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).

153
 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

154
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

155
 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pune
Aurangabad
Nasik
Ahmednagar
Osmanabad
Solapur
Raigad
Jalgaon
Dhule
Akola
Satara
Chart 1 : Q

Thane
Sindhudurg
Ratnagiri
Kolhapur
Beed
QUESTIONNA

Sangli
Buldhana
Amravati
Nanded
Latur
AIRE LOANEE

Parbhani
Jalna
Hingoli
Yavatmal
E / NON - LOA

Wardha
Chandrapur
ANEE

Nagpur
Bhandara
Gondia
G d hi li
Gadchiroli
LOANEE
NON-LOA
ANEE

156
 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pune
Aurangabad
Nasik
Ahmednagar
Osmanabad
Solapur
Raigad
Jalgaon
Dhule
Akola
Satara
Thane
Sindhudurg
Ratnagiri
Kolhapur
Beed
Sangli
Buldhana
Amravati
Nanded
Latur
Parbhani
Jalna
Hingoli
Yavatmal
Wardha
Chandrapur
Nagpur
Chart 2 : QUESTIONNAIRE – FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Bhandara
Gondia
Gadchiroli
PACS
DCCB
LOANEE

GRAMIN

AGRI DEPT
NON-LOANEE

NATIONALISED

157
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

158
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

159
 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
160
 Perception Response Percent
Preference of Sale of Livestock 02.00
agencies in case of Borrowing from friends and 06.00
losses relatives
Bank loan 23.00
Co-operative Society 35.00
Lease of Land 01.00
Hypothecation of house / 03.00
jewellery
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).

161
 Table 4 : MOTIVATION AND EXPERIENCE OF LOANEE (INSURED)
FARMERS WITH INSURANCE

Perception Response Percent

Motivation for going Due to Banks Compulsion 38.00
for insurance Financial Security 55.00
Heard of good experience from 06.00
others
Experience with Agriculture 01.00
Department
Experience with Satisfactory 100.00
Agricultural Insurance

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.

162
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 Upto 2% 40.00
(willingness to pay) 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

163
 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 Cover more crops 07.00
for Improving Individual Assessment 23.00
Administration Reduce Premium 11.00
of Crop Quick settlement of claims 24.00
Insurance Gram Panchayat as a unit of loss assessment 08.00
Scheme Insurance service at doorstep / at village 15.00
CCE’s in presence of villagers 12.00

164
 Perception Response Percent
Media Radio 09.00
preference for Doordarshan 15.00
Awareness Newspapers 04.00
about the Mobiles 01.00
Scheme 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 Rural agent at your door step 34.00
Channel 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.

165
 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

166
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).

167
Table 9 : BARRIERS IN PENETRATION OF CROP INSURANCE BY
NONLOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS

Perception Response Percent

Reasons for not Not aware of crop insurance 35.00
availing the No need of Insurance 25.00
insurance 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 03.00
the bank
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).

168
Table 10 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON
STRATEGY TO FINANCE CROP LOSSES

Perception Response Percent

Sources of Sale of Fixed Assets 3.00
financing Borrowing from friends and 10.00
relatives
Bank loan 29.00
Government relief 01.00
Co-operative Society 22.00
Hypothecation of house / 35.00
jewellery

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.

169
Table 11 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON
PREFERENCE FOR INSURANCE AGENCY AND MEDIA

Perception Response Percent

Service provider for Rural agent at your door step 39.00

availing insurance 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.

170
 Table 12 : NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS PERCEPTION ON
MEDIA PREFERENCE FOR AWARENESS

Perception Response Percent

Radio 04.00
Media preference
Doordarshan 09.00
for awareness about
Newspapers 06.00
crop insurance
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

171
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.

