Upload
dinhlien
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
153
6. DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
6.1 FIELD LEVEL ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY
DATA FROM MAHARASHTRA STATE -
LOANEE FARMERS
Field survey was conducted in Maharashtra State to
assess the perception of farmers about NAIS. The sample covers
355 loanee farmers and 314 non-loanee farmers. 67 personal
interviews were taken from experts working in District Central
Co-operative Banks (Head Office, Branch Offices), 5
Nationalised Banks (Head Office, Branch Offices), 4 Gramin
Banks (Regional Rural Banks), 7 Primary Agricultural Co-
operative Societies and 31 Agricultural Departments (District
and Taluka Offices) of Maharashtra State (Table 20 and Chart 1
and Chart 2).
154
Table 1 : QUESTIONNAIRES COLLECTED
SR. NO. DISTRICT LOANEE NON-LOANEE DCCB NATIONALISED GRAMIN PACS AGRI DEPT TOTAL
1 Pune 15 29 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 Aurangabad 5 9 0 0 1 0 1 2
3 Nasik 17 25 7 0 0 0 0 7
4 Ahmednagar 56 21 5 0 0 0 1 6
5 Osmanabad 52 14 0 0 0 0 1 1
6 Solapur 10 10 4 0 1 0 1 6
7 Raigad 5 16 1 0 0 0 0 1
8 Jalgaon 9 28 10 0 0 3 2 15
9 Dhule 27 5 15 0 0 0 1 16
10 Akola 11 38 4 0 0 0 1 5
11 Satara 2 16 4 1 0 1 0 6
12 Thane 47 4 2 0 0 1 1 4
13 Sindhudurg 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
14 Ratnagiri 0 12 1 0 1 0 0 2
15 Kolhapur 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
16 Beed 10 10 2 0 0 0 1 3
17 Sangli 10 17 3 1 0 2 1 7
155
Contd…
SR. NO. DISTRICT LOANEE NON-LOANEE DCCB NATIONALISED GRAMIN PACS AGRI DEPT TOTAL
18 Buldhana 10 11 4 2 1 0 1 8
19 Amravati 10 10 2 1 0 0 2 5
20 Nanded 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 Latur 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 Parbhani 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 Jalna 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 Hingoli 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 Yavatmal 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 Wardha 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 2
27 Chandrapur 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 2
28 Nagpur 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 3
29 Bhandara 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4
30 Gondia 3 4 0 0 0 0 4 4
31 Gadchiroli 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 2
TOTAL 355 314 67 5 4 7 31 114
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pune
Aur
anga
bad
Aur
anga
bad
Nas
ikA
hmed
naga
rO
sman
abad
Sola
pur
Rai
gad
Chart 1 : Q
Rai
gad
Jalg
aon
Dhu
leA
kola
Sata
ra
QUESTIONNA
Than
eSi
ndhu
durg
Rat
nagi
riK
olha
pur
Bee
d
AIRE LOANEE
Sang
liB
uldh
ana
Am
rava
tiN
ande
dLa
tur
E / NON - LOA
Parb
hani
Jaln
aH
ingo
liY
avat
mal
War
dha
ANEE
War
dha
Cha
ndra
pur
Nag
pur
Bha
ndar
aG
ondi
aG
dhi
liG
adch
iroli
LOANEE
NON-LOA
156
ANEE
157
Chart 2 : QUESTIONNAIRE – FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pune
Aur
anga
bad
Nas
ikA
hmed
naga
rO
sman
abad
Sola
pur
Rai
gad
Jalg
aon
Dhu
leA
kola
Sata
raTh
ane
Sind
hudu
rgR
atna
giri
Kol
hapu
rB
eed
Sang
liB
uldh
ana
Am
rava
tiN
ande
dLa
tur
Parb
hani
Jaln
aH
ingo
liY
avat
mal
War
dha
Cha
ndra
pur
Nag
pur
Bha
ndar
aG
ondi
aG
adch
iroli
LOANEE
NON-LOANEE
DCCB
NATIONALISED
GRAMIN
PACS
AGRI DEPT
158
6.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
SAMPLE FARMERS
Farmers’ socio-economic characteristics of loanee and
non-loanee farmers are presented in Table 21.
Table 2: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE
HOUSEHOLDS - LOANEE AND NON-LOANEE
Sr. No. Parameters Loanee Non-Loanee
01 Farm Size (Acres)
Less than 2.5 acres 120 141
Less than 5 acres 84 78
More than 5 acres 151 95
02 Age (Years)
0 – 25 38 20
26 – 35 51 53
36 - 45 93 81
46 – 55 93 95
56 and above 80 65
03 Education (Years)
SSC 268 163
HSC 46 95
Graduate 25 45
Post Graduate 16 11
159
Sr. No. Parameters Loanee Non-Loanee
04 Family Size (Numbers)
0 – 3 75 88
3 – 6 160 141
6 – 10 120 85
The borrower household took loan from a variety of
institutional sources like Co-operatives, Regional Rural Banks
and Commercial Banks. Amount of loan taken by a household
varied in the range of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 with an average
at Rs. 13730.
Borrowers were asked the source from where they paid
back the loan. Ninety two borrowers reported that they repaid
the loan from the receipt from sale of agricultural produce. Nine
borrowers reported that they repaid the loan by selling their
assets, two borrowers reported that they repaid the loan by
taking another loan and two borrowers reported that they sold
their jewellery, animals and land for repaying the loan to banks.
The borrowers were asked to what extent they would like
the insurance agency to bear the crop loss and to what extent
they themselves would bear the loss. The response varies from 0
to 100 percent implying that some farmers were not willing to
160
bear any loss and want entire loss to be borne by insurance
agency whereas some farmers were willing to bear loss up to 50
per cent. On average sample farmers wants sharing of loss by
insurance agency and farmer in the ratio of 81:19.
6.1.2 RESPONSE OF LOANEE FARMERS
Views of sample farmers were solicited on various
dimensions of insurance. These include the strategy /
intervention for financing of loss in case the uninsured crop is
lost due to extraneous perils, motivation and experience with
agricultural insurance, opinion on premium rate, and suggestions
for improving the crop insurance scheme etc.
Over 35 percent and 23 percent respondents mentioned
that they would go for taking loan from co-operative societies
and Rural Financial Institutions (RFIs) respectively; 6 percent
responded to avail financial assistance from friends and
relatives. Few respondents opined for sale of fixed assets and
looking towards government relief. Almost 30 percent of the
respondents felt they would depend on mutual financial aid in
case of crop failure (Table 22).
Table 3 : LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON STRATEGY
TO FINANCE CROP LOSSES
161
Perception Response Percent
Preference of
agencies in case of
losses
Sale of Livestock 02.00
Borrowing from friends and
relatives
06.00
Bank loan 23.00
Co-operative Society 35.00
Lease of Land 01.00
Hypothecation of house /
jewellery
03.00
Mutual Aid 30.00
Fifty five percent of the insurance beneficiaries
mentioned that financial security was the motivation for going
for insurance. Thirty eight percent of the respondents considered
bank compulsion as the reason for going for crop insurance. Six
percent respondents described satisfactory experience of others
as motivation. One percent of the beneficiaries mentioned
motivation from agriculture department. Hundred percent
insured beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with prevailing
administration of agriculture insurance scheme (Table 23).
