groups, in terms of social hierarchy and power structures? Do they have any voice in local decision-making? Are they marginalised? Are they regarded by local decision-makers as full members of the community and entitled to assistance? Gender, ethnicity, health status, occupation and displacement are examples of factors that can make target group members marginalised or disadvantaged.

Definition of “political capital”"Emergency livelihood frameworks have added a sixth asset - political assets or capital. This can be most easily interpreted as proximity to power, which in many emergency and non-emergency contexts can be the main determinant of vulnerability to food and income insecurity. In many internal conflicts, people’s vulnerability is linked to their political status, and traditional minority or marginalised groups (often particular ethnic groups) are exploited by state or non-state actors."Jaspars (2006), From food crisis to fair trade: Livelihoods analysis, protection and support in emergencies, p.7. http://www.ennonline.net/fex/27/supplement27.pdf

Compromises must sometimes be made between the technically ideal targeting solution and political realities. For example, with geographical targeting it is often difficult for governments to completely exclude some administrative units while providing resources to others. It is better to have a “good enough” workable targeting system than a perfect one that cannot be implemented.

During implementation and monitoring, “political” factors continue to be important in terms of understanding how selection processes are actually working. Transparency and accountability should be built into the design of targeting systems.


http://www.ennonline.net/fex/27/supplement27.pdf


Transparency and accountability Transparency means that all potential beneficiaries understand their entitlements, and know how targeting decisions are made. Good information campaigns can greatly increase the effectiveness of targeting. Information can also empower marginalised target groups to claim their rights. Accountability means that decisions can be checked and challenged. There should be an independent appeal channel for people who believe they are wrongly excluded.



Costs and benefits

Although there is no simple formula to calculate cost-benefit ratios for different targeting options, it is important to weigh up costs and benefits when designing or evaluating a targeting system. Each of the following factors should be considered in the specific local and programme context.

Table 3: Costs and benefitsCOSTS

‘Political’ costs

In some circumstances, opposition to targeting (or particular types of targeting) by excluded groups can make implementation very difficult. This may undermine the intended benefits, and in some situations can even put the target group or programme staff in danger. The ‘political’ costs of targeting options, both for implementers and beneficiaries, should be weighed.

Costs to local decision-makers

The costs to decision-makers, particularly in community-based targeting, can be very high in terms of time and social stress.

Costs to beneficiaries

Direct costs: for example, beneficiaries may need to pay for transport to and from distribution points, or for documents to qualify for the programme. Energy costs: the calories spent working or travelling for aid reduce the net calories obtained in benefits. This is a particular worry in emergency situations where beneficiaries are malnourished. Opportunity costs: the time spent travelling, waiting or working for targeted aid might have been spent in income-earning activities, schooling or essential domestic work. Social costs: some targeting methods use stigma to discourage the less needy. This has social costs for beneficiaries. Incentive costs: targeting criteria may change the behaviour of beneficiaries in negative ways (e.g. selling assets such as livestock to meet eligibility criteria; reducing labour on farming or other livelihood activities).

Costs to implementing agency

Administrative costs: in staff time and other resources for information collection, screening, establishing and supporting targeting systems, monitoring complaints, etc.

BENEFITSEnhanced Impact

The potential benefits of targeting include an increased amount of assistance for each targeted beneficiary, and sometimes (not always) an overall saving in resources distributed. The most important benefit element to assess is how far targeting will enhance the impact of the programme, by focusing resources on the intended target group.

Resource savingsIncreased aid per beneficiaryCosts and benefits should be weighed at two key decision points - when deciding whether or not to target, and when choosing between targeting methods.



1 2 3 4

Weigh up the costs and benefits of TARGETING versus NO TARGETING

Untargeted / blanket programme

Weigh up the costs and benefits of DIFFERENT TARGETING OPTIONS

In the end, the weight given to each cost and benefit factor is a matter of judgment and policy. Remember to consider:

Whose costs, whose benefits?How can the cost factors be reduced or avoided?How can the benefits be maximised?


NO

YES

Is it worth targeting in this situation?


Summary

Targeting is the whole string of decisions and actions that determine who gets what from a food security programme. Its purpose is to concentrate resources on the most vulnerable or food-insecure people, in order to achieve the best possible impact with limited resources.

Designing a targeting system involves three key steps:

Define the target groups – based on an analysis of the context, the nature of the problem, the causes of vulnerability and the needs of different groups.

Identify the target groups – select valid, feasible indicators which match the target group definitions and which will select the intended beneficiaries.

Reach the target groups - select an appropriate targeting method (or a combination of methods). The main categories of targeting method are administrative, community, self-targeting and market-based.

