The overwhelming overlapping map of poverty and conservation area of the world (Sunderlin et al. 2007) led the scientist in this arena to think about these two issues jointly. In addition right-based thinking of conservation is also a crucial factor behind the amalgamation of these two development process (Adams and Hutton 2007). Naturally protected areas initiated or situated in the rural or peri-urban areas where poverty is already present to the highest degree (Walpole and Wilder 2008). In other way in can be said that acute poverty near the conservation site or protected area make it more vulnerable or threatened due to resource extraction for livelihood purpose (Adams et al. 2004). In this regard Walpole and Wilder (2008) states, “conservation and poverty reduction are different societal goals that in particular contexts may come together in mutually supportive or conﬂicting ways”. Whereas Fisher et al. (2005) states “in many ways linking conservation with poverty reduction is more of an art than a science”.
Against this background world leaders tried to address this link in several international treaties. The Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted in 2002 sets the target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. In addition, Goal 1 target 1A of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aims to “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day” while target 7B, to “reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss” was specifically included since 2006 in Goal 7 (ensure environmental sustainability) with additional biodiversity indicators. Furthermore, “ecosystem services underpinning welfare and livelihoods, particularly (although not exclusively) of the poor” was central to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 (Roe and Elliott 2004; Adams and Hutton 2007; Billé et al. 2012).
In the subsequent sections of this essay the constraints (tension) and potentials (synergies) around coupling of biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation will be discussed. Insights and arguments will be drawn from two analytical case studies. Finally state-of-the art scenarios around this debate will be tried to formulate in the concluding section.
Opponents of the idea of blending poverty and conservation together argue that, these two are completely different problems caused by separate reasons and should be treated independently (Sanderson and Redford 2003; Kiss 2004; Terborgh 2004; cited in Walpole and Wilder 2008). Brandon (1998) (cited in Adams and Hutton 2007) suggests that “parks were unfairly being made responsible for curing structural problems such as poverty, unequal land and resource allocation, corruption, injustice and market...