162
Table 4 : MOTIVATION AND EXPERIENCE OF LOANEE (INSURED)
FARMERS WITH INSURANCE
Perception Response Percent
Motivation for going
for insurance
Due to Banks Compulsion 38.00
Financial Security 55.00
Heard of good experience from
others
06.00
Experience with Agriculture
Department
01.00
Experience with
Agricultural Insurance
Satisfactory 100.00
More than sixty percent of borrowers insured farmers felt
that the existing premium rate was reasonable while twenty four
percent felt it was too high. Three percent borrowers were of the
view that the premium rate is too low as one percent of the
respondents could not give their views (Table 24).
Forty percent of the respondents would like to pay
premium at the rate of 2 per cent, twenty six per cent were
willing for a range of 2-3 percent, twenty-one percent were of
the view to pay 3-4 percent while thirteen percent opted for 4-5
percent.
163
Table 5 : LOANEE (INSURED) PERCEPTION ON PREMIUM RATE
Perception Response Percent
Existing premium rate High 24.00
Low 03.00
Reasonable 72.00
Can’t Say 01.00
Modified Premium rate
(willingness to pay)
Upto 2% 40.00
2 – 3 % 26.00
3 – 4 % 21.00
4 – 5 % 13.00
Respondents made several suggestions for improving the
existing scheme for crop insurance. A majority of the farmers
wanted quick settlement of claims. 23% respondents felt that
individual assessment of crop loss for settling claims should be
done. 12% of the beneficiaries’ are of the opinion that Crop
Cutting Experiments which used to serve as the basis for
determining indemnity should be carried out in the presence of
affected farmers. Some respondents also proposed reduction in
premium rate and extension in insurance cover to more crops to
make the scheme more farmers - friendly (Table 25).
Beneficiaries were asked to indicate their preference for
the media through which awareness on the benefits of crop
164
insurance should be created. Insurance agents, bank, Agriculture
Department and Doordarshan were the most preferred choice.
At present, service for insurance to loanee farmers is
provided by the concerned RFI’s like cooperative society, RRBs
or commercial bank/branches. Close to 34 per cent loanee
farmers-respondents suggested that rural agents at their door
step should facilitate insurance services. Some respondents
needed insurance service at their village level and some required
through cooperatives, self help groups and post offices.
Table 6 : SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE CROP
INSURANCE SCHEME MADE BY LOANEE FARMERS (INSURED)
Perception Response Percent
Suggestions
for Improving
Administration
of Crop
Insurance
Scheme
Cover more crops 07.00
Individual Assessment 23.00
Reduce Premium 11.00
Quick settlement of claims 24.00
Gram Panchayat as a unit of loss assessment 08.00
Insurance service at doorstep / at village 15.00
CCE’s in presence of villagers 12.00
165
Perception Response Percent
Media
preference for
Awareness
about the
Scheme
Radio 09.00
Doordarshan 15.00
Newspapers 04.00
Mobiles 01.00
Insurance Agents 19.00
PACS 02.00
Advertisement Hoardings 03.00
Exhibition 02.00
Bank 19.00
Kisan Sabha 06.00
Village Sabha 06.00
Group Discussions 01.00
Agriculture Department 14.00
Distribution
Channel
Rural agent at your door step 34.00
Rural agent at village level 30.00
Co-operative Bank 33.00
Regional Rural Bank 02.00
Self Help Groups 05.00
Farmers were interviewed for knowing their awareness
about Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS)
implemented by AICIL, ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited and IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance
Company Limited. Fifty six percent insured beneficiaries were
aware of WBCIS and twenty eight percent were aware of
Varsha Bima Scheme (In-house product) marketed by AICIL.
166
Ten percent of the respondents were aware of WBCIS marketed
by IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited and
only six percent awareness was noted of WBCIS marketed by
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. The
farmers were also of the view that NAIS has gained more
popularity due to a positive assumption of a reasonably claim
settlement than schemes implemented by private insurance
companies (Table 26).
Table 7 : AWARENESS OF WEATHER BASED CROP INSURANCE
SCHEMES
Weather Based Crop Insurance Schemes Percent
AICIL – Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) 56.00
AICIL - Varsha Bima 28.00
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 06.00
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited 10.00
167
6.2 ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY DATA – NON-
LOANEE FARMERS (INSURED)
Only 35 per cent of Non-loanee respondents said that
they were not aware about the scheme (Table 27).
Table 8 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON NAIS IN
MAHARASHTRA
Perception Response Percent
Awareness of Insurance Yes 65.00
No 35.00
Several reasons were cited for not-availing the insurance
facility. Majority of farmers gave more than one reason for this.
It was evident from the responses that Lack of awareness about
the scheme was the single most important reason for not
availing insurance (Table 28).
168
Table 9 : BARRIERS IN PENETRATION OF CROP INSURANCE BY
NONLOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS
Perception Response Percent
Reasons for not
availing the
insurance
Not aware of crop insurance 35.00
No need of Insurance 25.00
Lack of premium paying capacity 01.00
Not aware of the facilities available 05.00
Not satisfied with area approach 02.00
Inadequate publicity of the scheme 15.00
Nearest bank at a distance 02.00
Lack of service / co-operation from
the bank
03.00
No faith in scheme / agency 07.00
Delay in claim payment 05.00
These include the strategy / intervention for financing of
loss in case the uninsured crop is lost due to extraneous perils.
Over 35 percent respondents mentioned that they would go for
hypothecation of house or jewellery or any other asset. 29
percent and 22 percent respondents were of the view that they
would take loan from bank and co-operative societies
respectively. 10 percent opined for borrowings from friends and
relatives. Sale of fixed assets and seeking government relief
were mentioned by a few respondents (Table 29).
169
Table 10 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON
STRATEGY TO FINANCE CROP LOSSES
Perception Response Percent
Sources of
financing
Sale of Fixed Assets 3.00
Borrowing from friends and
relatives
10.00
Bank loan 29.00
Government relief 01.00
Co-operative Society 22.00
Hypothecation of house /
jewellery
35.00
The preference revealed by non-borrower respondents
about insurance service is presented in Table 30. Like loanee -
insured farmers, rural agents at door step was the most preferred
channel preferred by 39 percent non-loanee (insured) farmers.
About 36 percent respondents were of the view to seek the
assistance of rural agents at village level and 20 percent have
expressed their choice for co-operative societies.