172
 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

Percent
Response
DCC Nationalised Gramin PACS
Bank Bank Bank
Display NAIS 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
posters in bank
premises
Discuss NAIS with 26.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
farmers when they
visit bank for loan
and other purposes
Handouts on NAIS 24.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
like brochures and
pamphlets to
farmers during their
visit to bank

173
 Percent
Response
DCC Nationalised Gramin PACS
Bank Bank Bank
Include NAIS as an 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Agenda in various
meetings with
farmers

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.

174
Table 14 : SERVICING NON-LOANEE (INSURED) FARMERS – BANKERS
INTERVENTION FOR MARKET PENETRATION

Percent

Response DCC Bank Nationalised Gramin PACS

Bank Bank
72 67 100 100
Yes
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

Percent

Response
DCC Bank Nationalised Gramin PACS
Bank Bank
73 40 100 86
Yes
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

175
 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

Percent

Response DCC Nationalised Gramin PACS

Bank Bank Bank
Rural agent at door 29.00 100 57 33
step
Rural agent at 16.00 - - 17
village level
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).

176
 Table 17 : SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING

IMPLEMENTATION OF NAIS

Percent
Response DCC Bank Nationalised Gramin PACS
Bank Bank
Cover more crops 12.00 - 08.00 13.00
Individual assessment 12.00 - 08.00 16.00
Gram Panchayat as a 07.00 - 04.00 10.00
unit of loss
assessment
Reduce premium 13.00 - 08.00 08.00
Quick settlement of 14.00 20.00 17.00 16.00
claims
Insurance service at 11.00 30.00 1.00 13.00
door step / village
level
Making scheme 10.00 20.00 17.00 11.00
voluntary
CCE’s to be 12.00 10.00 13.00 08.00
conducted in the
presence of villagers /
insurance company’s
representatives
Indemnity level from 09.00 20.00 13.00 05.00
60% to 80-90%

177
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).

178
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 04.00
/ insurance company’s representatives
Indemnity level from 60% to 80-90% 08.00

179
 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

180
• 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

ƒ AICIL should make the scheme compulsory

ƒ Scheme should be optional

ƒ Individual loss assessment

ƒ Crop loss by animals should be covered

ƒ Due to climatic changes crop pattern is changed. Sowing

seeds work ends by August / September hence closing

date for accepting forms should be increased

ƒ Insurance should be free to small / marginal farmers

ƒ Coverage of specified post harvest losses

181
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

ƒ Tribal people under below poverty line (BPL) should get

100% subsidy

ƒ Subsidy for big farmers

ƒ Subsidy for female farmers

ƒ Extra insurance coverage premium should be reduced

ƒ Premiums should be less for irrigated area

182
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.

183
• 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

ƒ Workshops for farmers to be taken. Marathi booklet of

the scheme should to be distributed. Importance of the

scheme should be told to farmers.

ƒ Benefits are not required but at least whatever crop loss

has happened at least that should be paid

184
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

ƒ 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.

185
 SUGGESTIONS

ƒ 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

ƒ 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.

186
 • 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.

187
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

ƒ 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.

ƒ To ensure the participation of the owner-farmer of the

experimental plot selected for CCE, the incentive

188
 commensurate with the time taken for such experiments

should be built up.

ƒ Overseeing the experiments by the high level officials will

ensure reduction in the moral hazard of inaccurate

reporting of the results

ƒ Strengthening the supervisory machineries by insurer

and financial institutions

ƒ Tools and materials required for conducting CCE to be

provided to the officials conducting CCEs

ƒ To ensure the participation of the employee of the

Government for conduct of CCE, suitable reward or

incentive should be given.

ƒ Labour charges for conducting CCEs to be

proportionately increased to match with the minimum

wages fixed by Government

ƒ 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.

189
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

ƒ Faster settlement of claims

ƒ 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

190
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

ƒ 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

191
 SUGGESTIONS

ƒ AICIL office at District / Taluka

ƒ Farmer is required to register in the 7/12 extract crops

grown by him. This should be done after the insurance

dates are declared.

ƒ Whatever the farmer grows in the farm, insurance should

be there and not as per the notified crops

ƒ 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

ƒ Banks should help farmers by paying partial premium

ƒ Premium and claims figures should be rounded off.

