BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poaching is becoming more advanced

Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed.  Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife.[1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won.[2] [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’
Poaching is linked to terrorism

Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security.[1] [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’
African countries have little money to spare

There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts.[1]   This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’
Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective

There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia.[1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction. [1] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’
Poaching is becoming more advanced

A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey.[1]  These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties.[2]  In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success,[3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals. [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’ [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’ [3] ibid
Poaching is linked to terrorism

Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure.[1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya.[2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa. [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’ [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’
African countries have little money to spare

Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable.  Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment.[1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion.[2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit.  [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’ [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’
Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective

Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain.[1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals.[2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn.[3] [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’ [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’
Natural habitats being are destroyed

Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty.[1]  Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species. [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’
Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries

Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance.[1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species. [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’
The justice system does not currently work

Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high.[1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail. [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’
Fewer human deaths

Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact.[1] [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”
Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching

If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse.[1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros.[2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause. [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’ [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’
Natural habitats being are destroyed

A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014[1]. Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa[2]. [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’” [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”
Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries

Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries.[1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present.[2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented. [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’ [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’
The justice system does not currently work

A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured.[1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity.[2] [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’ [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’
Fewer human deaths

Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities.[1]  Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause.[2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’ [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’
A fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe

It was too much to hope that the deal might involve a complete change for the EU as a whole. However it has the potential to fundamentally change the UK’s relationship with the EU by putting it on a much more secure footing.  The most fundamental change is the acceptance of two Europes. By accepting the UK opting out of ever closer union in perpetuity there is now an acceptance that the whole of Europe is not necessarily even moving to the same goal. As the deal states there can be “a deeper degree of integration among the Member states that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.”[1] The second change is increasing democratic accountability through increasing the power of national Parliaments. Now if 55% of national parliaments reject a European Council proposal the Council will need to think again.[2] [1] Annex 1, P.17 [2] Annex 1, P.17
Secures a special place for the UK

The renegotiation deal ensures that the UK has a special place in Europe. One where it is both a leading part of the club with a major say in the council, commission and parliament, and is also outside of those areas such as the Eurozone and anything relating to the Euro which the UK does not wish to join. Donald Tusk, current president of the European Council, says that the deal "strengthens Britain's special status";[1] the renegotiation document “recalls” the special position already holds listing previous opt outs on joining the Euro and Schengen among others. This deal adds to that an opt out from ever closer union. With such a privileged position within the EU secured Britain should not rush to the exit so giving away such a status. As European politicians have made clear the UK will not receive such favourable treatment when outside the EU.[2] [1] BBC News, ‘EU deal gives UK special status, says Cameron’, 20/2/16 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768 [2] Verhofstadt, Guy, ‘Message to Michael Gove: this deal is binding, and it’s the best Britain will get’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/24/michael-gove-deal-britain-member-state-eu
Ensures Europe stays of the track Britain wants it to be on

Britain’s ideal for the European Union is a union that is founded upon free trade; an economic not a political block. The agreement ensures that the European Union remains on this path in two ways. First through agreement on competitiveness where members pledged the “lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs on economic operators, especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation”.[1] Second it is explicitly stated “references [in EU treaties] to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”[2] which ensures that the UK will never have to become part of a political union but can instead remain in an economic partnership with the EU even if the EU itself moves towards political union. [1] Annex 1, p.15 [2] Annex 1, p.16
The renegotiation makes little difference

Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg described the deal as “pretty thin gruel” which hits the mark. The British Prime Minister has not been able to go nearly as far as he would like for example with his pledge on migrant benefits where Cameroon failed to ensure that all who claim must contribute to the UK for at least four years. Instead there is a break that the UK can use if migrants are putting excessive pressure on public services. Meanwhile Cameron failed to get anything at all on the Working Time Directive that restricts working hours in the EU.[1] More important is what Cameron did not even demand; greater democracy in the EU, bringing power back to national parliaments, or opting out or significant changes to common agricultural and fisheries policies. [1] Foster, Peter, ‘EU deal: What David Cameron asked for… and what he actually got’, The Telegraph, 20 February 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12136337/EU-deal-What-David-Cameron-asked-for-Brussels-Brexit.html
The deal makes no difference to migration

David Cameron failed to even negotiate on the area that the people of the UK most want changed; cutting migration. The only way to do this is to end freedom of movement through the Schengen agreement; something that was never on the table. As a result the changes are minor ones to benefits which the Office for Budgetary Responsibility has said “changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows” indeed “In my opinion: not much”.[1] Polling by ComRes within days of the agreement showed that 53% of the British public believe there will be no change in migration as a result of the deal while roughly equal numbers think it will increase as decrease; 21% to 22%.[2] [1] May, John, and Whale, Sebastian, ‘OBR: Four-year ban on benefits 'unlikely' to cut EU immigration significantly’, Politics Home, 8 December 2015, https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/story/obr-four-year-ban-benefits-unlikely-cut-eu-immigration-significantly [2] Slack, James, ‘A complete failure: Voters offer damning verdict on PM's Europe deal with three-quarters claiming migration will not change as a result of his reforms - and could even increase’, 24 February 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3461236/A-complete-failure-Voters-offer-damning-verdict-PM-s-Europe-deal-three-quarters-claiming-migration-not-change-increase-result-reforms.html
The renegotiation agreement could yet fall through

