See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343390925

Crop Insurance in India: Evolution, Issues and Way Forward

Article in Journal of Critical Reviews · July 2020

CITATIONS READS

6 9,733

2 authors:

Paul Mansingh Jeyabalasingh Nisha .A

VIT University VIT University
33 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Mansingh Jeyabalasingh on 03 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

Crop Insurance in India: Evolution, Issues and Way

Forward

Paul Mansingh, J.1, Nisha A2

1
Associate Professor, VIT School of Agricultural Innovations and Advanced Learning [VAIAL],
Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore – 632014, Tamil Nadu, India
2
Assistant Professor, VIT School of Agricultural Innovations and Advanced Learning [VAIAL],
Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore – 632014, Tamil Nadu, India
1
[email protected] ; [email protected] ,[email protected] ; [email protected]

Received: 05 May 2020 Revised: and Accepted: 15 July 2020

ABSTRACT: Though India has achieved self-sufficiency in food grain production through the advancement of
modern technologies the incomes of the farmers have not improved much and unstable because of natural
catastrophes and price fluctuations. Farmers primarily face yield risk due to weather variability. The resource-
poor farmers and landless agricultural laborers who have extremely limited means and resources are vulnerable
in the absence of insurance mechanisms. Therefore, crop insurance is needed to address the issue of yield risk in
the farm sector. The history of crop insurance in the pre-independence period goes back to the Dashuri tax
introduced by the Mughal emperor Akbar. Few schemes were operated from 1920 to 1947 and were
discontinued due to financial constraints. After independence, pilot crop insurance schemes were tried during
1972-78. Since then various schemes like Comprehensive Crop Insurance, Experimental Crop Insurance
Scheme, Pilot Scheme on Seed Crop Insurance, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, Weather-based Crop
Insurance Scheme, Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, Other crop-specific insurance schemes,
National Crop Insurance Programme were tried till 2016. From 2016, the “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”
crop insurance scheme is in operation. This paper presents the evolution of crop insurance in India and the
challenges encountered in each scheme from pre-independence times to the present day. Finally, based on the
shortcomings reported and experiences learned, suggestions for effective implementation of the crop insurance
schemes are presented.
KEYWORDS: Agricultural Insurance, Crop Insurance, India, Insurance, PMFBY, Risk in agriculture, Weather
index insurance.

I. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture and allied sectors share 15.87% of the country's GDP in 2018-19 [1]. Its economic contribution was
more than the world's average (6.4%) [2]. About 70 percent of its rural households depend on agriculture and
allied sectors for their livelihood [3]. The World Bank report [4] reveals that there is a decreasing trend in
employment in agriculture. In 2008 it was 53.1 percent and declined to 43.9 percent in 2018. In India, from 138
million operational farm-holdings in 2010-11, it increased to 146 million in 2015-16 i.e., an increase of 5.33
percent [5]. Among the farming community in India, 82 percent are small and marginal farmers who possess
less than two hectares (5 acres) of land [3]. Even though they are the majority, only 47.3 percent of the crop area
is owned by them. There is a declining trend in the average landholding size from 1.15 hectares in 2010–11 to
1.08 hectares in 2015–16 [5].
Despite these, the food grain production in India was increased over the years and attained self-sufficiency
through the adoption of modern scientific technologies. But, farming is subjected to natural calamities and price
fluctuations as a result the situation of the farmers has not been improved and it remains unstable [6]. Frequent
failure of crops, lack of remunerative prices for produce, and poor return on investment are the major problems
in the agricultural sector [4].

2851
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

The liberalization of economic policies after 1991 opened the economy to global market forces which
encouraged the commercialization of agriculture. Commercialization leads to change in cultivation from staple
crops to highly remunerative cash crops that made farming more capital intensive [7]. The report of All India
Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS) [8] revealed farmers are trapped in the debt compared to others not
engaged in farming [9]. Farmers‟ suicide was reported as 39 percent in 2015. The main reason for farmers‟
suicide was indebtedness arises through increased cost of cultivation from commercial cropping to meet the
market requirements due to globalization [10].

II. Need for Crop Insurance

Extreme temperature and rainfall shocks caused a decline in crop yield during both Kharif and Rabi seasons [9].
Climate change affects agricultural productivity [11]. Two types of risks are common in Indian agriculture [12]
– yield risk (uncertainty of crop yield) due to weather variability [13; 12] and price risk. Even though farmers
practice traditional risk management methods [14; 15; 16] by diversifying less risky and less profitable crops by
The resource-poor farmers and landless agricultural laborers who have extremely limited means and resources
[13] are vulnerable in the absence of insurance mechanisms [18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24]. The compensations in
the form of relief packages given by the government during natural calamities suffered severe limitations [12].
Therefore, crop insurance is needed to address the issue of yield risk in the agricultural sector.

What is Crop Insurance?

Crop insurance is an arrangement of pooling risk based on the principle of „large number‟. The insurance
company collects premiums from all policyholders and compensates for the persons who incurred loss [25].
Thus, the risk is managed in two ways. One through distributing across space that means the losses of farmers in
one area is compensated by the farmers in other areas. Second, distributing across time by compensating with
the reserves of the insurance company that are accumulated through premiums collected in normal years [26].
The corpus fund is created by the government and is supplemented by the insurer through the interest income
accrued by investing the resources gainfully [25].

III. Benefits of crop insurance

The attitude of the farmer is changed when he insured the crop [27] and permits him to take risks in farming
which he would not have taken if not insured [17] because taking risks affects capital investment in farming
through allocating the resources sub-optimally [14]. Thus, access to formal insurance helps the farmers to
protect the losses from risks, safeguard, and increase farm income [26].
The compensations received in case of crop failure help the farmer to pay the loans obtained through formal
credit institutions in time. Thus, crop insurance increases the credit rating of the farmer by preventing him
becomes a defaulter of loan [28; 29; 30]. Moral hazard incentives associated with insurance sometimes led
insured farmers to use fewer chemical inputs [31], decrease nitrogen fertilizer applications [32], and influenced
maize farmers' chemical use decisions [33]. Thus, a properly structured and executed crop insurance scheme
avoids fluctuations and brings stability in the farm incomes [34] and bridges the gap between income and
consumption requirements during periods of crop losses or crop failures [35].

IV. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The method of data collection entirely relies on secondary sources. It includes a wider range of subjects at
various levels for its completeness and comprehensiveness. For this purpose, the relevant literature including
past and recent were reviewed and organized thematically into the evolution of crop insurance and issues
encountered in each scheme and way forward. The evolution of crop insurance and challenges encountered in
each scheme from pre-independence times to present-day were explained for clear understanding by suitably
categorized each scheme.

V. DISCUSSION
Evolution of crop insurance in India

2852
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

Pre-independence period
The origin of crop insurance in the pre-independence period goes back to the Dashuri tax introduced by the
Mughal emperor Akbar and times when land revenue was suspended or canceled during crop failures [25]. In
1920, a rain insurance scheme for the then Mysore state was drafted by J.S. Chakravarti [30; 25] which was
area-based and rain-gauge station-specific. In 1943, in Dewas at Madhya Pradesh, a compulsory insurance
scheme was introduced [25]. Besides, private agencies also sold insurance products to tea growers [36]. The
situation of indebtedness prevailed in Madras during 1946 necessitated Narainswami Naidu to recommend a
crop insurance scheme based on the U.S.A model [37]. The lack of financial resources did not allow the state of
Madras to implement the scheme [25].

Proposed Pilot Schemes

The Government of India (GoI) appointed an officer on special duty in 1948 to formulate experimental
insurance schemes for crop and cattle. The GoI drafted two pilot insurance schemes and instructed all States to
implement it. The states did not implement the scheme for a lack of financial resources. [38]. Again in October
1965, the Government of India prepared a Model Scheme of Crop Insurance and circulated among all the States
for review. There was no consensus on the draft among the States and the views of the States differ from the
GoI. Therefore, the GoI formed an expert committee as Dr. Dharm Narain as chairman in March 1970 and
referred the Bill and the Model Scheme of Crop Insurance for review. In 1971, the committee recommended not
to implement the crop insurance scheme immediately because of the financial burden on the public exchequer
[38]. Further, the committee reported that the existing and proposed formal credit institutions and the
guidelines of Reserve Bank of India were sufficient to meet and enhance credit availability and compensate for
the crop loss of the farmers due to natural calamities [25].