192
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

ƒ 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

193
• 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

194
 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

ƒ Bank Commission to be increased upto10 percent

ƒ Separate staff for this work

ƒ Training on operational modalities of NAIS to be given to

bank employees

ƒ Agriculture Department should facilitate in filling the

proposal forms and banks will only accept the premium.

ƒ Nationalised and commercial banks should be made

compulsory for contributing in this scheme.

ƒ 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

195
 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

196
 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
197
Seasmum (Til)
Soyabean
Tur
Sunflower
ANNUAL HORTICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL CROPS
Cotton Onion
Orange
Sugarcane
Onion

Figure 1 : AGRICULTURE IN MAHARASHTRA

198
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 25311915 91 %
(2000 – 2010)
Rabi 2609001 9%
(1999 – 2010)
Total 27920916 100%

199
 Chartt 3 : COVER
RAGE OF CROPS
C IN MAHARAS
SHTRA

Rabi
9%

Kharif
Rabi

Kharif
91%

Table 22 : SEASON WISE

E PARTICIP
PATION OF FARMER
RS UNDER
R NAIS
(Figures in Crores)
Yearr / Farm
mers Area Covered Sum P
Premium Subsidy Claims
Seaso
on Covered (
(Ha) I
Insured
KHAR
RIF
2000
0 25229322 2816752.19 1777.52 43.84 8.30 140.75
2001 26667446 3119451.48 1814.09 80.27 12.69 93.15
2002
2 17993363 22275095.4 1012.82 52.05 6.11 28.42
2003
3 17226892 1851631.5 920.91 35.85 3.03 100.95
2004
4 20669605 19228157.98 1121.37 46.04 1.84 126.08
2005 23116153 1887736.82 1223.19 47.74 2.05 28.97
2006 16338189 12268511.8 835.07 38.16 11.20 140.58
2007
7 18992192 1212710.83 856.36 31.64 3.41 86.31
2008 34551952 2233425.38 1638.75 74.28 12.82 469.22
2009
9 31002000 21444017.93 2434.71 101.48 16.24 374.87
2010
0 21224801 1254462.65 1263.00 50.18 5.46 0.00
Tota
al 253111915 21991953.96 14897.80 601.53 83.15 1589.29

200
 Yearr / mers
Farm Area Covered Sum P
Premium Subsidy Claims
Seaso
on Covered (
(Ha) I
Insured
RABI
1999
9 1220438 116907.37 129.62 1.39 0.29 5.08
2000
0 4220977 379442.16 463.98 5.13 1.08 26.69
2001 8
85535 61475.36 20.27 0.50 0.11 2.12
2002
2 2447677 273815.94 83.82 2.75 0.38 16.34
2003
3 10334765 1160058.29 348.65 10.18 0.76 194.22
2004
4 1440563 103655.03 64.68 1.99 0.09 3.95
2005 2339266 237509.58 96.80 2.13 0.08 3.54
2006 3
37655 4
45391.19 15.34 0.29 0.05 0.01
2007
7 9
92109 69057.4 25.23 0.59 0.04 0.00
2008 5
52161 51693.84 30.91 0.73 0.08 5.45
2009
9 8
82348 96113.2 74.97 1.70 0.33 1.39
2010
0 5
55507 61268.86 64.32 1.70 0.25 0.00
Tota
al 26009001 2656388.22 1418.58 29.08 3.55 258.79

Chart 4 : SEAS
SON WISE PROGRES
P S ON FARM
MERS
C
COVERED UNDER NA
AIS

4000000

3500000

3000000

2500000

2000000
Kharif
K
1500000 Rabi
R
1000000

500000

201
Chart 5 : SEAS
SON WISE PROGRES
P S ON AREA
A COVERE
ED UNDER
R NAIS

3500000
3

3000000
3

2500000
2

2000000
2
Kharif
K
1500000
1 Rabi
R
1000000
1

500000

0
19999 2000 2001 20002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20007 2008 2009 2010
2

