Understanding the potential of crop insurance in India: a study of the Prime Minister’s Crop Insurance Scheme

Our expertise
3ie invented evidence gap maps to improve decision-making around where to make investments in producing more evidence or synthesising existing evidence. Since then, we have pioneered further advancements, including developing our interactive online map platform and innovating evidence mapping to broaden its use in development decision-making.

3ie funds and quality assures formative and impact evaluations of development programmes in low- and middle-income countries. These evaluations provide crucial evidence on what works, for whom, why and at what cost. On our website, we host the largest-of-its-kind impact evaluation repository that includes summaries of both 3ie-funded and other studies.

We are global leaders in producing and assuring the quality of theory-based systematic reviews of the effectiveness of development interventions. 3ie continues to innovate and improve synthesis and systematic review methodologies and the uptake and use of synthesised evidence.

3ie specialises in increasing access to, demand for and use of evidence by governments, parliaments, programme managers, civil society, programme participants and the media. We do this by emphasising the value of planning and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that evaluations and reviews are relevant and useful. We use robust and effective monitoring to measure evidence use so that we can convey evidence impact on programmes and policies with greater confidence.

We set up our replication programme to address the need for a freely available global public good that helps improve the quality and reliability of impact evaluation evidence used for development decision-making. Replication is the most established method of research validation in science, yet it has not been fully embraced by the research community or development donors, leading to this gap.

3ie’s evidence programmes and services help build technical capacity to commission and conduct rigorous evaluations, produce evidence gap maps, conduct evidence synthesis and use evidence. We also work with L&MIC governments to build effective monitoring and evaluation systems. 3ie’s bursary programme supports L&MIC policymakers, programme managers and researchers to participate in specialised training and international events.

3ie has always been strongly committed to research transparency and open access to data. We are proud to be a leader in the growing movement to improve global standards for research transparency.

On request, 3ie provides services to partners for supporting the generation and use of evidence to inform their development policies and programmes. We commission and quality assure evidence gap maps, evaluations and syntheses as well as provide training.

3ie plays a unique role in promoting collaboration among researchers, policymakers and development programme managers at country, regional and global levels. Our global advocacy for evidence-informed action helps ensure decision makers have quality evidence about what works when they need it.
Evidence hub
3ie’s Development Evidence Portal is the largest-of-its-kind repository of rigorous evidence on what works in international development. This portal includes evaluations and synthesis of studies conducted in low-and middle-income countries. It combines records from 3ie’s Impact Evaluation and Systematic Review repositories, as well as, evidence gap maps.

These provide a visual display of completed and ongoing systematic reviews and impact evaluations in a sector or sub-sector, structured around a framework of interventions and outcomes.

Evidence impact summaries briefly describe how 3ie-supported evidence has informed and influenced decision makers. Each summary highlights verified instances of evidence impact.

We provide funding for replications, conduct in-house replication research and publish guidance on replication methodology. We also provide funding to original authors of 3ie-funded for preparing their raw datasets.

As part of our mandate as a knowledge producer and translator for our main audiences, we publish a range of knowledge products. These include briefs, impact evaluation reports, systematic review reports and summaries, replication papers, evidence gap map reports, scoping reports and working papers.

3ie’s Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations (RIDIE) aims to enhance the transparency and quality of impact evaluation research before it begins.
Our work
3ie’s evidence programmes support studies to fill critical knowledge gaps in a sector, sub-sector or in an area with limited rigorous evidence. We fund studies under a specific theme or which address a particular question or set of questions in programme areas where our donors want to expand global public knowledge of what works and what does not.

To help address gaps in the understanding of what works and what does not, we fund a variety of studies across this programme area, including interventions focused on insurance, extension, land-use and forestry, and innovation and technology.

3ie supports impact evaluations, systematic reviews and evidence gap maps on education effectiveness that help answer the questions of what works, for whom, why and at what cost.

We fund the production of rigorous evidence on biodiversity and forest conservation programmes, environmental regulations, impact of sustainable fuels, climate change mitigation and adaptation.

3ie is supporting the generation of evidence in areas such as transparency and accountability in natural resource governance. We also fund the production of rigorous evidence on interventions to curb corruption, judicial and civil service reforms, land reforms, public financial management, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, decentralised governance and public service delivery.

We fund the production of rigorous evidence on interventions on HIV and AIDS, immunisation maternal and child health, nutrition and sexual and reproductive health through a number of evidence programmes. Evidence products from these programmes include replication studies, evidence gap maps, systematic reviews and impact evaluations.

We are supporting the generation of rigorous evidence in humanitarian contexts on interventions related to water, sanitation and hygiene, food security, multi-sectoral humanitarian programming and interventions targeting malnutrition.

We fund the production of rigorous evidence on the socio-economic and environmental impacts of public transportation by rail, bus and rapid transit systems, and essential services such as electricity and gas to expand access, foster inclusive growth, and combat climate change through sustainable systems.

3ie, in collaboration with India’s rural development ministry is working to generate rigorous evidence on the impact of the National Rural Livelihoods Mission.

We support policy-relevant studies that contribute to improving our understanding of public expenditure trends and improving the delivery of public goods.

We support impact evaluations to build the evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions that reduce the risks faced by the poor through participation in public works and employment programmes.

3ie’s has two major evidence programmes that support the generation and use of high-quality evidence for informing decision-making in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector

In alignment with our mission, 3ie promotes rigorous, efficient, and ethical use of innovative data sources for impact evaluations, including in those conducted by 3ie, by 3ie research partners, and in the global development community more broadly.

.

We work with various departments in the Philippines government to develop and fund rigorous evidence useful for policymakers. We also support capacity-building activities for Philippine researchers and support the impact evaluation management framework of the National Economic and Development Authority.

Working in collaboration with the Office of the Prime Minister, the primary aim is to improve developmental outcomes through evidence-informed decision making in Uganda. 3ie is currently supporting evaluation of government programmes around youth livelihood, family planning, public service delivery and local governance, and universal primary education.

3ie and the government of Benin are working on a a multi-year regional initiative that aims to promote the institutionalization of evaluation in government systems across eight countries in West Africa, including: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo.

This is a five-year programme (2019-23) that is working on increasing the use of evidence by policymakers in Ghana, Pakistan and Uganda. In partnership with country governments, this programme aims to develop capacity and promote innovation in increasing evidence-informed decision-making. SEDI is funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

.

3ie funds internal replications of influential or innovative impact evaluations of financial interventions on mobile money, cash transfers, bank deposits, and other financial service interventions targeted towards underserved and unbanked populations in developing countries.

3ie funds internal replications of influential or innovative impact evaluations of biomedical, behavioural, social, and structural HIV prevention and treatment interventions to improve the evidence base in low- and middle-income countries.
Funding
- Open opportunities
View our current funding opportunities for evaluations, systematic reviews and internal replication studies.

Publication Type: Other evaluations

Country: India

Region: South Asia

3ie evidence programme: Agricultural Insurance Evidence Programme
Author(s): Padmaja Pancharatnam, Shreekanth Mahendiran, Madhusudhan B.V. Rao, Sridhar R Prasad, Bhavani Seetharaman, Jyotsna Jha, Sowmya, Thyagarajan R
Institutional affiliation(s): Centre for Budget and Policy Studies
Grant-holding institution: Centre for Budget and Policy Studies
Main implementing agency: Centre for Budget and Policy Studies
Sex disaggregation: Yes
Gender analysis: Yes
Equity focus: Yes
Study type: Process evaluation

Context

In India, half of the population depends on agriculture and about 67 per cent of all cultivators are small or marginal farmers who own less than one hectare of land. Weather variations cause considerable crop loss and uncertainty over decisions around agriculture. Farmers are highly dependent on rainfall, and states with a significant proportion of dry zones, as Karnataka the second driest state in the country, have invested to make irrigation available. The state is well-known as reform-oriented and focuses on introducing interventions to benefit the farmers.