170
Table 11 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON
PREFERENCE FOR INSURANCE AGENCY AND MEDIA
Perception Response Percent
Service provider for
availing insurance
Rural agent at your door step 39.00
Rural agent at your village level 36.00
Co-operative Bank 20.00
Regional Rural Bank 01.00
Self Help Groups 02.00
Post Office 02.00
Beneficiaries were asked to indicate their preference for
the media through which awareness on insurance should be
created. The respondents were having similar opinions as those
of loanee-insured farmers. Insurance agents, Bank, Agriculture
Department and Doordarshan were the most preferred choices as
presented in Table 31.
171
Table 12 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON
MEDIA PREFERENCE FOR AWARENESS
Perception Response Percent
Media preference
for awareness about
crop insurance
Radio 04.00
Doordarshan 09.00
Newspapers 06.00
Post Office 01.00
Insurance Agents 26.00
PACS 10.00
Advertisement Hoardings 02.00
Bank 32.00
Implementing Agency 01.00
Kisan Sabha 01.00
Village Sabha 01.00
Agriculture Department 07.00
6.3 RESPONSE FROM FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
Financial institutions (FI) play an important role in
management of scheme. In respect of loanee and non-loanee
farmers, FI shall collect the premium and transmit it to
Implementing Agency (IA) along with the Declarations within
prescribed time limits. To facilitate smooth implementation, all
172
non-loanee farmers are serviced through individual Bank
Accounts.
The researcher interviewed in Maharashtra 67 officials
involved in implementation of the scheme comprising of The
District Central Co-operative Bank, officials in the rank of
Chairman, Deputy Managers, Divisional Managers, Assistant
Managers, Branch Managers, Junior Officers, Development
Officers, Loan Officers, Banking Officer (Field) and Clerks, 5
Nationalised Bank officials in the rank of Branch Manager, Agri
Business Facilitators, Field Officers, 4 officials from Gramin
Bank in the rank of Assistant Managers, Audit Manager, Senior
Officers, 7 officials from Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Societies in the rank of Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries and
31 officials in the rank of District Superintendent Agriculture
Officers, Taluka Agriculture Officer, Krishi Sahayaks, Field and
Technical Officers and Statisticians from Agricultural
Departments to obtain their views on various dimensions in
implementation of NAIS.
Majority of the officers working in financial institutions
were well aware of the operational modalities of NAIS.
173
The respondents were asked about the role played by the
FI’s in creating awareness and publicity of NAIS. Most of them
were of the view that they display scheme posters in bank
premises (25%), discuss the scheme with the farmers when they
visit bank (26%), printed handouts like brochures, pamphlets
and distribute them to farmers (24%) and also include discussion
on features and operational modalities of NAIS on the agenda in
various meetings with the farmers (25%) (Table 32).
Table 13 : ROLE OF BANKS IN PUBLICITY AND AWARENESS
Response Percent
DCC
Bank
Nationalised
Bank
Gramin
Bank
PACS
Display NAIS
posters in bank
premises
25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Discuss NAIS with
farmers when they
visit bank for loan
and other purposes
26.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Handouts on NAIS
like brochures and
pamphlets to
farmers during their
visit to bank
24.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
174
Response Percent
DCC
Bank
Nationalised
Bank
Gramin
Bank
PACS
Include NAIS as an
Agenda in various
meetings with
farmers
25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Respondents were asked whether servicing non-borrower
farmers gives an opportunity to the bank for developing /
expanding business relationship (Table 33). Respondents from
Gramin Bank and PACS were in favour of 100 percent view that
servicing non-borrower farmers gives an opportunity for
developing and expanding their business relations. 72 percent
respondents from DCC Bank and 67 percent from Nationalised
bank were of the view that servicing non-borrower farmers gave
them an opportunity to expand their relationships with them. 28
percent from DCC Bank and 33 percent from Nationalised Bank
did not feel that servicing non-borrowers would help bank in
developing their relations with them.
175
Table 14 : SERVICING NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS – BANKERS
INTERVENTION FOR MARKET PENETRATION
Response
Percent
DCC Bank Nationalised
Bank
Gramin
Bank
PACS
Yes 72 67 100 100
No 28 33 - -
Bank officials were asked whether crop insurance
provides collateral security to bank loan portfolio (Table 34).
Table 15 : CROP INSURANCE AS A COLLATERAL SECURITY
Response
Percent
DCC Bank Nationalised
Bank
Gramin
Bank
PACS
Yes 73 40 100 86
No 27 60 - 14
Since the networking of co-operative banks is very large
39 percent of the officials felt that non-loanee farmers can get
insurance service easily. 29 percent of the officials indicated
176
preference by appointing rural agents at the door step to
facilitate insurance services and 16 percent want at village level
(Table 35).
Table 16 : SERVICING TO NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS
Response
Percent
DCC
Bank
Nationalised
Bank
Gramin
Bank
PACS
Rural agent at door
step
29.00 100 57 33
Rural agent at
village level
16.00 - - 17
Co-operative Bank 39.00 - - 50
Regional Rural Bank 04.00 - 43 -
Self Help Groups 12.00 - - -
Majority of the officials informed about displaying the
claim amount statement on the notice board of the bank and
informing the farmers. Bank officials gave suggestions for
improving implementation of NAIS (Table 36).
177
Table 17 : SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING
IMPLEMENTATION OF NAIS
Response
Percent
DCC Bank Nationalised
Bank
Gramin
Bank
PACS
Cover more crops 12.00 - 08.00 13.00
Individual assessment 12.00 - 08.00 16.00
Gram Panchayat as a
unit of loss
assessment
07.00 - 04.00 10.00
Reduce premium 13.00 - 08.00 08.00
Quick settlement of
claims
14.00 20.00 17.00 16.00
Insurance service at
door step / village
level
11.00 30.00 1.00 13.00
Making scheme
voluntary
10.00 20.00 17.00 11.00
CCE’s to be
conducted in the
presence of villagers /
insurance company’s
representatives
12.00 10.00 13.00 08.00
Indemnity level from
60% to 80-90%
09.00 20.00 13.00 05.00
178
6.4 RESPONSE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT / U.T.
The State Government / UT plays an important role in
monitoring and implementation of scheme, conducting crop
cutting experiments and provide adequate publicity to Non-
loanee farmers to ensure maximum coverage through all means
available at the disposal of State / UT administration.
Researcher interviewed 31 officials working in District
and Taluka Agriculture Departments of Government of
Maharashtra. 100 percent awareness and operational modalities
of this scheme is known to officials. Posters, brochures and
pamphlets are displayed and distributed to farmers during their
visit to their offices.
Apart from co-operative banks, post offices, regional
rural banks, 43 percent of the officials felt that appointing rural
agents at door steps of the farmers would help in providing
insurance service to the farmers (Table 37).
179
Table 18 : SUGGESTIONS MADE FOR PROVIDING SERVICE TO NON-
LOANEE FARMERS
Response Percent
Rural agent at door step 43.00
Rural agent at village level 07.00
Co-operative Bank 14.00
Regional Rural Bank 07.00
Self Help Groups 22.00
Post Office 07.00
Officials gave suggestions for improvement in the NAIS
(Table 38).