Experimental crop insurance schemes 1972-1978 (First Individual Approach Scheme)

The failure of the government at the farmers‟ level to protect and compensate the crop losses of the farmers
paved way for the voluntary evolution of crop insurance [25; 38]. In 1970-71, the „4-P-Plan‟ of practices and
plant protection on the potato crop, and in 1971-72, Hybrid-cotton introduced needed input-intensive cultivation
practices that need more credit. Therefore, the Gujarat State Fertilizer Company (GSFC) along with Life
Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India and the Bank of Baroda facilitated loans to meet the credit requirement,
and insurance coverage for the farmers to protect the loss of income from crop failure. Subsequently, the scheme
was transferred to General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) for execution [39; 40; 13; 41; 42]. The scheme
was based on the "Individual Approach". The scheme continued till 1978-79. The scheme was found to be non-
viable because it had a total premium collection of Rs. 4.54 lakhs against claims of Rs.37.88 lakhs. The claims
exceeded the total premium collection. It was non-popular since it covered only 3110 farmers [43]. Rashtriya
Chemicals and Fertilisers Company also introduced a crop insurance scheme for cotton during 1978–79 in
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra that covered 909 farmers.
General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) executed all the schemes on an experimental basis across the
states from the beginning of 1973 to 1976 that included cotton, wheat, groundnut, and potato crops with a total
of 2,154 farmers [38]. These schemes stipulated the participation of the farmers is purely voluntary. The
assessment of losses was at the individual farmer level. The financial performances of these schemes were not
satisfactory at all [25]. The evaluation of these schemes revealed that the assessment of the losses at the
individual farmer level throughout the nation was impractical [38].

Pilot Crop Insurance Scheme - PCIS (1979-84)

GIC came up with a scheme following the suggestions of Professor Dandekar. The scheme differed from the
previously followed individual approach by adopting the area approach. This scheme was introduced in 1979-80
as a pilot scheme in three states only. In the year 1984-85, it was expanded to twelve states. Farmers were not
compelled to insure the crops and it was left to their choice. The crop can be insured for the entire crop loan
amount. Later it was increased to 150 percent of the crop loan amount [26; 25; 45; 43]. The premium rate
charged to the farmers ranged from 5 to 10 percent. Small and marginal farmers are allowed for a 50 percent
subsidy on the insurance premium amount. The subsidy component was shared by the State and Central
Governments equally. The scheme adopted the "Area Approach". The scheme covered cereals, millets, oilseeds,
cotton, potato, and gram. The scheme was meant for loanee farmers alone on a voluntary basis. The risk was
shared by the General Insurance Corporation of India and State Governments in the ratio of 2:1. This scheme

2853
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

was in place till 1984-85. From its inception to closure 6.27 lakh farmers insured their crops, paid Rs.196.95
lakhs as premium, and claimed Rs.157.05 lakhs as compensation [43].
The major issue in this scheme was that majority of the small and marginal farmers could not avail of this
scheme due to lack of access to institutional credit as the crop insurance scheme was linked to crop loan. The
low awareness of crop insurance scheme, a large unit of insurance, and non-inclusion of major cash crops like
cotton and sugarcane were the other reasons for the failure of this scheme. Besides, the major part of the
premium i.e.79.83 percent was utilized for claims settlement [40].

Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme - CCIS (1985 - 1999)

So far the crop insurance schemes were designed and executed on an experimental and or pilot basis i.e. in a
small geographical area and in an isolated manner. In 1985-86, CCIS was introduced on a nation-wide scale
[38]. It is different from the PCIS in the sense that this scheme was compulsory for the farmers who availed
short-term loans from cooperative agencies, regional rural banks, and commercial banks [40]. The premium was
deducted from the loan amount by the bank and was paid to GIC. Thus, insurance was an integral part of the
loan. The premium rates were low [30; 46; 13; 12].
The scheme operated on the „homogeneous area‟ basis [30]. The insurance scheme became credit insurance
instead of crop insurance since it was linked with short-term crop loans [43]. This scheme covered five crops
viz., rice, wheat, millets, pulses, and oilseeds [45]. The crop was insured for the crop loan amount subject to a
maximum ceiling of Rs.10, 000 per individual farmer [43]. The sum assured was stipulated as 150 percent of the
crop loan amount. A uniform premium rate of 2 percent of the insured sum for cereal crops and 1 percent for
pulses and oilseeds crops was stipulated throughout the country. [45; 12]. Small and marginal farmers were
benefitted through a 50% subsidy component [47] that was shared by the state and central governments in the
ratio of 1:2 [43].
During 1998-99, only 5.6 percent of the farmers availed crop insurance. The area under crop insurance was 5.6
percent of the gross cropped area [38]. The total number of farmers insured their crops from the inception till
Kharif season 1999 revealed the non-viability of the scheme even though the insurance scheme was popular
[43]. The defects of this scheme reported by Jain [48] were adoption of area-based approach, insurance coverage
for farmers who have obtained loans from institutional sources, uniform premium rate fixed throughout the
country, included only a few crops for insurance coverage and delayed payments of claims. Shortages in the
number of crop cutting experiments (CCEs) contributed to delay and some cases non-payment of claims because
of the delay in merging two or three defined areas to assess the indemnity [38].
There was always a discrepancy in the net sown area reported by the government agencies and the area insured.
The area insured was greater than the net sown area since the inception of crop insurance schemes [12]. This
problem was prevalent in groundnut crop in some districts of Gujarat [38]. However, the issue of area
discrepancy was rectified through the area correction factor by AIC [12].
As per MoA [38] the sum insured, premium, and indemnity during 1985–86 to 1999 totaled Rs 24,975 crores,
Rs 403.5 crores, and Rs 2,319 crores, respectively. The losses were reported in 27 out of 29 seasons. Except in
two Rabi seasons, the indemnity payment was more than the premium received during the period. The
indemnity payment was six times the premium received. The loss cost and claims ratio was 9.29:5.75 percent.
These show that the CCIS was financially unviable. The ceiling for the sum insured was fixed as Rs 10,000 per
farmer, irrespective of the size of the loan and farm size. This was also considered as a defect by the farmers
[38].

Experimental Crop Insurance Scheme (1997-1998)

Small and marginal farmers who do not avail of crop loans from institutional sources left out in the previous
schemes were also included in this scheme. This scheme was implemented in 14 districts of five states. This
scheme was operated with a 100 percent subsidy on the premium that was shared by the central and state
governments in the ratio of 4:1. This scheme covered all small and marginal farmers. Otherwise, it was the same
replica of CCIS [40; 43]. The claims paid were higher (Rs. 37.80 crores) than the premiums received (Rs. 2.84
crores). The scheme had on roll 454555 farmers with a total sum insured of Rs. 168.11 crores [43]. The scheme
was withdrawn after implemented for a season due to administrative and financial issues [38].

Pilot Scheme on Seed Crop Insurance (1999 - 00)

2854
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

This multiple-peril scheme was introduced during the 1999-2000 Rabi season to encourage the
breeders/institutions/organizations/seed growers in seed production. The main purpose of this scheme was to
cover the risks in seed production at the field level, compensate for the loss in seed yield, and post-harvest loss.
The production of „foundation‟ and „certified‟ seeds for State Seed Certification Agency (SSCA) was included
under the scheme. The production of „breeder‟ seed was eligible only when it was carried out under the
supervision of the designated monitoring committee. The sum insured was calculated based on the preceding
three/five year‟s average seed yield. The sum insured may be enhanced up to 150 percent of the seed yield
accrued after processing and tagging [39; 13; 49; 41; 38].

National Agricultural Insurance Scheme - NAIS (1999 - 2007)

After years of thinking, experiments, and experiences, and to solve the problems encountered during the
execution of CCIS and to meet the expectations of the states regarding the enhanced scope and content of CCIS,
a wider-scope National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) was implemented in 1999-2000 Rabi season [43;
38]. Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd (AIC) incorporated in December 2002 and started working
from April 2003 took over the execution of NAIS [40]. This scheme used an “area approach” to assess
widespread calamities and “individual approach” for localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone,
and floods [40].
This scheme was compulsory for the farmers who obtained a loan from institutional sources and it was optional
for other farmers. There was a slight inclination towards the actuarial regime. The formula used to work out
threshold yield was also changed [25; 12; 49]. The Threshold Yield (TY) or Guaranteed Yield for rice and
wheat was estimated by multiplying the moving average of the past three years‟ average yield by the level of
indemnity. For other crops, the moving average of five years‟ average yield was considered. Three levels of
indemnity, viz., 90 percent, 80 percent, and 60 percent corresponding to low, medium, and high risk areas
respectively were worked out using the coefficient of variation (C.V) of past 10 years‟ yield of all crops [49].
The premium subsidy started with 50 percent for small and marginal farmers in 1999 that was equally shared by
the state and central governments, was reduced to 10 percent in 2007 [40]. If the farmer is interested the crop
can be insured 150 percent beyond the threshold yield by paying a premium at commercial rates. The actuarial
rates were applied. Crop yield was estimated based on crop cutting experiments [49].
The shortcomings of this scheme are presented as follows. In the beginning, only 3 percent of the farmers who
have no loan obligations with institutional sources insured the crops under NAIS [40]. The main flaws of the
NAIS were the scheme was financially not viable, compulsory for loanee farmers, no mechanism to prevent
adverse selection, arbitrary premiums, and estimation of loss based on area approach [74]. Gulati, Terway and
Hussain [12] reported that area discrepancy issue was not resolved in NAIS too. Further AFC [49] in its report
mentioned that the adverse selection problem emerged as a result of the uniform premium rates even though
there were differences in yield changes unpredictably in different regions and crops. The great differences in the
functioning of the credit system contributed to the disparities in crop insurance coverage in different states. The
average premium was higher (2.98 %) in NAIS than in CCIS (1.62%). The share to the premium and the
indemnity achieved more balance in NAIS than in CCIS. In CCIS, a single crop namely groundnut had more
share to indemnity (53%) than premium (19%) [38].

