Prolonged conflicts and a destruction regime during 1975-1979 left a legacy of ravaged economy in Cambodia. The process of development of the economy had been disrupted by internal strife until 1998. Cambodia has since enjoyed full peace, and at the same time macro-economic stability and impressive economic growth. The average growth rate of real GDP was 9.56 percent during 1999-2005. Yet, there is no room for complacency. As a poor country, Cambodia is still faced with serious development challenges. The poverty problem is serious in rural areas.

Improving living standards of the poor rural households is the primary focus of this study. Hence, understanding their livelihoods is important for formulation of appropriate and affective policies. The fact about a preponderance of rice production in agriculture in Cambodia and assumption that rural households carry out activities beyond farming to make up their livelihoods prompt the author to look into and capture livelihoods of rice farming households in rural Cambodia with the aim of exploring policy implications which would benefit them. The results of this study would reflect a main priority in rural development strategy whose ultimate goal is to raise incomes of the rural population. And, the significance of this is to allow poor rural households to take part in the process of achieving this goal.

As an approach to collecting data for analysis, surveys were conducted in the largest rice producing province in terms of average volume of paddy production calculated in three years (2002-2004). Takeo province, located in the plain zone of the country, became the survey area.

This thesis consists of 5 chapters. Chapter 1, first, states the general objective and defines a method for selecting the study area. Then, this chapter discusses the importance of agriculture in Cambodian economy and conditions under which agricultural growth does not bring about significant reduction in poverty in general. The chapter also provides some background on rice production in Cambodia, and briefly reviews concepts of rural livelihoods. The central part of a livelihoods analysis is defined in the final part of the chapter, leading to defining the scope of the study on livelihoods in rural Cambodia. Chapter 2 analyzes rice production and pattern of livelihood activities at micro-level aimed at painting the picture of rural livelihoods in Cambodia. Chapter 3 examines the contribution of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) to farmers' efforts to improve their livelihoods. The extent to which farm households capitalize on SRI to enhance their livelihoods is explored through analysis of rice area cultivated with SRI practices and converted to other farming, as well as through analysis of income from SRI contribution. Chapter 4 looks at farmers' perceptions with respect to constraints to rice production as well as to diversification into other activities. Chapter 5, the final chapter, draws conclusions for policy implications.

The analysis is carried out across three farm-size classes - small (<1ha), medium (1-2ha) and large (>2ha) - based on the supposition that households in different farm-size groups choose different means of living. Some conclusions are drawn from the study with policy implications as-follows:

Agriculture remains the most important source of income of all farm households, and, hence, size of landholding is an important determinant of welfare of farm households. Farm households that capitalize on relatively large size of landholding and especially own both wet and dry season landholding build their livelihoods based principally on rice farming. Rice is the subsistence crop for the small- and some medium-sized farm households. Their livelihoods still rely on agricultural activities though they diversify their income sources into non-farm activities which are limited to small-scale business and migration activities given a scarcity of non-farm wage or salary employment opportunities in rural areas. Small farm households are poor not only because they are small landholders but also because they engage in low return non-farm activities that have relatively low entry barriers in terms of little capital asset requirement.

Introduction of SRI could be beneficial to the farmers. Among other benefits, SRI application leads to water savings, fewer pest and disease attacks, and especially increase in yields and improvement in factor productivity. This could help solve the main problems currently faced by the farmers in their rice production including water, incidence of pests and high cost of fertilizers. But, as the major requirement for SRI is skill, there are challenges in application of SRI, including such as difficulty with water management. Nonetheless, given the lack of financial resources, the fact that profitability of rice production could be increased through SRI application could be a factor motivating small farmers as poor farmers to choose to apply SRI, and expand the application on their whole rice fields. Thus, the introduction as well as dissemination of SRI should be augmented. The dissemination should take the form of visit programmes, which accord importance to the opportunity that farmers have of observing the practices as well as achievements of the farmers who apply SRI.

Policies to help improve living standards of the poor households should be directed to improvement in productivity in their existing activities, and to increasing the capital assets available to them. In this sense, the policies should focus on the continued efforts to improve productivity in their agricultural activities. But, it is essential that policies help guarantee that the farmers will not lose their main productive asset 'land' through distress sales. While non-farm economy has not developed to provide employment opportunities, the agriculture will remain the most important source of livelihoods in rural areas for the foreseeable future. And, it is the agricultural growth that possibly puts in motion development of non-farm rural economy.

For the betterment of farm households' livelihoods in rural areas of Cambodia policies need to tackle land concentration, increase productivity of rice farming and expand livestock husbandry, and at the same time to facilitate income diversification. Policies focusing on dissemination of SRI, irrigation, infrastructure, credit and animal health service expansion would be of benefit to the small as well as poor farm households. Finally, for the current situation of rural Cambodia, agricultural diversification and agro-industry need to emerge as they are seen to be an effective way providing poor farm households with increases in incomes and employment opportunities.