Table 19 : SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN NAIS
Response Percent
Cover more crops 10.00
Individual assessment 18.00
Gram Panchayat as a unit of loss assessment 03.00
Reduce premium 10.00
Quick settlement of claims 26.00
Insurance service at door step / village level 09.00
Making scheme voluntary 12.00
CCE’s to be conducted in the presence of villagers
/ insurance company’s representatives
04.00
Indemnity level from 60% to 80-90% 08.00
180
The responses relevant to the subject matter of study
which were received from various respondents were analysed
and the inputs / responses such as Annual Income, possession of
live stock etc. which were given by the respondents being
irrelevant to the subject matter of study, were not considered for
data analysis.
6.5 FIELD OBSERVATIONS – KEY ISSUES AND
SUGGESTIONS
The limited expansion in the nature and scope of crop
insurance, in the form of NAIS, did not measure up to the
expectations of the farming community. The key issues and
suggestions received based on personal interview have been
identified from Farmers, State Government / UT, Financial
Institutions, Implementing Agency and NAIS point of view
which are noted as follows :
6.5.1 ISSUES - FARMERS
6.5.1.1 PRODUCT
• Reduction of insurance unit to the village panchayat level
• Guaranteed yield
• Present indemnity levels are inadequate
181
• They feel that this scheme is for the benefit of the
government and the insurance companies only
• When premium is taken it is for individual farmer and
while giving claims it is circle wise.
• After the cut-off dates, farmers are not allowed to take
insurance but suppose the cut-off dates get extended
farmers are not allowed to take extra insurance coverage
SUGGESTIONS
AICIL should make the scheme compulsory
Scheme should be optional
Individual loss assessment
Crop loss by animals should be covered
Due to climatic changes crop pattern is changed. Sowing
seeds work ends by August / September hence closing
date for accepting forms should be increased
Insurance should be free to small / marginal farmers
Coverage of specified post harvest losses
182
6.5.1.2 PRICE
• Subsidy to be increased to 50%
• They feel that the premium payable is not affordable
• Farmers in order to get claims pay premium for all the
crops though only one crop is sown in the fields
• Only the loanee farmers are insured and if the crop fails
the farmers get nothing as the loans taken by them from
banks are taken care of first.
SUGGESTIONS
Tribal people under below poverty line (BPL) should get
100% subsidy
Subsidy for big farmers
Subsidy for female farmers
Extra insurance coverage premium should be reduced
Premiums should be less for irrigated area
183
6.5.1.3 PROMOTION / AWARENESS ABOUT
OPERATIONAL MODALITIES OF THE SCHEME
• Government does not do marketing of this scheme
properly. No good management of the scheme hence
participated only once.
• Awareness too less.
• Nobody approached for crop insurance - non-loanee
farmer
• The government agencies do not educate them properly
• Agriculture department employees motivate farmers to
take the crop insurance policy but when losses occurred
they don’t turn up.
• Once we pay premium benefit should be received
• We do not understand the premium calculation
• When no claim is settled even this premium seems too
high to pay.
• Agriculture Department should be closed down as not a
single employee comes to farmer to inform about the
scheme. Bogus records are maintained. Agriculture
Department gives information only to few farmers.
184
• Lack of knowledge on insurance and how it works – most
of the farmers see premium as some kind of savings; they
want to get compensation or the premium back. Not able
to understand how insurance works by collectively
pooling risk and transferring from one village / region to
other
• There is inadequate involvement of Agriculture officers
from Government Department regarding procedural
compliance of the CCEs.
• Not benefited by this scheme
• No trust / faith in the scheme
• Political pressure for getting claims
SUGGESTIONS
Workshops for farmers to be taken. Marathi booklet of
the scheme should to be distributed. Importance of the
scheme should be told to farmers.
Benefits are not required but at least whatever crop loss
has happened at least that should be paid
185
6.5.1.4 PROCESS
• Documentation is more.
• They feel that it is the responsibility of the government to
clear off their losses
6.5.1.5 DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL
SUGGESTIONS
Provision of service pertaining to the both availability of
the product as well as post product sales services at the
doorstep by the trusted intermediary i.e. Agent.
6.5.2 KEY ISSUES – STATE GOVERNMENT / U.T.
6.5.2.1 PROMOTION
• Marketing not done properly for non-loanee farmers
• Negative publicity by some of the disgruntled officials of
Agriculture Department adversely impacting the
participation of farmers in the scheme.
186
SUGGESTIONS
A comprehensive awareness programme should be
launched before the commencement of the crop season to
enable the farmers to plan and prepare for coverage of
the crops in the scheme
Periodic training of the farmers should be organized in
various training venues such as Krishi Vigyan Kendra
(KVKs) or Block Level Agricultural Offices etc. to infuse
the benefits of the scheme.
6.5.2.2 PROCESS
• Conducting Crop cutting experiments is additional work
and due to less manpower conducting CCE becomes
difficult.
• Operation of the scheme is full of hassles and requires a
number of documents from the Government officials to
participate in the scheme warranting frequent visits to the
Government offices and spending additional amount for
obtaining Record of Rights of the land possessed etc.
This acts as a barrier for participation in the scheme by
the farmers.
187
• Establishment of a dedicated vertical / department / a
wing to ensure proper implementation of the scheme.
• The employees of Agriculture Department being busy in
implementing multifarious schemes do not provide
optimum time and attention for understanding the
problems of the farmers in relation to the various aspects
of implementation of the scheme.
• Non-availability of optimum man power to implement
the scheme arising out of the recent restructuring of the
Department including merger of all the three wings viz.
horticulture, field visit, training and soil conservation has
resulted in decreased focus towards implementation of
the scheme.
• Easy availability of the land possession certificate by
deployment of more number of officials (Talathis)
especially during the duration of participation by the
farmers.
6.5.2.3 PRICE
• The premium and claims are a large burden and affect the
budget.
188
6.5.3 CROP CUTTING EXPERIMENTS
6.5.3.1 PROCESS
• The sampling method adopted for estimation of the crop
yield does not adequately represent the field level
situation resulting into an inaccurate assessment of crop
yield.
• Improper conduct of crop cutting experiments.
• Inadequate involvement of the farmers at the time of
conduct of CCEs
• Inaccurate reporting of the results of CCEs
• Individual crop loss assessment is not done which results
into the frustration amongst the farmers
SUGGESTIONS
Timely conduct of crop cutting experiments as per the
correct statistical procedure and accurate assessment of
the yield results by the Government Officials involving
the participation of concerned farmers at the time of
CCEs.
To ensure the participation of the owner-farmer of the
experimental plot selected for CCE, the incentive
189
commensurate with the time taken for such experiments
should be built up.
Overseeing the experiments by the high level officials will
ensure reduction in the moral hazard of inaccurate
reporting of the results
Strengthening the supervisory machineries by insurer
and financial institutions
Tools and materials required for conducting CCE to be
provided to the officials conducting CCEs
To ensure the participation of the employee of the
Government for conduct of CCE, suitable reward or
incentive should be given.