Weather Based Crop Insurance (WBCIS) - 2007

About 95 percent of the crop loss claims in India during the period 1985-2003 were attributed to rainfall issues.
Of which 85 percent of them were due to a shortage of rainfall and 10% by excess rainfall [25; 12]. It was
reported that 50 percent of the variations in crop yield was due to variations in rainfall [50]. Apart from rainfall,
the other parameters responsible for affecting crop production are soil moisture, sunlight, and temperature. In
2003-04, the higher temperature at the time of critical stages of cultivation and germination incurred a loss of
approximately 4 million metric tonnes of wheat production [25].

Weather index-based crop insurance was another insurance instrument developed to cover losses in crop yield
triggered by adverse weather parameters [43; 41]. The loss was estimated and compensated by adopting an area
approach. For crop loss assessment, a Reference Unit Area (RUA) deemed to be a homogenous area was framed
and linked with a Reference Weather Station (RWS). The claims were assessed based on the weather parameters
observed and recorded by the RWS. The adverse weather conditions determine the pay-out based on the weather
trigger mentioned in the „Pay-out Structure‟ and the other guidelines of the scheme. The claim settlement was

2855
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

automated as per the weather observations recorded in the RWS. The pay-out assessed in a RUA was the same
forall the farmers under the same RWS [43; 38].
Crop insurance based on a composite rainfall index for Groundnut and Castor crops was introduced by ICICI–
Lombard General Insurance Company during 2003-04 in Mahboobnagar district in Andhra Pradesh. „Varsha
Bima‟, was a rainfall-based insurance scheme introduced by Agricultural Insurance Corporation (AIC) during
the southwest monsoon season in 2004. This scheme had five different options namely sowing failure, rainfall
distribution index, seasonal rainfall index, agronomically optimum rainfall, and catastrophe cover. The
compensation was paid when the actual rainfall in a season falls short of the stipulated percentage of normal
rainfall of the area. In 2004, IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company (ITGI) introduced „Barish Bima‟ an
index-based weather insurance scheme in nine districts in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, and
Maharashtra. The loss in crop yield due to excessive and deficit rainfall in a particular area was compensated
under this scheme [25; 13].
The cst of expected inputs to be used in the cultivation of crops was covered. The sum insured was calculated
based on the cost of inputs and therefore it was pre-determined per unit area. The AIC declares the amount
before the onset of each season for various crops in different RUA. The premium to be paid by the farmers was
fixed at 1.5% or actuarial rate, whichever was less for wheat and 2.0% or actuarial rate, whichever was less for
other cereals, millets, pulses and oilseeds [43]. The premium rates were determined by the actuarial rate in
WBCIS that was different from the premium rate estimation followed in NAIS [12].
There was a decline in the area insured (88%) under WBCIS from 11.1 million hectares in the 2012 Kharif
season to 1.3 million hectares in Kharif season 2016. [12]. More number of farmers did not insure their crops
under WBCIS because of the high premium rate, a complex procedure in the computation of index-based
weather products, and low density of weather stations [51]. Gulati, Terway and Hussain [12] reported that the
insurance product was faulty in design as there was no relationship between temperature and other weather
parameters and yield. Insurance companies speculated more chances of compulsory payout and increased the
actuarial rates to 70 percent to recover their losses.
Mukherjee and Pal [41] reported that higher crop loss was noticed when the crop was insured than otherwise.
This was prominent when farmers insured voluntarily. This might be due to problems of moral hazard, adverse
selection and increased transaction costs. The incidence of crop loss was higher when crops are insured than
when not insured, and the problem was more acute when crops are insured voluntarily due to moral hazard and
adverse selection problems, and higher transaction costs [52; 13]. In few districts unethical practice of altering
temperature observations recorded in the weather stations to stimulate „trigger‟. Sometimes the settlement of
claims was delayed beyond the subsequent cropping season [12].
The salient feature of this scheme was that there was no need to submit a claim form or evidence to prove crop
loss. The insured farmer put additional effort to obtain a better yield since the compensation to crop loss was
decided by weather data [43].

Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme - (MNAIS) 2010

MNAIS was introduced during the 2010–11 Rabi season on a pilot basis in selected 50 districts as per the
recommendations of the GoI Joint Group. Loanee farmers are registered compulsorily and for others, it was
optional [53]. The salient features of MNAIS were: premium rates were charged on actuarial rate, 75% subsidy
in premium to all the farmers, sharing of premium subsidy equally by the central and state government, claim
liability was vested with the insurance company, the unit area was redefined to village panchayat for major
crops, compensation for prevented sowing/planting risk and for post-harvest losses due to cyclone (in coastal
areas), payment of 25% of expected claims as immediate relief, realistic threshold yield calculation, minimum
compensation level increased to 70% from 60% under. The other features of this scheme were the presence of a
competitive environment due to private sector participation in crop insurance, the establishment of the
catastrophe-relief fund at the national level with an equal share of central and state governments, protection to
insurance companies when premium to claims ratio exceeds 1:5 at the national level [38]. Farmers monitored
the crop cutting experiments (CCEs) in real-time as the details of video recordings of CCEs with GPS-tagged
footage were sent to the farmers by SMS [54].

In MNAIS, the premium rates were capped. If the actuarial premium rate is higher than the capped rate, the total
protected would get diminished to a similar extent. This prompted lower installments on account of the
catastrophe despite of higher premium rates. There was variety in premium rates starting with one area then onto
the next and subsequently, farmers expressed that it was hard to know the premium rate they need to pay [55].

2856
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

The subscription of MNAIS was low due to unreasonably expensive high premium rates, capping of premium,
and less sum assured. As a deviation from the NAIS in the fixing of the premium rate, under MNAIS it was
decided on an actuarial basis [12]. The actuarial premium rate was followed because of risk-based pricing. As a
result, the premium considered the commercial cost in providing the coverage. These high costs were paid by
the farmers and the government to the insurance company at the onset of the crop season [56]. Then sum insured
per hectare was diminished proportionately to the capped premium rates and this prompted the low total
guaranteed for a large number of crops. In numerous regions, the guaranteed sum in specific cases was
inadequate to match even the cultivation expenses for the vast majority of the covered crops because of high
actuarial premiums. The capped premium rates were 11 percent for food crops and 9 percent for oilseed crops
during Kharif and Rabi seasons. As a result of capping, the guaranteed sum was very less and the premium rate
was more in MNAIS [12].

Other Insurance Schemes

Apart from these major crop insurance schemes some other crop insurance schemes were also implemented side
by side viz., Farm Income Insurance 2003-04, KBS pilot scheme for soybean cultivators in Ujjain, Rajasthan
government insurance for orange crop, Sookha Suraksha Kavack (Drought Risk Insurance), Wheat Insurance
(Weather and Biomass), Rabi Weather Insurance, Potato crop insurance, Poppy insurance, AIC coffee rainfall
index and area yield insurance, Bio-Fuel Tree or Plant Insurance, Pulp Wood Tree Insurance(Agroforestry
Plantation Insurance), Coconut Insurance, Rubber Plantation Insurance, and Mango Insurance.