At the moment is simply an agreement between the leaders of the states within the EU. Until it is written into treaties the agreement is vulnerable. There are two ways in which it could fall through or be changed. The first is for the European Court to declare part of it incompatible with the EU treaties. The Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove has argued "The facts are that the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement until treaties are changed and we don't know when that will be".[1] The second is that the European Parliament still needs to approve as would any legislature when given a proposal by the executive branch.[2] Members of the European Parliament have refused to rule out that it could be rejected.[3] Even then nothing is secure until there is treaty change as the only way the agreement can be legally binding “would be through Treaty amendment, or the equivalent agreement of a Protocol.”[4] [1] ‘EU reforms ‘not legally binding’ – Michael Gove’, BBC News, 24 February 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35646004 [2] Peers, Steve, ‘The draft UK/EU renegotiation deal: is it ‘legally binding and irreversible’?’, EU Law Analysis, 10 February 2016, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-draft-ukeu-renegotiation-deal-is-it.html [3] Stone, Jon, ‘David Cameron’s EU deal can’t be legally binding, EU Parliament president Martin Schulz says’, Independent, 16 February 2016, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-eu-deal-cant-be-legally-binding-eu-parliament-president-martin-schulz-says-a6876861.html [4] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/european-scrutiny-committee/news-parliament-20151/eu-renegotiation-report-published-15-16/
A fundamental change to Britain’s relationship with Europe

While it is quite correct that the UK should not have to be signed up to taking part in a European super-state the renegotiation does not represent a big leap forward. With its’ opt outs that are not time limited the UK was already not further integrating with the EU. The change to accepting the de facto truth is not a big one. Allowing national parliaments a say may have a long term impact, but under the current mechanism it means almost nothing. It seems unlikely that 55% of member states national governments (which of course signed the deal) are ever going to lose in their parliaments. The bar is raised even higher by their being a time limit of 12 weeks.
Secures a special place for the UK

A minor addition to what the UK has is hardly securing a special place for the UK. Moreover there is no reason to keep such a position if it is not working for Britain. The renegotiation deal did not succeed in making the EU work how Britain would like – a move back to greater national sovereignty – so Britain is better off out. Indeed some, such as former Conservative leader Michael Howard argue “There is only one thing that just might shake Europe’s leaders out of their complacency: the shock of a vote by the British people to leave… If the UK voted to leave, there would be a significant chance that they would ask us to think again [with greater concessions].”[1]   [1] Howard, Michael, ‘David Cameron’s reform bid has failed – it’s time to go’, The Telegraph, 25 February 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12173888/Michael-Howard-David-Camerons-reform-bid-has-failed-its-time-to-go.html
Ensures Europe stays of the track Britain wants it to be on

The only way to ensure that the UK does not become part of a political union is to leave entirely. The European Scrutiny Committee of the UK Parliament has concluded that the “ever closer union” is largely symbolic so guarantees against it amount to little.[1] Meanwhile the pledges about competitiveness are vague. It leaves as an open question what are the administrative burdens that are going to be lowered or what legislation might be repealed. Without specifics is it likely that any such repeal will take place? [1] European Scrutiny Committee, ‘Voters must know EU changes will require Treaty amendment’, parliament.uk, 15 December 2015, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/european-scrutiny-committee/news-parliament-20151/eu-renegotiation-report-published-15-16/
The deal makes no difference to migration

Migration is a benefit to the UK financially. Most migrants don’t claim benefits which is why such benefit rules changes will not make much difference. Cutting migration would be easier outside the European Union however even then there is unlikely to be scope to cut migration as far as skeptics want. Net migration from outside the EU in year ending September 2015 was 191,000[1] far above the Conservative target to get migration below 100,000. [1] White, Nicola, ‘Migration Statistics Quarterly Report: February 2016’, ons.gov.uk, 25 February 2016, http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/february2016
The renegotiation agreement could yet fall through

Neither are at all likely. Gove’s opinion has been rejected by the Attorney General saying “It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European court must take it into account. The job of the European court is to interpret the agreements”.[1] Similarly the European Parliament is very unlikely to reject the deal which has been agreed by the leaders of all member states. MEPs have generally shown support for the UK remaining in Europe and the leader of the EPP, the biggest group, has stated “We support the core of the agreement.”[2] [1] Mason, Rowena, ‘Attorney general rejects Gove claim that EU deal is not legally binding’, The Guardian, 24 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/24/european-court-challenge-cameron-deal-michael-gove [2] European parliament web team, ‘EU Referendum: MEPs Debate the UK's European Future’, Huffington Post, 25 February 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/european-parliament-web-team/eu-referendum-meps-debate_b_9313790.html