Labour charges for conducting CCEs to be
proportionately increased to match with the minimum
wages fixed by Government
Revenue department should give list in advance for
conducting CCEs alongwith information provided as
irrigated / non irrigated / plots allotted to District
Agriculture Officer to ensure timely conduct and
supervision of CCEs.
190
6.5.4 AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
INDIA LIMITED
6.5.4.1 PRODUCT
• Procedure adopted for determination of threshold yield
for various crops should be based on the practical
considerations which will reflect the true concerns of the
farmers
SUGGESTIONS
Faster settlement of claims
Premium collected and claims settled amount should be
rounded off
6.5.4.2 PRICE
• Cash crop premium is too high resulting into non
affordability by the farmers leading to reduction in the
participation of the farmers in the scheme
• High claim ratio leading into pressure on the
implementing agency and State and Central Government
to bear the burden of incremental loss
191
6.5.4.3 PROCESS
• Delays in receipt of yield estimates. It currently takes
State governments around two months from the time of
the raw CCE data collection to submit the crop yield
estimates to AICIL
• Administrative instruction to be received at least one
month in advance of each crop season / agricultural year
SUGGESTIONS
Forms, pamplets, brochures and correspondence should
be in Marathi (local) language and simple
6.5.4.4 DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL
• Horticulture crops to be covered
• A stand alone arrangement should be made by the State
Government to facilitate timely availability of all
documents viz RORs, opening of bank accounts etc.
required by farmer at District / Taluka level.
• High cost of distribution
192
SUGGESTIONS
AICIL office at District / Taluka
Farmer is required to register in the 7/12 extract crops
grown by him. This should be done after the insurance
dates are declared.
Whatever the farmer grows in the farm, insurance should
be there and not as per the notified crops
Grievance Redressal Cell
6.5.5 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
6.5.5.1 PRICE
• In case of payment of premium in cash, receipt of paying
premium is not given to farmers leading to mistrust.
SUGGESTIONS
Banks should help farmers by paying partial premium
Premium and claims figures should be rounded off.
193
6.5.5.2 PROCESS
• Bank places posters on the notice board but is too late.
• Bank employees not aware where the premium collected
is forwarded
• State Bank of India (SBI) does not entertain the proposal
forms of Non-loanee farmers and they are not aware
about the claim amount and disbursement process. SBI
has made all proposal forms in English which farmers do
not understand and hence farmers prefer DCC bank.
SUGGESTIONS
Notification circulars from Agriculture Department to be
received one month in advance
6.5.5.3 DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL
• No commission for Co-operative societies
• 2.5% bank commission as service charges is received
very late from AICIL
• Preparation of the declaration document on the basis of
the crop wise, notified area wise, season wise, month
wise is tedious and repetitive
194
• Apart from regular routine work, bank employees are
assigned with this additional task. No incentive / benefit
is given to bank employees who work for this scheme
• No co-operation from DCC Banks
• Nationalised banks do not co-operate
• Nationalised banks accept proposals from the farmers
who have good financial status
• Co-operative banks accept any type of farmers
• Bank does not credit claim amounts immediately to
farmers accounts
• There is a perceived gap of co-operation and timely
facilitation between bank and insurance company
• No bank branches are located proximity to the area of
cultivation of farmers
• Crop insurance circulars come to Nationalised banks but
they do not take up this work as manpower is very less.
Though Head Office pressurizes, Branch Manager does
rural business in other banking areas. Since it is not
compulsory for all, crop insurance business is not done
on priority. Manpower is less in rural areas. Branch
195
Manager alone has to do many other jobs hence they find
difficult to manage time to do this additional work.
• Farmers who have bank accounts with Nationalised
Banks come to DCC Bank only for taking crop insurance.
DCC bank hence cannot give proper service to non-
loanee farmers as Nationalised banks do not accept their
proposal forms.
• DCC Banks do 80% crop insurance business and only
20% business is done by nationalised banks.
SUGGESTION
Bank Commission to be increased upto10 percent
Separate staff for this work
Training on operational modalities of NAIS to be given to
bank employees
Agriculture Department should facilitate in filling the
proposal forms and banks will only accept the premium.
Nationalised and commercial banks should be made
compulsory for contributing in this scheme.
They believe that the agricultural losses are impossible to
mitigate. So most of the borrowers of agricultural credit
do not have the habit of repayment. It accumulates the
196
overdue and ends in non-performing assets for the
DCCBs in India. In order to save the DCCBs, the
government agencies should come forward to mitigate
their risks.
All such facilities must be simplified and the
premiums must be made affordable for the poor farmers.
This will definitely reduce or share the risk of losses to
both government and the poor agriculturists in India. It
will be an effective mechanism to control the non-
performing assets of DCCBs in India.
6.6 ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY DATA :
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE
SCHEME (NAIS) / RASHTRIYA KRISHI
BIMA YOJANA (RKBY) IN MAHARASHTRA
Nearly 82 per cent of Maharashtra’s agriculture being
solely dependent on rainfall and a large portion of this being
located in drought prone area, the risk to be borne by farmers in
their economic activities is extremely high. In order to give
protection to farmers against untimely rains and uncoverable
climatic conditions, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme
197
was introduced in Rabi 1999. At present paddy, Jowar, bajra,
groundnut, tur, sunflower, sesamum, niger, soyabeen, ragi,
wheat, and gram are covered under this.
6.6.1 CROPS COVERED IN MAHARASHTRA
35 different crops are being covered in each of Kharif
and Rabi seasons on All India level. 25 notified insurable crops
are covered under NAIS in Maharashtra State. The crops
covered under NAIS are presented in Table 39.
Table 20 : NOTIFIED INSURABLE CROPS COVERED UNDER NAIS IN
MAHARASHTRA
Kharif Rabi
CEREALS MILLETS
Bajra Irrigated Jowar
Maize Irrigated Wheat
Paddy Summer Paddy
Ragi Unirrigated Jowar
Jowar Unirrigated Wheat
PULSES / OILSEEDS
Black Gram (Udid) Groundnut (Summer)
Green Gram (Moong) Bengal Gram (Chana)
Groundnut Safflower (Kard)
Niger
Kharif Rabi
198
Seasmum (Til)
Soyabean
Tur
Sunflower
ANNUAL HORTICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL CROPS
Cotton Onion
Orange
Sugarcane
Onion
Figure 1 : AGRICULTURE IN MAHARASHTRA
199
6.6.2 NUMBER OF FARMERS AND AREA COVERED
UNDER NAIS
NAIS was introduced in the state of Maharashtra since
inception during Rabi 1999-2000. As is the case of CCIS, NAIS
is mandatory for all the farmers who avail crop credit from the
formal institutions such as co-operative, regional rural banks and
commercial banks. It is optional for non-loanee farmers. The
scheme is now optional since 2005.