Farm Income Insurance, 2003-04

This insurance was a revenue-based insurance scheme [49] commenced on a trial basis for wheat crop in 18
districts from 10 states and for paddy crop in three districts from three states in 2003-04 [43] to safeguard the
crop income of the farmers by insuring yield and the market risks through proper changes in the design of
insurance product [40]. NAIS focused on income concerning individual crops, and not the farm income [38].
The scheme was mandatory for loanee farmers and others it was optional. The sum insured was the product of
the average yield of the past 7 years × indemnity level × minimum support price (MSP) of the current year. A
subsidy of 75% was given on the actuarial premium rate for small and marginal farmers and for other farmers, it
was 50% and the subsidy component was fully paid by the Government of India. The Scheme operated on an
“Area Approach” basis [49]. The central government bore the cost of claims over the premium amount after
deducting the administration and marketing expenses. Rural agents obtained a commission of 5 percent of gross
premium paid by non-loanee farmers. All farmers had to pay a service charge of 2.5% to the banks [43]. The
plan was ceased on the suggestion of the Joint Group [38].

KBS pilot scheme for soya farmers in Ujjain, 2003

BASIX (Bhartiya Samruddhi Investments and Consulting Services Limited)/KBS (Krishna Bhima Samruddhi
Local Area Bank Limited (Samruddhi Bank) designed a policy for soybean cultivators in Ujjain, Madhya
Pradesh in 2003. The insurance component was integrated in the crop loans availed from banks. If the
cumulative weighted rainfall was below 80% of the average recorded at the time of critical crop growth stages,
then the policyholders got a concession of Rs. 10 per mm of deficit rainfall on the bank interest charges for the
loan availed. But, the banks charged higher interest rates for the crop loans since the insurance component was
integrated [57].

Rajasthan government insurance for the orange crop, 2004

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company went into a joint effort with the state government of Rajasthan in
June 2004 to give rainfall-indexed insurance to orange producers in Jhalawar district and surrounding areas.
Insurance protection was given when there was a deficit in rainfall that prevented flowering and dry period at
the flowering stage with premiums of Rs. 415 and Rs.315 respectively. The premium was subsidized at 50% for
small and marginal farmers. The policy was sold through branches of the Land Development Bank and Jhalawar
Cooperative Bank, rural branches of Commercial Banks in Jhalawar, Jan Mitra kiosks, and direct sales agents of
ICICI Lombard. Guaranteed amount settlement was to be done inside 30 days of the expiry of the policy period
[58;59].

2857
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

Bio-Fuel Tree or Plant Insurance, 2004

The trees/plants included in this policy were Jatropha curcas (Jatropha), Pongamia pinnata (Karanja),
Azadirachta indica (Neem), Bassia latifolia (Mahua), Calophyllum inophyllum (Polanga) and Simarouba glauca
(Paradise Tree). The compensation was given for the cost of the inputs incurred in case of total loss or damage
of the trees/plants due to natural shocks due to natural shocks like a flood, cyclone, storm, frost, and pest and
diseases, etc., either in separately or simultaneously. The compensation amount was based on the cost of inputs
incurred per unit area that varies with the type and age of the tree/plant and can be extended up to 125% or150%
of the input cost [82].

Drought Risk Insurance (Sookha Suraksha Kavack), 2005

This new scheme to compensate losses occurred due to drought for popular crops like guar, bajra, maize, jowar,
soybean, and groundnut was implemented in 12 districts of Rajasthan from 2005 Kharif season onwards. The
premium charged ranged from 5 to 8 percent. Threshold deficiency percentage of the weighted actual rainfall
index was used to estimate the compensation against the commonly used normal rainfall index. If the trigger
was greater than or equal to the threshold deficiency percentage of the weighted actual rainfall index, insured
farmers can claim for compensation. Through the automatic claim settlement process, the claim amount will be
transferred to the beneficiary‟s bank account. The insured farmers who didn‟t avail of crop loans from
institutional sources had to produce the insurance proof [43].

Wheat Insurance (Weather and Biomass), 2005

This plan is a distinctive agriculture technology-based instrument that joined crop vigor/biomass (Normalized
Difference Vegetative Index-NDVI) and weather (temperature) parameters. This scheme was introduced in
2005. This insurance scheme was operated during peak wheat crop growth stage, more particularly during parts
of February and March. AIC collected the past 10 years of satellite images [43] during the 3rdweek of January
and 2nd week of February and estimated the average values of NDVI and revealed that it was significantly
correlated with the final yield. Based on this relationship the triggers were fixed as 95 to 85 percent of the past
10 years‟ average. The costs of procurement of historical images and its processing were very high and there
was a lack of ground realities in the calculation of the current season‟s NDVI [60].

Potato crop insurance, 2005

This insurance product compensated for the financial loss by taking into consideration the cost of inputs. The
loss incurred as a result of death/total damage of the plants leading to reduction of the plant population below
the threshold number due to natural shocks like flood, cyclone, storm, frost and pest and diseases (except late
blight), etc. either in isolation or concurrently during the period of insurance were compensated [83].

Poppy insurance, 2005

Sengupta and Himatsingka [61] reported that Indian Tobacco Company Ltd (ITC) and Agriculture Insurance
Company of India (AIC) together introduced poppy insurance to some 70,000 registered and licensed poppy
growers in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh.

AIC coffee rainfall index and area yield insurance, 2005

This scheme was introduced on a trial basis in three prominent coffee plantation districts of Karnataka state. The
rainfall index and yield parameters are considered. Approximately two-thirds of the compensation was
determined considering the rainfall at the critical stages of coffee growth i.e. blossom and backing periods as
well as excess rains during the monsoon months of July and August in Karnataka and the residual risk based on
coffee yield at harvest time. Coffee growers can choose the premium [62].

Coconut Insurance
This insurance was introduced to help small and medium coconut growers. Under this scheme, the subsidy
component was shared by the Coconut Development Board, state government, and farmers in the ratio of 2:1:1

2858
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

respectively. For the age group between 4 and 15 years palm, the insured sum shall be Rs. 900 per palm and the
premium payable per plant per year was Rs.9. For the age group between 16 and 60 years, the insured sum was
Rs. 1750 per palm and the premium payable per plant per year was Rs.14. The scheme covered storm, hailstorm,
typhoon, cyclone, tornado, flood, and heavy rains; pest attack that leads to irrecoverable damage to the coconut
palm; forest fire, bush fire, accidental fire and lightning that destroys the palm completely; earthquake, tsunami,
and landslide; a severe drought that can lead to death and turn the palm unproductive. Claims are not allowed
for the losses that occurred because of robbery, civil war, revolt, insurgency, natural death, or uprooting under
the scheme [84].

Rubber Plantation Insurance

This scheme was a collaborative project of the Rubber Board and the National Insurance Company. This scheme
covered both well grown mature and immature plantations. For immature plantations, the policy can be availed
for 7 years from the last day of the month of planting. Compensation was estimated by adding the replacement
cost of the plant with the present value of future returns arising out of the loss/death of the plant. Compensation
can be claimed from the second year onwards. The mature plantations from the 8th year onwards can be insured
for 3/2/1 year(s). All the input costs and expected yield were added and recurring maintenance costs were
subtracted from that in the process of computation of compensation. Natural calamities like fire, lightning, riot,
strike and malicious damage, bush fire, forest fire, flood, storm, tempest, inundation, landslide, rockslide,
earthquake, and drought were covered under this scheme only when the block/taluk was notified officially as
drought-affected by the state government. The loss incurred due to road/rail/vehicles and wild animals were also
included for claims. If the incurred loss was 75 percent or more in one hectare then the loss was treated as a total
loss [85].

Mango Insurance
The crop was insured on a hectare basis. The premiums of Rs. 5,200 and Rs. 9,200 were fixed for young and old
plantations respectively with a 50 percent subsidy shared equally by the state and central governments. This
insurance scheme covered the crops from losses incurred due to excess and unseasonal rains between January 1
and February 29, temperature variation between January 1 and March 15 and against damages due to wind
between March 1 and May end [86].

Pulp Wood Tree Insurance (Agroforestry Plantation Insurance), 2013

The United India Insurance, Chennai, had introduced an extensive „Agroforestry Plantation Insurance‟ scheme
for tree plantations. The pulpwood trees such as Casuarina, Eucalyptus (pulpwood), Melia dubia (plywood),
Ailanthus, Gmelina (matchwood), and Leucaena and Dalbergia sissoo (Indian rosewood) are included for
coverage. The basic premium rate was computed as 1.25 percent of the input cost per one-acre plantation. The
premium rates ranged from Rs. 300 to Rs. 600 based on the input cost incurred for tree cultivation. The amount
insured was based on the input cost, the age of the tree, and their type [63]. A farmer can increase the sum
insured to 125% of the initial costs or 150% of the same [64]). The plantation was insured against forest and
bush fire, lightning, riot and strike, storm and cyclone, flood and inundation, and loss due to wild animal attack.