（和訳）

　1975－79年に及ぶ長い内戦はカンボジア経済に破滅的な遺産となり、経済開発は1998まで混乱が続いた。 以後、カンボジアは完全な平和とマクロ経済の安定、経済成長を享受できるようになり、1999－2005の平均ＧＤＰ成長率は9.56％となった。 しかし、それは未だ満足できるものではなく、カンボジアは引き続き農村の貧困問題はじめ開発の課題に直面している。

　農村の生活水準の向上が本研究の第一の焦点である。 したがって生計の実態の理解は、適切で効果的な政策形成のために重要である。 カンボジアの農業生産並びに食生活における米の比重の重さから、本研究は農家の生計改善に資する政策研究の意図の下に、 カンボジアの米農業と農家生計を考察することとした。 この研究結果は、農村における所得向上という根本的な開発戦略にとって緊急性の高いものである。 また、重要なことは目標達成の過程に農家自身が参加することである。

　調査や分析は、平坦部に位置する最大の米生産地区、タケオ地区において2002－2004年の３年間について実施された。

　この論文は５章からなり、第1章では、全体の研究目標と調査地選定の方法を明確にした後、 カンボジア経済における農業の重要性と農業の成長が必ずしも農村の貧困削減に寄与していない一般的状況について検討した。 この章ではまた、カンボジア米生産の概況並びに農村生計の概念に関する研究史レビューも行った。 第２章では、カンボジアにおける農村生計の実態を把握するために米生産と生計活動のパターンについてミクロレベルの分析を行った。 第３章は米集約生産システム（ＳＲＩ）の農家生計改善への寄与について検討した。 農家がＳＲＩを生計の向上に生かす程度は、ＳＲＩの実施地域とそれに転換した地域の分析、並びに所得への寄与の分析から考察した。 第４章は、米生産及び活動多角化への制約に関する農家の認識について考察した。 最後に第５章は、政策的な示唆を得るための結論を導いた。

　分析は、規模の違いが生計活動の違いをもたらすとの仮定の下に、３つの農家規模－小規模（１ha未満）、中規模（１－２ha）、 大規模（２ha以上）の分類によって行った。 政策的示唆へつながるいくつかの結論は、以下のようなものである。

　農業はすべての農家所得の最重要な源泉であり、したがって、農地規模は農家の厚生を決める重要な要素である。 比較的大きな規模を持ち、とりわけ乾期と雨期の両方で生計を立てられる農家は米生産だけに依拠している。 米は小規模・中規模農家にとっては、自給用作物で、生計は農村での農外の賃労働や小さな自営業、出稼ぎなどに依存している。 小規模農家は、単に規模が小さいからだけではなく、資産が無くても参入できる農外雇用が低賃金であることの結果として低所得となっている。

　ＳＲＩの導入は、水の節約、病虫害の減少、収量増加、要素生産性向上の点から農家に有益である。 これは、現在、農家が直面している主要な課題（水、病虫害、そして肥料価格）の解決に寄与する。 しかし、ＳＲＩの主要な要件はスキルであり、水管理の難しさをはじめＳＲＩの適用には課題もある。 にもかかわらず、資金のない状況では、ＳＲＩの適用を通じた米収益性の向上は、小規模農家にとって生産全体に広げる誘因となる。 故に、ＳＲＩの導入と普及は、議論されねばならない。 普及にあたっては、農業者がＳＲＩ適用農家の実績と技術を見ることのできる訪問プログラムが採用されるべきである。

　貧しい農家の生活水準を改善する政策は、彼らの活動の生産性を向上と同時に、利用可能な資金の増加に向けられるべきである。 この意味で、政策が農業活動の生産性向上への継続的な努力に焦点を当てることは重要である。 しかし、政策は、農業者が差し押さえから農地を失うことの無いよう保証することが特に重要である。 農業以外の経済が雇用を提供できない現状では、当分の間、農業が農村地域の生計の最も重要な源泉で有り続ける。 また、農外の経済の発展を導くのも農業の成長である。

　カンボジアの農村地域における農家の生計の改善のために、政策は土地の集中、米の生産性向上、畜産の拡大、 同時に所得源の多角化に取り組む必要がある。 ＳＲＩの普及、灌漑、基盤整備、金融、家畜衛生サービスの拡大などに焦点を当てた政策は、小規模や貧しい農家に有益である。 最後に、カンボジア農村の現状は、貧しい農家に雇用と所得を提供する上で有効であるという意味で、 農業の多角化、農業関連産業の成長が必要である。