In all three steps, keep in mind:the local context – Target group definitions and indicators cannot just be taken off the peg: check that they fit the situation; and “political” factors (power structures and interest groups) which may affect who is included and who is excluded.

Weigh up the costs and benefits - when deciding whether to target or not, and when choosing between different targeting options.



If you want to know more

Online resourcesHoddinott, J. (1999). Targeting: Principles and Practice. Technical Guide #9, IFPRI. www.ifpri.org/themes/mp18/techguid/tg09.pdf

Mathys, E. (2004). Community-Managed Targeting and Distribution of Food Aid: A review of the experience of Save the Children UK in sub-Saharan Africa. London, Save the Children UK. http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_5131.htm

Taylor, A. and J. Seaman (2004). Targeting Food Aid in Emergencies. ENN Special Supplement 1. Oxford, Emergency Nutrition Network. http://www.ennonline.net/fex/22/supplement22.pdf

Various documents – search site for ‘targeting’www.ifpri.org

A controversial viewpointhttp://www.wahenga.net/index.php/views/comments_view/should_we_forget_about_targeting

Additional readingCoady, D. P., M. E. Grosh and J. Hoddinott (2004). Targeting of transfers in developing countries: review of lessons and experience. Washington DC, World Bank.

Jaspars, S. and H. Young (1995). General Food Distribution in Emergencies: from Nutritional Needs to Political Priorities. Relief and Rehabilitation Network (RRN) Good Practice Review 3. London, ODI

Sharp, K. (2001). An overview of targeting approaches for food-assisted programming. Atlanta GA, CARE USA, PHLS Unit.


http://www.wahenga.net/index.php/views/comments_view/should_we_forget_about_targeting

http://www.wahenga.net/index.php/views/comments_view/should_we_forget_about_targeting

http://www.ifpri.org/

http://www.ennonline.net/fex/22/supplement22.pdf

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_5131.htm

http://www.ifpri.org/themes/mp18/techguid/tg09.pdf


Annex 1: Pluses and minuses of different targeting methods

The table below lists some advantages and disadvantages of the main methods. It has been adapted from Sharp (2001) An Overview of Targeting Methods for Food-assisted Programming, CARE.

ADMINISTRATIVE TARGETING

COMMUNITY-BASED SELF-TARGETING MARKET-BASED

PLUSes (Advantages)

Objective, standardised and verifiable (when successful).Can be very accurate, therefore effective at minimising errors (especially inclusion errors).

Community members already know each others’ situation (assets, income sources, household size etc.), so no need for costly data collection and analysis.Community understands complex interacting causes of vulnerability better than outsiders.Promotes participation and ownership of programme.

No corruption or bias in selection – beneficiaries themselves decide whether to participate.No administrative costs of direct selection.

‘Impersonal’ selection – no corruption or bias.No administrative costs of direct selection (information and management).Can recoup part of programme costs.Can avoid dependency and disruption to local economy (if well-managed).



ADMINISTRATIVE TARGETING

COMMUNITY-BASED SELF-TARGETING MARKET-BASED

MINUSes (Disadvantages)

Needs good administrative and information-gathering capacity.High costs in time and resources for management, data collection and analysis, screening procedures and monitoring.Identifying valid, practical, objective indicators can be very challenging.Risk of bias, corruption, intimidation, theft or error by decision-makers – requires monitoring / auditing.

Difficult to standardise or compare targeting between different communities.Developing and supporting community institutions needs significant staff time, skills and resources.Community may disagree with the principle of targeting, and prefer to share aid among everyone.Community ideas of equity and vulnerability may not match donors’ targeting priorities.‘Community’ may not include the most vulnerable groups, or in some situations (e.g. refugees, conflict) community may not really exist.Risk of bias, corruption, intimidation, theft or error – requires monitoring / auditing (as with administrative targeting).Costs to community decision-makers, in time and trouble, can be high.

Needs good information and analysis to determine which costs and benefits will select the intended target group.Programme must be able to accept everyone who self-selects, otherwise competition for resources will exclude the powerless and create opportunities for bribery or pressure.Can result in high exclusion and inclusion errors.Not very effective in relief / crisis situations.Not effective with free distributions.

Often benefits the better-off more than the poor (high inclusion errors).Can exclude the poor and vulnerable who lack exchange entitlements (high exclusion errors).Needs good information and analysis of the market and the economic position of the target group.Can displace private-sector traders and / or discourage production (if poorly-managed).


home | food and agriculture organization of the united nations · web viewthis lesson introduces...

Documents