National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP), 2013

Various components under the previous schemes were improved considering the recommendations of evaluation
studies, insights from the execution of various crop insurance schemes, and the demands of stakeholders for
designing farmer-friendly insurance products namely NCIP. This consisted of three components: the MNAIS,
WBCIS, and the Coconut Palm Insurance Scheme (CPIS). This scheme was effective from 2013-14. A
maximum subsidy was provided at the rate of 50% in WBCIS and 75% in MNAIS. For different crops and
seasons, the premium rates were capped accordingly. In situations where the actuarial premium rates were
higher than the capped limit, the total guaranteed for such crops was diminished concerning to the cap level.
NCIP was mandatory for the crop loan availed farmers and others can opt either MNAIS or WBCIS component
[65; 38].
Plappallil [66] reported the issues noticed in the MNAIS component were: time lag in providing yield data and
sharing of funds by the state governments; lack of awareness and publicity among farmers; lack of accuracy of
crop-cutting experiments, timeliness, and reliability. Further, excessive work burden of India Meteorological

2859
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

Department, lack of regulatory mechanisms in the government and private sector, inadequate redressal
mechanisms to settle disputes, and litigation were the hurdles in the efficient operation of the scheme.
According to the industry experts, some states didn‟t have village-level data on weather and agricultural yields,
most of the insurance products focused on extreme weather shocks, lack of adequate awareness campaigns, no
transparency in data and data sharing amongst various stakeholders, dysfunction between many parameters,
reducing the size and decreasing the actuarial premium rates together were the issues impeding the successful
implementation [67].

Rabi Weather Insurance, 2015

AIC introduced a scheme that protects against adverse weather shocks like frost, heat, rainfall, etc., during the
Rabi season. The crop losses incurred due to a maximum temperature (°C) above the trigger level and/or
deviation in the temperature range from the normal above the trigger value and/or minimum temperature (°C)
below the trigger level and/or minimum temperature below 4°C resulting frost and/or rainfall above the trigger
levels (calculated on daily/weekly/monthly basis) and/or bright sunshine hour below the trigger level were
indemnified. The advantage of this scheme according to Singh [43] was that the causal events like adverse
weather shocks can be independently confirmed and estimated.

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana(PMFBY), 2016

The NAIS and MNAIS were supplanted with a new multi-hazard crop insurance scheme by the GoI on 13
January 2016 to achieve 50% coverage by 2018 [41]. In this scheme provisions that are desired by the farmers
and considered as farmer-friendly such as a reduction in the share of insurance premiums to be paid by farmers,
claims for prevented sowing, and losses in the mid-season or post-harvest have been introduced to address
additional risks faced by cultivators. The number of crops covered and the types of hazards have also been
expanded [35].
The premium rates for Kharif and Rabi seasons are different. It is 2 percent of the amount insured for food crops
and oilseeds in the Kharif season and 1.5 percent in Rabi season. For cash/horticultural crops the premium is
declared as 5%. The premium subsidy is shared by the central and state governments equally. The amount
insured by a single farmer is determined by multiplying the cost of cultivation by the area notified by the farmer
under cultivation of the crop [12]. The important feature of this scheme is that there is no upper limit for
government subsidy [27].
The significant advantages of this scheme over the previous schemes are: the stipulation on the number of crop
cutting experiments (CCEs) is fixed as 4 for major crops and 8 for other crops at the village level; harnessing the
advantage of mobile phone technology and GPS for enhancing the quality and quicker estimation of loss;
involvement of other public and private insurance companies in addition to AIC; wider coverage of risks at
different stages of crop growth and post-harvest losses incurred due to natural calamities [12].
The accomplishment of 41% inclusion of farmers inside a few years after the commencement of PMFBY seems
noteworthy, especially when contrasted with 28% inclusion of farmers accomplished under three plans
consolidated (WBCIS, NAIS, and MNAIS) before the execution of PMFBY [68]. Rajeev and Nagendran [35]
reported that north-eastern states have scarcely observed any cropping area under the plan. Bhati [69] reported
that this scheme fell short of the target of 50% coverage of the gross cultivation area as it covered below 30%
despite numerous benefits and coverage than previous plans. However, GoI has claimed that coverage has
increased to 30 percent of the gross cropped area (GCA) from 23 percent in 2015-16 under the previous
schemes [70].
Rajeev and Nagendran [35] reported that the damage assessment mechanism that is not farmer-friendly and the
documentation requirements indirectly affected the adoption of crop insurance. The process of registration for
the non-loanee farmers is complex and requires a few more steps to complete the process of registration that
may not occur most of the time. According to Rajeev and Nagendran [35], some insured farmers were
dissatisfied with the scheme because if losses are even 74% in the case of prevented sowing (approved 75%) or
49% in the case of mid-season losses (approved 50%), no claims are paid.
Most farmers were unaware of the computation method (including concepts such as threshold yield), and
thereby feel “misled” when they do not receive compensation despite being insured and facing crop losses. This
works to reduce their faith in the institution of crop insurance, and thus, reduced their willingness to participate
in it. Farmers facing specific damage to crops that do not present over the entire area were not covered under
insurance. More specifically, farmers were considered in blocks rather than individually [35].

2860
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

Delays in releasing the results of crop cutting experiments, identifying farmers who faced losses, processing of
claims burdened subsistence farmers as they have neither the crop income nor insurance claim during this
period. Further, the insurance cover is often only for the crop loan amount (estimated on the cost of cultivation,
not on the value of yield) and therefore, cannot provide cover for their potential income. Even for farmers
getting insurance through the voluntary route, the insurance coverage is according to the scale of finance and not
the value of output [35]. The scheme is mandatory for only those who availed crop loans from formal sources
which was less than 33% of the total farmers and for other farmers it remained optional. The voluntary
enrollment in crop insurance in India was extremely low [68].
According to PTI [71], GoI has a proposal to introduce an exhaustive insurance plan that covers agriculture and
allied sectors including farm equipment. Thereby the total cost of the insurance policy will be reduced by
protecting all the risks in farming. The farmers will have the choice to pick and choose the risk cover in the
proposed scheme.

Bihar Rajya Fasal Sahayata Yojana, 2018

On June 5th, 2018 the state government of Bihar has launched Bihar Rajya Fasal Sahayata Yojana to provide
crop insurance to farmers in replacement to PM Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) which is effective for Kharif
crops. In this scheme, the government estimate the crop loss and pay the compensation without any involvement
of insurance company and collecting premium from farmers [72].

Table 1 Summary of Crop Insurance Schemes Introduced in India

S. Crop Insurance Year Salient Feature Reason for
No Name
Discontinuance/Issues noticed
1 Rain Insurance 1920 Area-based; Compensation Resource constraints
Scheme based on rainfall data
2 Compulsory 1943 Compulsory for all ---
Insurance Scheme
3 Crop Insurance 1946 To solve the problem of Financial constraints
Scheme* indebtedness
4 Two Pilot 1948 --- Resource constraints
Schemes for Crop
and Cattle*
5 Model Scheme of 1965 --- Financial burden
Crop Insurance*
6 Experimental 1972 First Individual approach Loss-making; Financial
Crop Insurance - scheme performance not satisfactory;
Scheme 1979 Individual approach not suitable
on the national level
7 Pilot Crop 1979 First Area approach scheme; Crop insurance was integrated
- Participation was voluntary with crop loans and available only
Insurance Scheme
1984 for loanee farmers to loanee farmers
(PCIS)
8 Comprehensive 1985 Pioneer crop insurance Integrated with short-term credit;
Crop Insurance - scheme implemented nation- Available to only loanee farmers
Scheme (CCIS) 1999 wide scale; Compulsory for
loanee farmers;
Homogeneous area basis
approach
9 Experimental 1997 Small and marginal farmers Administrative and financial
Crop Insurance - were eligible with a 100% difficulties
(ECIS) 1998 subsidy on premium