Chart 6 : SEA
ASON WISE
E PROGRESS ON SUM
M INSURED
D UNDER NAIS
N
(Rupees In Crores)

25
500

20
000

15
500
Kharif
K
10
000 Rabi
R

500
5

0
1999 20000 2001 20022 2003 2004 20005 2006 20077 2008 2009 2010
2

202
Table 23: DISTRICTWISE PERFORMANCE OF NAIS IN MAHARASHTRA
STATE (KHARIF – 2000 - 2010)

District Farmers Area Sum Premium Subsidy Claim

Covered (Ha) Insured
(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

203
 District Farmers Area Sum Premium Subsidy Claim
Covered (Ha) Insured
(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 Area Sum Gross Subsidy Claim

Insured
Covered (Ha) Premium
(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

204
 District Farmers Area Sum Gross Subsidy Claim
Insured
Covered (Ha) Premium
(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

205
 Table 25 : COVERAG
GE OF SMA
ALL VERSU
US OTHER
R FARMER
RS

Year / Season
S Smaall And Otheer Farmerss
Marginaal Farmerss (Land
dholding > 2
(Landh
holding < 2 H
Hectares)
Hecctares)
Kharif
K (20000 – 2010) 147701559 105417756
Rabi
R (1999 – 2010) 14732551 11357750
Total
T 162434110 116775506

Ch
hart 7 : COV
VERAGE OF
O SMALL & MARGIINAL
VE
ERSUS OTH
HER FARM
MERS

Other Farm
mers
42%

Smalll and Marginaal

Farm
mers
Otheer Farmers

Small annd
Marginaal
Farmerrs
58%

206
 Chart
C 8 : SE
EASON WIS
SE PROGR
RESS ON PR
REMIUM COLLECTE
C ED
UNDE
ER NAIS
(Figures in Crores)

120
0

100
0

80
0

60
0 kh
harif
raabi
40
0

20
0

0
1999 20000 2001 2002 22003 2004 20005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20010

Chart 9 : SEASONW
WISE PROG
GRESS ON PREMIUM
M SUBSIDY
Y

CO
OLLECTED
D UNDER NAIS
N

(Figures in Crores)

18

16

14

12

10
kharif
8
rabi
6

0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
2 2004 2005 2006 20077 2008 2009 2010

207
 Table 26 : CATEG
GORYWISE
E BENEFIC
CIARIES OF
F CLAIM

Yeear / Smaall And Otherr Farmers

Season Margin
nal Farmerss
(19
999 – Claims mers
Farm Claims mers
Farm
20
010) ( Crores))
(In Beneffitted (IIn Crores) Beneffitted
Khaarif 7395.99 42223194 8496.889 2970070
Rabi 925.60 7
708900 1662.228 619403
Tota
al 8321.59 49932094 10159.117 3589473

Chart 10 : CATEG
GORYWISE
E BENEFIC
CIARIES OF
F CLAIM

4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
Khariif
2000000
Rabi
1500000
1000000
500000
0
Claims Farmers Claims Farmers
Benefitted Benefitted

208
 Tablle 27 : SEAS
SONWISE PROGRES
P S ON CLAIIMS &

F
FARMERS B
BENEFITT
TED

S
Season Claim
ms Farmerrs
(In Croores) Benefittted
Khaarif 1589.29 71993264
Rabbi 258.79 13228303
Tottal 1848.08 85221567

Chart
C 11 : SE
EASONWIISE PROGR
RESS ON CLAIMS
C AN
ND FARME
ERS
BE
ENEFITTED
D UNDER NAIS
N

(Figures in Crores)

16000
14000
12000
10000
Khariif
8000
Rabi
6000
4000
2000
0
Claimss Farmers Benefitted