The total number of farmers in Maharashtra covered
under NAIS in Kharif season (2000-2010) is 25311915 (91%)
and Rabi season (1999-2010) is 2609001 (9%). The coverage
has been far larger during the Kharif than Rabi season (Table
40).
Table 21 : PARTICIPATION OF FARMERS IN MAHARASHTRA
(RABI 1999 -2010 – KHARIF 2000 – 2010)
Season Farmers Covered Percent
Kharif
(2000 – 2010)
25311915 91 %
Rabi
(1999 – 2010)
2609001 9%
Total 27920916 100%
Tab
Year
Seaso
KHAR
2000
200
2002
2003
2004
200
200
2007
200
2009
2010
Tota
Chart
le 22 : SEA
r /
on
Farm
Cove
RIF
0 252
1 266
2 179
3 172
4 206
5 231
6 163
7 189
8 345
9 310
0 212
al 2531
t 3 : COVER
SON WISE
mers
red
Area
(
29322 28
67446 31
93363 22
26892 1
69605 192
16153 18
38189 12
92192 12
51952 22
02000 214
24801 12
11915 219
RAGE OF C
E PARTICIP
Covered
(Ha) I
16752.19
19451.48
275095.4
851631.5
28157.98
87736.82
268511.8
12710.83
33425.38
44017.93
54462.65
91953.96
Rabi9%
CROPS IN
PATION O
Sum
Insured
P
1777.52
1814.09
1012.82
920.91
1121.37
1223.19
835.07
856.36
1638.75
2434.71
1263.00
14897.80
MAHARAS
F FARMER
Premium
43.84
80.27
52.05
35.85
46.04
47.74
38.16
31.64
74.28
101.48
50.18
601.53
Kharif91%
SHTRA
RS UNDER
(Figures in Subsidy
8.30
12.69
6.11
3.03
1.84
2.05
11.20
3.41
12.82
16.24
5.46
83.15
Kharif
Rabi
200
R NAIS Crores)
Claims
140.75
93.15
28.42
100.95
126.08
28.97
140.58
86.31
469.22
374.87
0.00
1589.29
Year
Seaso
RABI
1999
2000
200
2002
2003
2004
200
200
2007
200
2009
2010
Tota
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
r /
on
Farm
Cove
9 12
0 42
1 8
2 24
3 103
4 14
5 23
6 3
7 9
8 5
9 8
0 5
al 260
Cha
0
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
mers
red
Area
(
20438 1
20977 3
85535
47677 2
34765 11
40563 1
39266 2
37655 4
92109
52161
82348
55507
09001 26
rt 4 : SEAS
C
Covered
(Ha) I
16907.37
79442.16
61475.36
73815.94
60058.29
03655.03
37509.58
45391.19
69057.4
51693.84
96113.2
61268.86
56388.22
SON WISE P
COVERED
Sum
Insured
P
129.62
463.98
20.27
83.82
348.65
64.68
96.80
15.34
25.23
30.91
74.97
64.32
1418.58
PROGRES
UNDER NA
Premium
1.39
5.13
0.50
2.75
10.18
1.99
2.13
0.29
0.59
0.73
1.70
1.70
29.08
S ON FARM
AIS
Subsidy
0.29
1.08
0.11
0.38
0.76
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.33
0.25
3.55
MERS
K
R
201
Claims
5.08
26.69
2.12
16.34
194.22
3.95
3.54
0.01
0.00
5.45
1.39
0.00
258.79
Kharif
Rabi
Cha
Ch
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
10
15
20
25
rt 5 : SEAS
art 6 : SEA
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
1999
0
500
000
500
000
500
1999 20
SON WISE P
ASON WISE
9 2000 2001 20
000 2001 2002
PROGRES
E PROGRE
002 2003 2004
2 2003 2004 20
S ON AREA
SS ON SUM
2005 2006 200
005 2006 2007
A COVERE
M INSURED
07 2008 2009 2
7 2008 2009 2
ED UNDER
D UNDER N
(Rupees In
2010
K
R
2010
K
R
202
R NAIS
NAIS
Crores)
Kharif
Rabi
Kharif
Rabi
203
Table 23: DISTRICTWISE PERFORMANCE OF NAIS IN MAHARASHTRA
STATE (KHARIF – 2000 - 2010)
District Farmers
Covered
Area
(Ha)
Sum
Insured
Premium Subsidy Claim
(Figures in Crores)
Ahmednagar 1520108 1476157.68 693.93 21.12 2.23 70.11
Akola 773280 855869.54 470.17 22.49 5.31 52.32
Amravati 451561 564472.51 316.55 17.23 5.40 33.72
Aurangabad 634696 620684.15 550.22 17.27 2.99 38.73
Beed 1815757 1415292.54 1573.74 69.54 4.91 295.10
Bhandara 260008 355875.68 359.86 9.99 0.92 13.17
Buldhana 814343 931583.19 431.57 22.60 4.70 27.43
Chandrapur 382142 667014.94 471.27 15.93 1.50 54.45
Dhule 512332 666256.64 296.41 16.33 1.73 17.96
Gadchiroli 76339 118994.73 101.40 2.61 0.26 10.17
Gondia 271268 379107.85 373.22 10.08 0.90 24.86
Hingoli 555088 492701.3 219.28 10.10 0.68 16.59
Jalgaon 513746 707854.14 420.72 21.22 2.78 18.70
Jalna 506242 526123.32 303.77 12.24 1.18 29.21
Kolhapur 4210 6342.39 6.25 0.12 0.02 0.10
Latur 5939727 3046688.41 2529.44 90.02 4.88 404.22
Nagpur 240707 372641.29 255.75 9.87 1.16 6.20
Nanded 956732 1091104.92 620.54 27.47 2.78 48.15
Nandurbar 174666 201440.59 113.06 5.52 0.50 3.22
Nasik 592396 620557.99 395.16 16.78 1.80 27.07
Osmanabad 2951215 1769810.84 1216.44 35.71 1.90 122.11
Parbhani 1235290 957533.62 612.82 25.27 1.60 47.57
Pune 250293 277128.02 212.17 6.17 0.52 10.19
204
District Farmers
Covered
Area
(Ha)
Sum
Insured
Premium Subsidy Claim
(Figures in Crores)
Raigad 72933 47400.09 12.98 0.32 0.05 0.27
Ratnagiri 256415 211012.98 91.29 2.28 0.21 1.03
Sangli 531076 427940.82 224.14 6.58 0.56 37.66
Satara 644344 417144.49 228.17 7.29 0.97 18.45
Sindhudurg 120051 155394.59 57.12 1.43 0.15 0.41