2861
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

10 Pilot Scheme on 1999 To cover the risks involved in ---

Seed Crop - seed production
Insurance 2000
11 National 1999 Both area-approach for Financially not viable. Issues of
Agricultural - widespread calamities & adverse selection and area
Insurance Scheme 2007 individual-approach for discrepancy were noticed
(NAIS) localized calamities were
adopted
12 Weather Based 2007 Insurance covered weather High premium rate. Complex
Crop Insurance to till triggers computational exercise. A low
Scheme (WBCIS) date density of weather stations
13 Modified National 2010 The unit area was shrunk to High premium rate. Capping on
Insurance Scheme - 16 the village panchayat level. premium rate and amount assured
(MNAIS) Private sector participation
encouraged. The immediate
partial payment system was
introduced
14 National Crop 2013 Compulsory for loanee Lack of scientific evidence to
Insurance Program farmers. Three components relate weather to crop
viz., WBCIS, MNAIS, and productivity. Overburden of India
Coconut Palm Insurance Meteorological Department. Lack
Scheme were included. of proper maintenance of rain
gauges
Other Insurance Schemes
15 Farm Income 2003 Crop income protection to Discontinued on the
Insurance - farmers by combining the recommendations of joint-group
2004 system of insuring the crop
yield and market risks
16 KBS Pilot Scheme 2003 Linked insurance to bank Farmers have to pay high-interest
for Soya Farmers loans. Interest payment relief rate on crop loans
based on rainfall index deficit
17 Rajasthan 2004 Rainfall-indexed insurance. ---
Government Only for orange tree planters
Insurance for
Orange Crop
18 Drought Risk 2005 Threshold deficiency ---
percentage of the weighted
Insurance (Sookha
actual rainfall index was used
Smaksha Kavack)
against normal rainfall index
19 Wheat Insurance 2005 Combined crop Huge costs incurred on the
(Weather and procurement of historical satellite
vigor/biomass and
images and their processing. Lack
Biomass)
weather parameter of clear guidelines in the
computation of NDVI
20 Potato Crop 2005 Insured against the cost of ---
inputs
Insurance
21 Poppy Insurance 2005 Only for poppy growers ---
22 AIC Coffee 2005 Rainfall index and yield ---
Rainfall Index and parameters are blended
Area Yield during critical stages of crop
Insurance growth

2862
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

23 BioFuel Tree or 2005 Insured in respect of the cost ---

Plant Insurance of inputs
24 Coconut Insurance - To help small and medium ---
coconut growers
25 Rubber Plantation - Compensation is estimated ---
Insurance considering the replacement
cost of the plant and the
present value of the future
returns
26 Mango Insurance - Insured against excessive and ---
unseasonal rain, temperature
and high wind during the
critical periods
27 Pulp Wood Tree 2013 Cost of inputs per unit area ---
Insurance was considered in
determining the amount of
insurance
28 Rabi Weather 2015 Provided protection against ---
Insurance adverse weather parameters
during a particular period.
The insured was compensated
against the diminished crop
output/yield due to adverse
weather parameters
29 Pradhan Mantri 2016 Reduction in the cost of the ---
Fasal Bima – to premium (Government
Yojana date contribution is five times that
of the farmer)
Source: Author‟s Compilation (2020)

List of Companies Providing Crop Insurance

Many countries are involving private insurance companies in crop insurance. [73]. Ifft [74] recommended the
Government of India to include private companies in the implementation of crop insurance programs. In India,
the imperfect information (high cost in information collection) and natural calamities severely damaging crops
over a very vast area discouraged the participation of private agencies of regional nature in the crop insurance
market because it will go bankrupt by paying huge compensations [40].
The following insurance companies are involved in issuing crop insurance in India which includes private
insurance companies too. Besides government agencies like Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd, State
Bank of India, private companies like Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd., IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Future General India Insurance Company Limited., Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited are serving the farmers in crop
insurance.

Challenges of Insurance in Indian Agriculture

A huge number of fragmented small and isolated landholdings, differences in climatic and soil types, inadequate
baseline data, range of farm practices render it to operate the insurance plan on an „individual basis‟. The
majority of the farmers are resource-poor and illiterate. Due to these, farmers don‟t have sufficient knowledge of
the insurance plan and how it works. Therefore, it is very difficult to enroll all the farmers in crop insurance
schemes [68]. Because of the severity of poverty among farmers, the non-loanee farmers could not afford to pay
a huge premium at once [75]. Non-availability of adequate land records is hindering the registration of farmers
in crop insurance schemes [35]. Lack of awareness, farmers could not take up insurance according to the value

2863
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

of output, and dissatisfaction with the terms and conditions of insurance facilities were the major factors behind
a lack of insurance adoption in India [35].

Use of Satellite Data for Crop Insurance

The pre-harvest production forecasts for rice and jute crops at the district/state/national level were generated by
adopting optical and microwave remote sensing data through FASAL (Forecasting Agricultural output using
Space, Agro-meteorology, and Land-based observations) project. The drought estimation in the agricultural
sector was effected at the district/sub-district level through the collection of data from many satellites and other
related parameters in the NADAMS (National Agricultural Drought Assessment and Monitoring System)
project. CHAMAN (Coordinated Horticulture Assessment and Management using geo-informatics) project
assessed the production of 7 major horticultural crops using satellite data. KISAN (C[K]rop Insurance using
Space technology and Geo-Informatics) project used high-resolution remote sensing data for yield estimation
through crop cutting experiments in crop insurance.
Remote sensing-based Information and Insurance for Crops in Emerging Economies (RIICE) project used the
radar based-remote sensing data with high spatial resolution and temporal resolution to monitor the growth of
rice at a resolution of 3 by 3 meters [12]. The actual cultivatable land can be determined using drones besides
the extent of loss and the actual yield can be assessed during claims. The exact health of the crop can be
assessed using drones fitted with high-precision cameras. As the drones cover the distances quickly, the time
taken to settle the claims can be reduced significantly [76].

VI. WAY FORWARD

The report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare [77] revealed that in a study conducted with
5,993 farmers, only 37% knew the insurance schemes and the premium rates, the types of risks included, claim
procedure, the loss incurred, etc., whereas the rest 63% did not have any knowledge of the insurance plans. This
shows that the publicity was inadequate or ineffective. Farmers are not part of the scheme that is designed for
their improvement in livelihood if they are ignorant of information regarding credit, insurance, premium
deduction, yield-loss assessment, and non-payment of claims. Most of the farmers considered insurance as an
investment mechanism. They did not know that it is meant for risk reduction. [67]. Therefore, large scale
awareness should be created on the benefits of crop insurance among farmers using various outreach methods. It
is revealed from the experiences so far that either PMFBY or WBCIS would not be sufficient to cover all the
pure risks arising from agricultural activities. Instead, a total insurance package should be designed and offered
for farmers‟ subscription [51]
There is a scope for manipulation of crop yield data assessed through crop cutting experiments by the private
insurance companies for profit sake [27]. Therefore, to avoid this manipulation of yield data large scale use of
remote sensing, drones, satellite imagery and digitization of land records should be encouraged at all levels for
the successful execution of the PMFBY.
Private insurance companies invested huge money in the scheme reaped and continue to earn a profit. There
should be transparency in claims processing and compensation settlement. A specific insurance company was
assigned the responsibility of selling insurance at the cluster level. At present, the situation is a monopoly due to
lack of competition. Therefore, there is little or no chance to improve or upgrade their products and introduce
competitive pricing [27].
Time lag in settlement of claims was due to the delay in transmission of yield data by the concerned department,
not timely transfer of premium subsidy by the state governments, disagreements over yield-data between
insurance companies and the state governments, missing of bank account details of farmers due to
miscommunication to credit the compensation amount, and NEFT related issues, etc. Specific changes in the
operational guidelines should be framed to avoid delay in claim settlement so that the compensation to farmers
is paid in time [27].
The latest technologies such as remote-sensing, simulation modeling, 3D imaging, and ICT tools should be used
to improve accuracy and objectivity while estimating the crop loss based on weather index parameters. A
solitary information storehouse ought to be made with all insurance-related information on weather and crop
yield for quick access by all agencies involved in crop insurance [51]. The farmers who adopt climate-smart
agricultural practices should be incentivized by insurance companies through designing insurance products at
affordable rates and providing access to them [67].

2864
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

The risks in crop insurance schemes are spatial, temporal, and crop-specific. This cannot be eliminated by a area
approach; the individual approach is best suitable but economically infeasible. The “utmost good faith” in the
compliance mechanism of material information disclosure by the insurance companies to the insured farmers
did not happen always in agriculture insurance. The true reasons were the heterogeneity in farmers‟ perceived
risk attitudes leading to a varying degree of concern to pay for insurance premium, crop choice and income
stream from agricultural activities, and level of financial literacy [78; 79;80]. Hence, multi-agency in insurance
product design should be encouraged [51]. The GoI should frame an effective dispute and grievance settlement
mechanism immediately for encouraging private insurance companies to actively take part in promoting crop
insurance in rural agricultural markets [67].
Improved identification of losses can undoubtedly be beneficial because most of the farmers were unaware of
loss computation methods (including concepts such as threshold yield) and damage assessment mechanisms are
not farmer-friendly [35]. Hence, they feel “misled” when they do not receive compensation despite being
insured and facing crop losses.

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

VIII. REFERENCES
[1] World Bank. World Development Indicators: Structure of output, (2020a) Available at;
http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/4.2.
[2] MoS and PI (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation), (2019) Available at:
http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/press_release/Presss%20note%20for%20first%20advance%20estimat
es%202018-19.pdf.
[3] FAO. India at a glance, (2020). Available at: http://www.fao.org/india/fao-in-india/india-at-a-glance/en/ .
[4] World Bank. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modelled ILO estimate) – India,
(2020b) Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=IN
[5] MoA and FW (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare). Agriculture Census 2015–16, All India
Report on Number and Area of Operational Holdings, (2018) Available at:
http://agcensus.nic.in/document/agcen1516/T1_ac_2015_16.pdf.
[6] National Agriculture Policy (2000). Available at: http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/national-agricultural-
policy
[7] Sudha, V. M. Globalisation, state and disempowerment: study of farmers suicide in Warangal, MPRA
paper 1633, ICFAI Business School, Ahmedabad, (2006) Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/1633/ .
[8] MoS and PI (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation). Key Indicators of Debt and
Investment (AIDIS), (2014), Available at:
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/KI_70_18.2_19dec14.pdf.
[9] MoS and PI (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation). Available at:
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/KI_70_18.2_19dec14.pdf.
[10] National Crime Records Bureau. Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India, (2015) Available at:
https://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/ADSI/ADSI2015/chapter-
2A%20suicides%20in%20farming%20sector.pdf.
[11] Ministry of Finance. Economic Survey 2017–18, Chapter 6, (2019) Available at:
http://mofapp.nic.in:8080/economicsurvey/pdf./082-101_Chapter_06_ENGLISH_Vol_01_2017-18.pdf.
[12] Gulati. A., Terway, P. and Hussain, S. Crop Insurance in India: Key Issues and Way Forward, Indian
Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, (2018) Available at:
https://icrier.org/pdf./Working_Paper_352.pdf.
[13] Nair, R. Crop Insurance in India: Changes and Challenges, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45 (6),
(2010) pp.19-22. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./2010_45/06/Crop_Insurance_in_India_Changes_and_Challenges.pdf
.

2865
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

[14] Jodha, N.S. Role of Credit in Farmers‟ Adjustment against Risk in Arid and Semi-Arid Tropical Areas of
India. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 16 (42-43), (1981). pp.1696-1709. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./1981_16/42-
43/special_articles_role_of_credit_in_farmers_adjustment.pdf.

[15] Mellor. The Subsistence Farmer in Traditional Economics‟ in Wharton, C.R (ed) Subsistence Agriculture
and Economic Development, Frank Cass and Co., (1969) Available at:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315130408 .
[16] Binswanger Hans P. Risk attitudes of Rural Households in Semi-arid Tropical India, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 13 (25), (1978) pp A49-A62. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./1978_13/25/risk_attitudes_of_rural_households_in_semi_arid_tropic
al_india.pdf.
[17] Ahsan, Sayed M., Ali A. G. Ali and John Kurian, N. Towards a theory of Agricultural Insurance,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 64 (3), (1982) pp.510-529. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.2307/1240644.
[18] Moscardi, E.R., and de Janvry, A. Attitudes toward risk among peasants: An economic approach.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 59(4), (1977) pp.710-716.
[19] Feder, G. Farm Size, Risk Aversion, and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty, Oxford
Economic Paper, Vol. 32, (1980). pp.263- 283.
[20] Rosenzweig, M.R. Risk, Implicit Contracts, and the Family in Rural Areas of Low Income Countries,
Economic Journal, Vol. 98, (1988) pp.1148- 70.
[21] Walker, T.S., and Ryan, J.G. Village and Household Economies in India's Semi-arid Tropics, Johns
Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London. ISBN 080183886X , (1990).
[22] Townsend, R. Risk and Insurance in Village India, Econometrica, Vol. 62, (1994) pp.539-91.
[23] Ravallion, M. and S. Chaudhuri. Risk and insurance in village India: Comment, Econometrica, Vol. 65 (1),
(1997) pp.171-184.
[24] Kurosaki, T. Risk and Household Behavior in Pakistan's Agriculture, Institute of Development Economics,
Tokyo, (1998).
[25] Ghosh, N., and Yadav, S. S. (2008). Problems and Prospects of Crop Insurance: Reviewing Agricultural
Risk and NAIS in India. Final Report, Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi, (2008) Available at
http://www.iegindia.org/ardl/2008_Crop%20Insurance%20Report_Nilabja.pdf.
[26] Raju, S. and Chand, R. Progress and Problems in Agricultural Insurance in India, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 42 (21), (2007) pp.1905-1908. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./2007_42/21/Progress_and_Problems_in_Agricultural_Insurance.pdf.
[27] Ray, P.K. Review of Paddy Crop Insurance in Ceylon. Colombo: Government of Ceylon, (1971).
[28] Hazell. P., L.M. Bsssoco and Arcia, G. A Model for Evaluating Farmers‟ Demand for Insurance :
Applications in Mexico and Panama. In P.B.R.Hazell, C.Pomareda. and A.Valdes (eds), Crop Insurance
for Agricultural Development : Issues and Experience. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins
University Press. (1986).
[29] Pomareda, Carlos. An Evaluation of the Impact of Credit Insurance on Bank Performance in Panama. In
Peter Hazell, Carlos Pomareda and Alberto Valdes. (eds), Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development :
Issues and Experience. Batimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, (1986).
[30] Mishra, P.K. Agricultural Risk, Insurance and Income. Arabury, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company,
(1996).
[31] Smith, V.H. and B.K. Goodwin . Crop Insurance, Moral Hazard, and Agricultural Chemical Use,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 28(2), (1996) pp.428-438.
[32] Babcock, B.A. and Hennessy, D.A. Input Demand under yield and Revenue Insurance, American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 78(1), (1996) pp.212-24.

2866
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

[33] Horowitz, J.K and E. Lichtenberg. Insurance, Moral Hazard, and Chemical Use in Agriculture. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 75(4), (1993) pp.926-935.
[34] Bhende, M.J. An analysis of Crop Insurance Scheme in Karnataka. Bangalore: Agricultural Development
and Rural Transformation Unit, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), (2002).
[35] Rajeev, M. and Nagendran, P. Where Do We Stand? Crop Insurance in India, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 54 (26-27), (2019) pp.28-35. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./2019_54/26-
27/SA_LIV_26%2627_290619_RRA_Meenakshi_Rajeev.pdf.
[36] Priolkar, G.S. Note on problems of crop insurance under Indian conditions. Govt. of India,(1949).
[37] Nigam J.N. Crop insurance Report, Kanpur University, (1971).
[38] MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). Report of the Committee to Review the Implementation of Crop Insurance
Schemes in India, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, (2014) Available at:
http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/Rpt_pkm2.pdf.
[39] Chaudhary K.M. 4-P Plan Crop insurance scheme for Hybrid 4 Cotton in Gujarat (Research Study No. 51)
Sardar Patel University, (1977).
[40] Raju, S. and Chand, R. Agricultural Insurance in India: Problems and Prospects. NCAP Working Paper
No. 8, (2008) Available at: http://www.ncap.res.in/upload_files/others/oth_15.pdf.
[41] Mukherjee, S. and Pal, P. Impediments to the Spread of Crop Insurance in India, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 52 (35), (2017) pp.16-19. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./2017_52/35/CM_LII_35_020917_Subhankar_Mukherjee.pdf.
[42] Pancharatnam, P., Mahendiran, S, Madhusudhan B.V. Rao, Sridhar R Prasad, Bhavani Seetharaman,
Jyotsna Jha. Understanding the potential of crop insurance in India: A study of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal
Bima Yojana (Prime Minister‟s Crop Insurance Scheme), Centre for Budget and Policy Studies,
Bengaluru, (2017) Available at: http://cbps.in/wp content/uploads/CBPS_Study_Understanding-the-
potential-of-crop-insurance-in-India_Dec5th2017.pdf.
[43] Singh, G. Crop Insurance in India, W.P. No. 2010-06-01, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad,
(2010). Available at: http://iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2010-06-01Singh.pdf.
[44] Dandekar, V.M. Crop insurance in India: A review, 1976-77 to 1984-85. Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 20 (25/26), (1985). pp. A46–A59. Available at: https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./1985_20/25-
26/crop_insurance_in_india.pdf.
[45] Prabhu, K.S and Ramachandran, S. Crop-Credit Insurance: Some Disturbing Features, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 21 (42), (1986). pp.1866-1869. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./1986_21/42/special_articles_crop_credit_insurance_some_disturbing
_features.pdf.
[46] Tripathi S.L. and C. Dinesh. Crop insurance in India, Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative
management, Pune, (1987).
[47] Tripathi S.L. Crop insurance in India with special reference to CCIS, Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of
Cooperative management, Pune, (1987).
[48] Jain, R. C. A. Challenges in Implementing Agriculture Insurance and Re-insurance in Developing
Countries, The Journal, January-June, (2004) pp.14 -23. Available at:
https://pdf.s.semanticscholar.org/4c09/5c34d086776bb8bb16d8c455c56ba228bad4.pdf.
[49] AFC (Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd). Report on Impact Evaluation of Pilot Weather Based Crop
Insurance Study (WBCIS), Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd.,Mumbai, (2011). Available at:
https://docplayer.net/14715026-Report-on-impact-evaluation-of-pilot-weather-based-crop-insurance-
study-wbcis.html .
[50] India Development Gateway, (2005), www.indg.in/agricultutre.
[51] Dey, K. and Maitra, D. Agriculture Insurance in India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 52 (52),
(2017) pp 88-96. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./2017_52/52/SA_LII_52_301217_RRA_Kushankur_Dey.pdf.