Table 47 indicattes that in an agricuulturally addvanced

Staate like Maharashtra

M where thee various insured
i croops are

groown in alm
most the enttire areablee area, the coverage of
o crops

209
 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 Area % of Area Gap

Insurable Insured Covered (% of Area Not
Crops (Ha) Under NAIS Covered Under
(Ha) 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

210
 UN
NDER INSU
URABLE CR
ROPS

88.37 92.94 93.76 88.90 8

87.96 9
93.34

11.63 7.06 6.24 11.10 12.04 6.66

2005 2006 2007 2008 22009 22010

% of Areaa Covered Gap (% of Area

A Not Coveered Under NA
AIS)

Table 48 projeccts a gloom

my picturee of coverrage of

farrmers ranging from a disheartenin

d ng figure off 0.88% to 21.58%
2

and contradiccts the impaact of the addverse finaancial conseequence

of the droughht and the resultant

r t farmers’ vis-à-
suuicides by the

viss the intendded benefitts of NAIS to cushionn such unfo

foreseen

losss. Howeveer, concretee efforts byy the bankeers, rural fiinancial

insstitutions, co-operative
c e societies facilitatingg the incluusion of

thee farmers inn the schem

me needs too be effectivvely reinforrced by

waay of in-situu analysis of

o the probleems and cuustomizationn of the

acttionable inttervention too scale up the

t inclusioon quotient.

Tab
ble 29 : YEA
ARWISE CO
OVERAGE
E OF NAIS LOANEE
L & NON-LOA
ANEE
FARMER
RS (KHARIIF & RABI SEASONS))

211
 (Figures in Lakhs)

Year Total Coverage Coverage Total % Of % Of

Number By Loanee By Non- Coverage Farmers Farmers
Of Farmers Loanee Covered Not
Farmers Farmers Under Covered
NAIS 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

212
 99.12

85.11 87.77 85.52

83.87 81.36 84.09
78.46 79.91
7 799.84
74.42 76.776

25.58 23.24
21.54 20..09 20.116
14.89 16.13 18.664 15.91
12.23 14.488
0.8
88

1999 2000 20001 2002 20003 2004 20005 2006 20077 2008 2009 2010

% OF FARME
ERS COVERE
ED UNDER NA
AIS
ERS NOT COVERED UNDER NAIS
% OF FARME

Tab
ble 30 : COV
VERAGE OF
O NAIS LO
OANEE & NON-LOAN
N NEE FARM
MERS

(Figures inn Lakhs)

Type Off Farmer Farm

mers Coverred Percentagee
Loanee
L 104.73 38
Non-loanee
N 174.50 62

213
 art 14 : COV
Cha VERAGE OF
O NAIS LO
OANEE & NON-LOAN
N NEE FARM
MERS
(KHARIF 2000 – 20100 AND RAB
BI 1999-20100)

LOA ANEE
338%

NON-
LOANEEE
62%

6.6.3 CU
URRENT STATUS
S OF PAR
RTICIPAT
TION IN NAIS

IN
N MAHAR
RASHTRA
A (Table 50)

Table
T 31 : SE
EASON-WIISE COVER
RAGE OF FARMERS
F UNDER NA
AIS

Seaso
on / Khaarif Raabi
Yea
ar Loaanee N
Non-Loanee
e Loaanee Non-Loan
nee
199
99 0 0 1.02 0.19
200
00 2
24.24 1.06 2.75 1.46
200
01 2
23.03 3
3.64 0.71 0.15
200
02 15.34 2.6 0.21 2.26
200
03 11.48 5
5.79 0.37 9.98
200
04 11.73 8
8.96 0.59 0.82
200
05 12.56 10.6 0.7 1.69
200
06 0 166.38 0 0.38
200
07 0 188.92 0 0.92

214
Season / Kharif Rabi
Year 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 Season No. Of Area Sum Gross Premium Claims No. Of
No. Farmers Insured Insured Premium Subsidy Farmers
Covered (In '000' Benefitted
(In '000') Hect- (In '000')
Ares) (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

215