Solapur 213516 216500.79 148.58 5.17 0.19 11.48
Thane 225757 212370.82 211.50 5.90 0.43 10.82
Wardha 228380 305547.41 166.08 8.80 1.48 7.12
Washim 579514 588858.92 340.50 18.08 4.92 27.47
Yavatmal 1007783 1288546.77 873.70 59.97 23.53 103.21
Table 24 : DISTRICTWISE PERFORMANCE OF NAIS IN MAHARASHTRA
STATE (RABI – 1999 - 2010)
District Farmers
Covered
Area
(Ha)
Sum
Insured
Gross
Premium
Subsidy Claim
(Rupees In Crores)
Ahmednagar 453700 437949.47 212.20 4.16 0.60 33.94
Akola 84373 142825.71 96.75 2.05 0.47 11.74
Amravati 20642 14342.17 8.91 0.16 0.04 0.41
Aurangabad 79237 77471.46 19.96 0.45 0.07 0.88
Beed 166397 151254.94 91.88 1.47 0.12 5.90
Bhandara 2277 3282.05 2.05 0.03 0.00 0.03
Buldhana 58468 45866.26 30.18 0.52 0.13 1.53
Chandrapur 360 1033.02 0.40 0.01 0.00 0.00
205
District Farmers
Covered
Area
(Ha)
Sum
Insured
Gross
Premium
Subsidy Claim
(Rupees In Crores)
Dhule 3862 5001.54 3.10 0.04 0.01 0.03
Gadchiroli 26 57.52 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gondia 1667 2273.91 1.63 0.03 0.00 0.01
Hingoli 18094 15898.31 9.38 0.18 0.01 0.17
Jalgaon 4186 5610.62 8.55 0.09 0.02 0.02
Jalna 4972 4578.19 4.11 0.05 0.01 0.03
Kolhapur 2772 3489.38 3.55 0.04 0.01 0.04
Latur 210037 129316.42 100.64 2.12 0.19 13.27
Nagpur 6898 10942.84 8.73 0.13 0.01 0.30
Nanded 10022 11018.47 18.89 0.19 0.03 0.71
Nandurbar 8944 8932.31 9.18 0.10 0.01 1.22
Nasik 114662 80257.11 58.33 1.27 0.18 4.92
Osmanabad 399570 308026.2 168.16 3.76 0.30 61.57
Parbhani 21958 25517.47 37.58 0.38 0.03 1.02
Pune 104130 117491.98 107.62 2.73 0.33 6.74
Raigad 5371 4492.6 1.77 0.03 0.01 0.04
Ratnagiri 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sangli 107679 110982.7 48.07 0.94 0.11 11.78
Satara 226644 166426.94 90.15 2.17 0.36 17.92
Sindhudurg 1553 2619.87 1.17 0.02 0.00 0.01
Solapur 450034 723541.23 233.62 5.36 0.39 83.68
Thane 122 92.15 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wardha 5225 5405.25 6.64 0.08 0.01 0.02
Washim 21228 25662.39 19.66 0.36 0.08 0.46
Yavatmal 13891 14727.74 15.64 0.20 0.03 0.43
K
R
T
Table 25 :
Year / S
Kharif (2000
Rabi (1999 –
Total
Ch
Other Farm42%
COVERAG
Season
0 – 2010)
– 2010)
hart 7 : COV
VE
mers
GE OF SMA
Sma
Margina
(Landh
Hec
VERAGE O
ERSUS OTH
ALL VERSU
all And
al Farmers
holding < 2
ctares)
1477015
147325
1624341
OF SMALL
HER FARM
Small anMarginaFarmer
58%
US OTHER
s
Othe
(Land
H
59
51
10
& MARGI
MERS
nd al rs
SmalFarm
Othe
R FARMER
er Farmers
dholding >
Hectares)
105417
11357
116775
INAL
ll and Marginamers
er Farmers
206
RS
s
> 2
756
750
506
al
C
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Chart 8 : SE
Chart 9 :
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1999 2000
1999 2000
EASON WIS
SEASONW
CO
0 2001 2002 2
2001 2002 2
SE PROGR
UNDE
WISE PROG
OLLECTED
2003 2004 200
2003 2004 20
RESS ON PR
ER NAIS
GRESS ON
D UNDER N
05 2006 2007
05 2006 2007
REMIUM C
PREMIUM
NAIS
2008 2009 20
7 2008 2009
COLLECTE
(Figures in
M SUBSIDY
(Figures in
010
kh
ra
2010
207
ED
Crores)
Y
Crores)
harif
abi
kharif
rabi
Ye
Se
(19
20
Kha
Rab
Tota
Table 2
ear /
ason
999 –
010) (
arif
i
al
Chart 1
0500000
10000001500000200000025000003000000350000040000004500000
6 : CATEG
Sma
Margin
Claims
(In Crores)
7395.
925.
8321.
0 : CATEG
Claims
GORYWISE
all And
nal Farmers
)
Farm
Benef
99 42
60 7
59 49
GORYWISE
Farmers Benefitted
E BENEFIC
s
mers
fitted (I
223194
708900
932094
E BENEFIC
Claims
CIARIES OF
Other
Claims
In Crores)
8496.8
1662.2
10159.1
CIARIES OF
Farmers Benefitted
F CLAIM
r Farmers
Farm
Benef
89 29
28 6
17 35
F CLAIM
Khari
Rabi
208
mers
fitted
70070
19403
89473
if
C
Tabl
S
Kha
Rab
Tot
Chart 11 : SE
Sta
gro
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
le 27 : SEAS
F
Season
arif
bi
tal
EASONWI
BE
Table
ate like M
own in alm
Claims
SONWISE P
FARMERS B
Claim
(In Cro
ISE PROGR
ENEFITTED
47 indicat
Maharashtra
most the ent
s
PROGRES
BENEFITT
ms
ores)
1589.29
258.79
1848.08
RESS ON C
D UNDER N
tes that in
where the
tire areable
Farmers Bene
S ON CLAI
TED
Farmer
Benefitt
719
132
852
CLAIMS AN
NAIS
an agricu
e various i
e area, the
fitted
IMS &
rs
ted
93264
28303
21567
ND FARME
(Figures in
ulturally ad
insured cro
coverage o
Khari
Rabi
209
ERS
Crores)
dvanced
ops are
of crops
if
210
under the scheme is abysmally low varying from 6.24% to
12.04% leaving a huge potential of coverage under the scheme
which can be achieved by the integrated effort of Insurer and
Government by way of intensive and extensive communication
and awareness programme for the farmers.
