Although there are currently only local laws for the protection of this species, which doesn’t really provide enough pressure on the poachers as they are motivated by greed from larger market forces where the demand comes from other areas of the world.

Thus, international laws that ban the poaching of Javan rhinos could be put into effect so as to deter poachers with punishment(s) and incentive(s) integrated into the laws (Gardner & Stern, 2002). Punishment for poachers could be fining them financially and also caning them publicly so as to make it costlier when caught than when they successfully poach a rhino.

Incentives could also be integrated in a law in such a way that any rhino that is found far away from its natural habitat should be notified through the local animal conservation organisation, and the person who reported it will be rewarded with a small but substantial amount of financial benefit (Money enough for 2 to 4 decent meals) (This is based on the concerned of the development of intrinsic motivation as opposed to reliance on extrinsic motivation) or social recognition. The animal conservation organisation would then guide the lost rhino back to its natural habitat using environmentally friendly methods.

International laws could also ban the possession and trading of Rhino related products, fining those that possess or consume them.

This could be supplemented by laws that promote whistleblowers, like guaranteed confidentiality reporting of such crimes, and after report is validated, the whistleblowers would gain a small but substantial monetary reward. Moreover, another law should also be put in effect that allows those that possess such products to initiate the surrendering of such products to local authorities so as to provide a chance for possessors to absolve themselves from such crimes. Thus, those that do not initiate surrender of such products and who are caught will suffer the full penalty of the law.

After such international laws are enacted, they would have to be regulated and enforced. A local enforcement example would be the Rhino Protection Units formed to patrol the Ujung Kulon National Park, which consists of 4-person anti-poaching teams, who are tasked with the monitoring of threatened wildlife, deactivation of traps and snares, identification and apprehend illegal intruders, and investigation of poaching scenes (International Rhino Foundation, 2017) (Brook, Coeverden de Groot, Mahood, 2011) (Murphy, 2004).

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the enforcement of the laws regarding the banning of rhino related products would be much dependent on the public, and would be most effective when tapping into community support. Alternatively, the local conservation organisation could collaborate with the local governing authorities to set up a special wild life products illegal possession units that is specialized in searching of homes, and other areas that are suspected of criminal activity.

However, to note, all these aforementioned laws are not without loopholes, and could be bypass with human ingenuity, thus, only with the help of the local community, better incentives that align with people’s interests and constant enforcement patrols, would these laws realise their potential in creating a safer environment for these Javan Rhinos.

 

Yes, you may have come to the conclusion by now that laws without the obedience and support from the people can be rather ineffective as people try to avoid punishment by exploiting loop holes. Thus, the support of the people would be crucial if the laws are to be effective. This brings us to the next type of intervention below: