AN ANALYSIS OF CROP INSURANCE AND INSTABILITY IN - NCAP

RISK ASSESSMENT AND INSURANCE PRODUCTS FOR AGRICULTUREPROJECT NO : 40013101(Component IV)CROP INSURANCE AND INSTABILITY INDEX FOR MAJORCROPS IN TAMIL NADU AGRICULTUREResearch Team:D. Suresh KumarK. PalanisamiC.R. RanganathanR. VenkatramConsortium Principal Investigator:B.C. BarahCENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (CARDS)TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITYCOIMBATORE – 641 003MAY 2010

CONTENTSChapters Title Page1.0 INTRODUCTION 12.0 HISTORY OF CROP INSURANCE IN INDIA 22.1 First Individual Approach Scheme 1972-1978 22.2 Pilot Crop Insurance Scheme (PCIS) 1979-1984 22.3 Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) 1985-99 32.4 Experimental Crop Insurance Scheme (ECIS) 1997-98 32.5 National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) 1999 32.6 Pilot Scheme on Seed Crop Insurance (PSSCI) 42.7 Farm Income Insurance 82.8 Livestock Insurance 82.9 Weather Based Crop Insurance / Rainfall Insurance 83.0 CROP INSURANCE SCHEMES IN INDIA 94.0 CROP INSURANCE SCHEME IN TAMIL NADU 114.1 Implementation of weather insurance plan in Tamil Nadu 184.2 Role of Tamil Nadu Government in Crop Insurance 194.3 Current issues on crop insurance in Tamil Nadu 204.4 Constraints in the current insurance schemes 224.5 Suggestions to make crop insurance more effective 224.6 The future focus 235.0 INSTABILITY IN TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURE 235.1 Data and Methodology 245.2 Results and Discussion 256.0 CONCLUSION 32REFERENCES 33ANNEXURE 36

LIST OF TABLESTables Title Page1. States and Crops Covered under Pilot Scheme on Seed Crop Insurance 42. Salvage Value under Seed Insurance Scheme 63. Premium Rates under Seed Insurance Scheme 74. Details of Crop Insurance Policies of Agricultural Insurance Company of India 105. Performance of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in Tamil Nadu - District wisefrom 2000 to 20066. Year Wise / Season Wise Performance under National Agricultural Insurance Schemein Tamil Nadu14157. Coverage of Loanee and Non-Farmers under NAIS in Tamil Nadu from 2000 to 2008 168. Crop wise Coverage of Farmers under NAIS in Tamil Nadu during 2008-09 179. Premium subsidy in Tamil Nadu 1910. Insurance Companies in Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme 2011. Details of financial allocation, number of farmers enrolled, subsidy utilized andcompensation amount received by the farmers (2006-2009)2012. Instability Indices for major crops grown in Tamil Nadu 2613. Distribution of districts based on instability index for paddy 2814. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Sorghum 2815. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Maize 2916. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Sugarcane 2917. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Cotton 3018. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Groundnut 3019. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Chillies 3120. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Banana 3121. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Total Pulses 3222. Instability Indices for paddy over periods 3723. Instability Indices for Sorghum over periods 3824. Instability Indices for Maize over periods 3925. Instability Indices for Sugarcane over periods 4026. Instability Indices for Cotton over periods 4127. Instability Indices for Groundnut over periods 4228. Instability Indices for Chillies over periods 4329. Instability Indices for Banana over periods 4430. Instability Indices for Total Pulses over periods 45iii

CROP INSURANCE AND INSTABILITY INDEX FOR MAJORCROPS IN TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURE1.0 IntroductionAgriculture has been a crucial sector in many developing countries across the world for itsperceived ability to contribute significantly to achieve developmental objectives such aseconomic growth, employment generation, food security, poverty reduction, andenvironmental sustainability. Increasing the productive capacity of agriculture throughhigher productivity has been the main policy agenda in many developing economies. Indiais not an exception where agriculture provides employment to millions of people in therural areas, and hence the growth and development of this sector assumes importantamong the policy makers. With almost little scope for further expansion in arable lands,there is a need to increase yields to technically maximum possible levels throughappropriate investment in basic infrastructure, human development, and research andextension services (Chavas, 2006; Zepeda, 2006; Mathur et al, 2006).There has been a consistent decline in growth of the agriculture sector since 1990 onwardsas compared to 1980s. It was 4 per cent per annum during the 1980s on an average, whichcame down to 3.2 per cent during 1990s and 2 per cent in the last five years. Growth inreal value of foodgrain production has been an abysmal -3 per cent during the 1990s and -5 per cent during 1999-2000 to 2002-03, with minor improvements estimated during2003-04 (Mathur et al, 2006). While there has been decline in overall agricultural growth,there are considerable inter-regional variations across the country. With regard to theperiod 1993 to 2003, the state-wise analysis shows wide variations in growth from 28 percent to –19 per cent taking the first three years and last three years, viz, 1993-96 and2000-03.Over the years, many researchers have attempted to study variations in terms ofagricultural production, productivity, and agricultural growth performance across regionsin the country (Sawant, 1997; Singh et al, 1997; Parveen et al, 1997; Rao and Gopalappa,2004; Sidhu and Bhullar, 2005; Mathur et al 2006). These studies by and large found thatthere are considerable variations in yield, production, input use in agriculture andagricultural growth across regions. However, studies on regional differences in farmprofitability are limited. Moreover, growing imbalances in agricultural growth anddevelopment led to disparity in status of farmers across regions. Significant proportion offarmer households has been trapped to indebtedness. Recent estimates show that nearly 49per cent of farm households are indebted and the average amount per indebted householdis Rs.12585. This issue made the academicians and policy makers to carefully analysewhy this happens in the era of globalization, technological advancement, and economicgrowth.Farmers face floods, drought, pests, disease, and a plethora of other natural disasters. Cropinsurance as a risk management tool is being widely adopted both in developing anddeveloped countries. Agricultural crop insurance has assumed much importance with largescale damage caused due to pest attacks, crop diseases and vagaries of weather. Theobjective here is to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in theevent of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests anddiseases. The list of crops being covered for insurance differs from state to state.Generally quite a few Kharif and Rabi season crops are covered. These crops are insured