Table 28 : GAP ANALYSIS ON COVERAGE OF AREA VS TOTAL AREA
UNDER INSURABLE CROPS
Year Area Under
Insurable
Crops (Ha)
Area
Insured
Under NAIS
(Ha)
% of Area
Covered
Gap
(% of Area Not
Covered Under
NAIS)
2005 17578000 2045160.55 11.63 88.37
2006 18177000 1282569.06 7.06 92.94
2007 19530000 1219444.62 6.24 93.76
2008 19600000 2175059.20 11.10 88.90
2009 17863000 2150751.41 12.04 87.96
2010 18603000 1238343.36 6.66 93.34
Chart 12 : GAP ANALYSIS ON COVERAGE OF AREA VS. TOTAL AREA
Tab
11.63
far
an
of
vis
los
ins
the
wa
act
ble 29 : YEA
7.06
88.37
2005
% of Area
UN
Table
rmers rangi
d contradic
the drough
s the intend
ss. Howeve
stitutions, c
e farmers in
ay of in-situ
tionable int
ARWISE CO
FARMER
6.24
92.94
2006
a Covered
NDER INSU
48 projec
ng from a d
cts the impa
ht and the r
ded benefit
er, concrete
co-operative
n the schem
u analysis o
tervention to
OVERAGE
RS (KHARI
11.10
93.76
2007
Gap (% of A
URABLE CR
cts a gloom
disheartenin
act of the ad
resultant su
ts of NAIS
e efforts by
e societies
me needs to
of the proble
o scale up t
E OF NAIS L
IF & RABI
12.04
88.90 8
2008 2
Area Not Cove
ROPS
my picture
ng figure of
dverse fina
uicides by t
to cushion
y the banke
facilitating
o be effectiv
ems and cu
the inclusio
LOANEE &
SEASONS)
6.66
87.96 9
2009 2
ered Under NA
e of cover
f 0.88% to 2
ancial conse
the farmers
n such unfo
ers, rural fi
g the inclu
vely reinfor
ustomization
on quotient.
& NON-LOA
)
93.34
2010
AIS)
211
rage of
21.58%
equence
’ vis-à-
foreseen
inancial
usion of
rced by
n of the
ANEE
212
(Figures in Lakhs)
Year Total
Number
Of
Farmers
Coverage
By Loanee
Farmers
Coverage
By Non-
Loanee
Farmers
Total
Coverage
% Of
Farmers
Covered
Under
NAIS
% Of
Farmers
Not
Covered
Under
NAIS
1999 137 1.02 0.19 1.21 0.88 99.12
2000 137 26.99 2.52 29.51 21.54 78.46
2001 137 23.74 3.79 27.53 20.09 79.91
2002 137 15.55 4.86 20.41 14.89 85.11
2003 137 11.85 15.77 27.62 20.16 79.84
2004 137 12.32 9.78 22.10 16.13 83.87
2005 137 13.26 12.29 25.55 18.64 81.36
2006 137 0 16.76 16.76 12.23 87.77
2007 137 0 19.84 19.84 14.48 85.52
2008 137 0 35.05 35.05 25.58 74.42
2009 137 0 31.84 31.84 23.24 76.76
2010 137 0 21.81 21.81 15.91 84.09
Chart 13 : YEARWISE COVERAGE OF NAIS
Tab
L
N
1
0.8
ble 30 : COV
Type Of
Loanee
Non-loanee
999 2000 20
88
21.54 20.
99.12
78.46 7
VERAGE O
f Farmer
001 2002 200
.0914.89
20.1
79.9185.11
79
% OF FARME
% OF FARME
OF NAIS LO
Farm
03 2004 200
16 16.13 18.6
9.84 83.87 81
ERS COVERE
ERS NOT CO
OANEE & N
mers Cover
104.73
174.50
05 2006 2007
6412.23 14.48
.3687.77 85.
ED UNDER NA
VERED UND
NON-LOAN
red
7 2008 2009
825.58 23.24
5274.42 76.7
AIS
ER NAIS
NEE FARM
(Figures in
Percentage
38
62
2010
15.91
7684.09
213
MERS
n Lakhs)
e
Cha
6.6.3
T
Seaso
Yea
199
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
art 14 : COV
CU
IN
Table 31 : SE
on /
ar Loa
99
00 2
01 2
02
03
04
05
06
07
NON-LOANEE
62%
VERAGE O
(KHARIF
URRENT
N MAHAR
EASON-WI
Kha
anee N
0
24.24
23.03
15.34
11.48
11.73
12.56
0
0
E
OF NAIS LO
2000 – 2010
STATUS
RASHTRA
ISE COVER
arif
Non-Loanee
1
3
5
8
1
16
18
OANEE & N
0 AND RAB
S OF PAR
A (Table 5
RAGE OF F
e Loa
0
.06
3.64
2.6
5.79
8.96
0.6
6.38
8.92
NON-LOAN
BI 1999-2010
RTICIPAT
0)
FARMERS
Ra
anee
1.02
2.75
0.71
0.21
0.37
0.59
0.7
0
0
LOA3
NEE FARM
0)
TION IN
UNDER NA
abi
Non-Loan
ANEE 38%
214
MERS
NAIS
AIS
nee
0.19
1.46
0.15
2.26
9.98
0.82
1.69
0.38
0.92
215
Season /
Year
Kharif Rabi
Loanee Non-Loanee Loanee Non-Loanee
2008 0 34.53 0 0.52
2009 0 31.02 0 0.82
2010 0 21.25 0 0.56
Total 98.38 154.75 6.35 19.75
Table 32 : PROGRESS OF NAIS IN MAHARASHTRA RABI 1999-2000 – RABI 2009-2010
Sl No.
Season No. Of Farmers Covered (In '000')
Area Insured (In '000'
Hect-Ares)
Sum Insured
Gross Premium
Premium Subsidy
Claims No. Of Farmers
Benefitted (In '000')
(Rs In Crores)
1 Rabi 1999-2000 121 117 129 1 0.285 5 40
2 Kharif 2000 2529 2817 1778 44 8 141 1057
3 Rabi 2000-01 421 379 464 5 1 27 174
4 Kharif 2001 2667 3119 1814 80 13 93 551
5 Rabi 2001-02 86 61 20 0.505 0.114 2 20
6 Kharif 2002 1793 2275 1013 52 6 28 229
7 Rabi 2002-03 248 274 84 3 0.376 16 121
8 Kharif 2003 1727 1880 921 36 3 104 528
9 Rabi 2003-04 1035 1160 349 10 0.756 201 944
10 Kharif 2004 2070 1928 1121 46 2 127 693
11 Rabi 2004-05 141 104 65 2 0.087 4 22
12 Kharif 2005 2316 1888 1223 48 2 29 245
13 Rabi 2005-06 239 238 97 2 0.085 4 26
14 Kharif 2006 1638 1269 835 38 7 141 620
15 Rabi 2006-07 38 45 15 0.295 0.053 0.006 1
16 Kharif 2007 1892 1213 856 32 3 86 260
17 Rabi 2007-08 92 69 25 0.593 0.042 0.003 0.145
18 Kharif 2008 3450 2233 1637 74 13 468 1713
19 Rabi 2008-09 52 52 31 0.726 0.082 5 10
20 Kharif 2009 3102 2143 2432 101 13 375 1329
21 Rabi 2009-10 82 96 75 2 0.327 1 1
Kharif Seasons Total 23187 20766 13635 551 73 1593 7224
Rabi Seasons Total 2554 2595 1354 27 3 266 1360
Grand Total 25741 23361 14989 579 76 1859 8584