This study explores the feasibility and acceptability of using crop insurance by various stakeholders utilising their experiences and roles during the implementation process of the scheme.

Intervention design

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) is a crop insurance scheme introduced in Kharif 2016. The PMFBY is operational in 22 out of the 30 Indian states.

The PMFBY consisted of insurance coverage for about 40 crops, primarily food crops, and some horticultural. The entire implementation of the scheme has three stages: pre-notification and notification, enrolment, and claims. During the first stage, farmers in a particular district receive notification about enrollment availability, the cut-off dates and the premium payable. All through the second stage, farmers usually enroll through banks and the bank has to enter all the information of the farmer enrolled with PMFBY on the crop insurance portal. In the third stage, claims and processes of assessing crop damage will depend on the risk type that the PMFBY covers. PMFBY employs a mixture of an area approach basis and individual approach for the assessment of crop damage.

The intervention hypothesised that a faster and greater accuracy of the estimation of yields should hasten the disbursal of funds, this in turn should stabilise farmers’ income.

This hypothesis was based on these assumptions:

Technology is being employed for faster and better estimation of yields.
Online enrollment integrates data on farmers enrolled and land records, and provide greater accessibility.

Evaluation design and methodology

This mixed-method study was conducted in Karnataka, a southern Indian state. Quantitative methods comprised a primary survey, Agriculture Census (2011), and the Status of Agricultural Farmer surveys from the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). 810 farmers were enrolled in the study, of which 781 respondents completed the baseline survey. Qualitative methods included participant observation, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and focus group discussions (FGDs).

Primary evaluation questions

This study answers the following questions:

a.   What are the vulnerabilities faced by farmers and the need and rationale for crop insurance?
b.   How does the PMFBY function? What are the operational processes? what are the design and operational needs of this scheme in particular?
c.   What is the socio-demographic profile of enrolled farmers vis-à-vis non-enrolled farmers?
d.   What are the farmers’ expectations from and experience of PMFBY and other crop insurance schemes?
e.   What is the budget allocation made towards this scheme? What does it reveal in terms of the budgetary priorities of the state?
f.   In what ways might the design and operational barriers be addressed to enhance the uptake of the scheme by the most vulnerable? Has the scheme helped in enhancing the security and reducing vulnerabilities associated with crop failure?
g.   What is the size of public expenditure for this scheme and how different it is from earlier schemes? How does it relate to the total public expenditure on agriculture and how has it impacted the budget for agriculture in Karnataka?

Primary findings

There is a need for greater awareness of the scheme and its features among marginal and small farmers and local government functionaries. Farmers expressed a weak understanding of the enrollment process, features of the area approach, their implications for eligibility for claims and other related aspects.

The authors reported that the claims were not paid before the next season, as expected. The reasons are that insurance companies rely on crop cutting experiments (CCEs) for providing yield estimates and estimating the insurance payout accordingly, and enrollment errors.

Findings also suggest that only about 7 per cent of enrolled farmers consider crop insurance as the top priority measure of relief from the impact of crop loss and about 12 per cent reported crop insurance as their first response to mitigate crop loss. These findings indicate that farmers rely upon informal measures at the household or community levels as measures to mitigate agricultural risks.

Implications

Authors recommend an improvement in the CCE exercise would benefit not only the PMFBY but also other schemes in operation. The Department of Agriculture (DoA) should invest in operationalising smart sampling for easy identification of areas and more accurate randomisation of plots, thereby making the CCE process more efficient.

Even though operational guidelines mention the need for ‘special efforts to promote female participation’, it is recommended that the insurance company and its intermediaries take specific measures to step up improving female access to insurance schemes.

The incorporation of smart sampling will estimate yield accurately, and the team suggested that the government invests in weather stations and move towards the weather-based index to adopt satellite imagery.