2867
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

[52] Skees Jerry, R. A Role for Capital Markets in Natural Disasters: A Piece of the Food Security Puzzle,
Food Policy, Vol. 25, (2000) pp.365-378. Available at:
http://globalagrisk.com/Pubs/2000%20Role%20for%20Captial%20Markets%20Food%20Policy%20Journ
al_jrs.pdf.

[53] Yasmin, S. and Hazarika, C. The Problem of Adaptability of the Modified National Agricultural Insurance
in Kamrup (R) District of Assam: A Demand Side Analysis, Assam Economic Review, Vol. 10, (2017)
pp.271-280. ISSN- 2319-6254.
[54] Mahul, O., Verma, N. and Clarke, D. J. Improving Farmers‟ Access to Agricultural Insurance in India,
Policy Research Working Paper 5987, The world bank, (2012) Available at:
https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf./10.1596/1813-9450-5987.
[55] PTI. Crop insurance scheme falters as farmers pay high premium, (2016) Available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/crop-insurance-scheme-falters-as-
farmers-pay-high-premium/articleshow/50537460.cms.
[56] Clarke, D.J., Clarke, D., Mahul, O., Rao, K.N. and Verma, N. Weather based crop insurance in India.
Policy Research Working Paper 5985, The World Bank, (2012). Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/693741468269445619/pdf./WPS5985.pdf.
[57] Hess U. Innovative Financial Services for Rural India: monsoon-indexed lending and insurance for
smallholders, Agriculture and Rural Development Working Paper 9, (2003)pp 32. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
[58] PTI. ICICI Lombards Weather Cover For Orange Farmers In Rajasthan, (2004) Available at:
https://www.financialexpress.com/archive/icici-lombards-weather-cover-for-orange-farmers-in-
rajasthan/108486/.
[59] GoR (Government of Rajasthan). Weather insurance scheme for oranges Details, (2005). Available at:
http://www.rajamb.com/WEATHER_ORANGE.htm.
[60] Rao, K. N. Index based Crop Insurance, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, Vol. 1,(2010)
pp.193–203. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2010.09.024 .
[61] Sengupta, D. and Himatsingka, A. E-choupals to offer poppy insurance, (2005).
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/newet/business-of-brands/e-choupals-to-offer-poppy-
insurance/articleshow/1338149.cms .
[62] IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). Designing policies in a world of uncertainty,
change, and surprise, Phase 1 Research Report, International Institute for Sustainable Development,
Canada, (2006) Available at: https://www.iisd.org/pdf./2006/climate_designing_policies.pdf.
[63] The Hindu (2013). Sikkim allows people to forge fraternal ties with trees, Available at:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/sikkim-allows-people-to-forge-fraternal-ties-with-
trees/article22437418.ece.
[64] SYMBO (n.d). Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited. Available at:
https://www.symboinsurance.com/general-insurance/agriculture-insurance-company-of-india/.
[65] PTI. State governments asked to implement new crop insurance scheme, (2013) Available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/state-governments-asked-to-implement-
new-crop-insurance-
scheme/articleshow/26097570.cms?utm_source=contentofinterestandutm_medium=textandutm_campaign
=cppst.
[66] Plappallil, J. WBCIS- Challenges and opportunities, Workshop Report on National Crop Insurance
Programme: Challenges and Opportunities, New Delhi, India. CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), South Asia., (2014) Available at:
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/41602/http://CCAFS_IFPRI_Workshop_Report_Crop_In
surance_2014.pdf.
[67] CGIAR. Report on National Crop Insurance Programme: Challenges and Opportunities. CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), South Asia, (2014) Available at:

2868
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 11, 2020

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/41602/http://CCAFS_IFPRI_Workshop_Report_Crop_In
surance_2014.pdf.
[68] EPW Engage. Precarious Livelihoods: How the State Fails to Insure its Farmer, (2020).Available at:
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/precarious-livelihoods-how-state-fails-insure-its .
[69] Bhati, Nidhi . Government May Miss Target of Bringing 50% of GCA under PMFBY in FY19: Coverage
Reduced to 24% in FY18, Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, (2019). Available at:
https://cmie.com/kommon/bin/sr.php?kall=warticleanddt=2018-03-26%2011:23:36andmsec=090.
[70] Jadhav, R. Coverage under PM crop insurance scheme has increased: Central Government, (2020)
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/coverage-under-pm-crop-insurance-
scheme-has-increased-central-government/article30793449.ece.
[71] PTI. Govt approves changes in PMFBY to make it optional for farmers, (2020) Available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/govt-approves-changes-in-pmfby-to-
make-it-optional-for-
farmers/articleshow/74209691.cms?utm_source=contentofinterestandutm_medium=textandutm_campaign
=cppst.
[72] Toppo, A. Fasal Bima Yojana: Rs. 300 Crores to be Transferred in Bank Accounts of over 4 lakh Farmers
of This State, (2020) Available at: https://krishijagran.com/agriculture-world/fasal-bima-yojana-rs-300-
crores-to-be-transferred-in-bank-accounts-of-over-4-lakh-farmers-of-this-state/ .
[73] Michael, G. Crop Insurance: Failure of the Public Sector and Rise of the Private Sector Alternative, Risk
in Agriculture, Proceedings of the Tenth Agriculture Sector Symposium, (1991).
[74] Ifft, Jennifer (n.d). Government vs Weather: The True Story of Crop Insurance in India, Research
Internship Papers 2001, Centre for Civil Society. Available at: www.cci.in .
[75] Gangopadhyay, S. An Alternative to Crop Insurance, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (44) (2004)
pp.4763 – 4764. Available at:
https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf./2004_39/44/An_Alternative_to_Crop_Insurance.pdf.
[76] Francis, A., Krishnamurthy, G. and Aloysius, A. Drones: The Insurance Industry‟s Next Game-Changer?,
(2014). Available at: https://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/drones-the-insurance-industrys-
next-game-changer-codex1019.pdf.
[77] Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on
Performance Audit of Agriculture Crop Insurance Schemes, (2017) Available at:
https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_report_files/Report_No.7_of_2017_-
_Performance_audit_Union_Government_Agriculture_Crop_Insurance_Schemes_Reports_of_Agriculture
_and_Farmers_Welfare.pdf.
[78] Rai, R. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana: An Assessment of India‟s Crop Insurance Scheme. ORF Issue
Brief No. 296, Observer Research Foundation, (2019) https://www.orfonline.org/research/pradhan-mantri-
fasal-bima-yojana-an-assessment-of-indias-crop-insurance-scheme-51370/ .
[79] Gaurav, S., Cole, S and Tobacman, J. Marketing Complex Financial Products in Emerging Markets:
Evidence from Rainfall Insurance in India, Research paper, International Labour Office, Geneva, (2011).
[80] Ranganathan, T., Gaurav, S. and Singh, A. Anomaly in Decision Making under Risk: Violation of
Stochastic Dominance among Farmers in Gujarat, Working paper 343, Institute of Economic Growth, New
Delhi, (2014).
[81] Ranganathan, T, Gaurav, S. and Singh, A. Demand for Price Insurance among Farmers in India: A Choice
Experiment-based Approach, Margin, Vol. 10 (2), (2016) pp.198–224.
[82] http://agriinsurance.com/Agri-Insurance-Types/Bio-Fuel-Tree-Insurance.html
[83] http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/crop_insurance/crop_insurance_scheme_potato.html
[84] https://www.coconutboard.gov.in/Scheme.aspx#Insurance
[85] http://pibmumbai.gov.in/English/PDF/E0000_SH45.PDF
[86] https://agroinsurance.com/en/19560/

2869

View publication stats