at the community/block/gram panchayat levels. Agriculture insurance schemes are ofimmense help to farmers, providing them with financial security.Developed countries have a variety of government-supported, agriculture-relatedinsurance services. But, in India, farmers generally rely on informal arrangements likediversifying crops, favouring traditional practices over modern techniques, and enteringinto share-cropping arrangements. Such arrangements, however, are not totally gainful inmitigating the risks as efficiently as formal arrangements. Therefore, crop insurance asone of the means of reducing the agricultural risks, indemnifies the losses arising fromnatural calamities like drought, flood, storm and pests and diseases. Crop insurance bringsin security and stability in farm income. Crop insurance protects farmers‟ investment incrop production and thus improves their risk bearing capacity. It facilitates adoption ofimproved technologies and encourages higher investment resulting in higher agriculturalproduction. Further, it spreads the crop losses that occur due to uncontrollable naturalfactors, over space and time and helps farmers make more investments in agriculture.Realising the importance of potential contribution of crop insurance in agricultural sector,the present paper aimed at (i) critically review the various crop insurance schemes inTamil Nadu state and (ii) work out the instability index for important crops.2. 0 History of Crop Insurance in IndiaThe Crop Insurance in India was started with the introduction of the All-RiskComprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) that covered the major crops. Thisscheme was introduced in 1985. In fact this period of introduction also coincided with theintroduction of the Seventh-Five-year plan. This initial scheme was of course latersubstituted and replaced by the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). Thissubstitution came into effect from 1999. These Schemes that have been introducedthroughout the crop insurance history have been preceded by years of preparation, studies,planning, experiments and trials on a pilot basis. In the crop insurance history, thequestion of introducing a crop insurance scheme was taken up for examination soon afterthe Indian independence. The first aspect that was examined related to the modalities ofcrop insurance. The issue under consideration was about whether the crop insuranceshould be offered under an „individual approach‟ or on „Homogenous area approach‟.The Individual approach of the scheme indemnifies the farmer to the full extent of thelosses. Also the premium that is to be paid by him is determined with reference to his ownpast yield and loss experience. The Individual approach for these schemes necessitatesreliable and accurate data of crop yields of individual farmers for a sufficiently longperiod, for fixation of premium on actuarially sound basis. The Homogenous areaapproach on the other hand was aimed at envisaging a homogeneous area from the pointof view of crop production and similarity of annual variability of crop production. Thehomogenous area approach was found to be more favorable. This is because it wouldfacilitate the provision of a single unit treatment to various agro-climatically homogenousareas and the individual farmers and allow them to pay the same rate of premium andreceive the same benefits, irrespective of their individual fortunes.2.1 First Individual Approach Scheme 1972-1978Different forms of experiments on agricultural insurance on a limited, ad-hoc andscattered scale started from 1972-73 when the General Insurance Corporation (GIC) ofIndia introduced a Crop Insurance Scheme on H-4 cotton. In the same year, generalinsurance business was nationalized and, General Insurance Corporation of India was set

up by an Act of Parliament. The new corporation took over the experimental scheme inrespect of H-4 cotton. This scheme was based on “Individual Approach” and laterincluded groundnut, wheat and potato. The scheme was implemented in the statesof Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.It continued up to 1978-79 and covered only 3110 farmers for a premium of Rs.4.54 lakhsagainst claims of Rs.37.88 lakhs.2.2 Pilot Crop Insurance Scheme (PCIS) 1979-1984In the background and experience of the aforesaid experimental scheme, a study wascommissioned by the General Insurance Corporation of India and Prof. V.M. Dandekarwas entrusted to suggest a suitable approach to be followed in the scheme. Therecommendations of the study were accepted and a Pilot Crop Insurance Scheme waslaunched by the GIC in 1979, which was based on Area Approach for providinginsurance cover against a decline in crop yield below the threshold level. The schemecovered cereals, millets, oilseeds, cotton, potato and chickpea and it was confinedto loanee farmers of institutional sources on a voluntary basis. The premium paid wasshared between the General Insurance Corporation of India and State Governments in theratio of 2:1. The maximum sum insured was 100 per cent of the crop loan, which was laterincreased to 150 per cent. The Insurance premium ranged from 5 to 10 per cent of the suminsured. Premium charges payable by small/marginal farmers were subsidized by 50 percent shared equally between the state and central governments. Pilot Crop InsuranceScheme–1979 was implemented in 12 states till 1984-85 and covered 6.23 lakh farmersfor a premium of Rs.195.01 lakhs against claims of Rs.155.68 lakhs in the entire period.2.3 Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) 1985-99This scheme was linked to short term credit and implemented based on theHomogenous area approach. Till Kharif 1999, the scheme was adopted in 15 states and 2UTs. Both PCIS and CCIS were confined only to farmers who borrowed seasonalagricultural loan from financial institutions. The main distinguishing feature of the twoschemes was that PCIS was on voluntary basis whereas CCIS was compulsory for loaneefarmers in the participating states / UTs.Main Features of the Scheme were It covered farmers availing crop loans from Financial Institutions, for growingfood crops and oilseeds, on compulsory basis. The coverage was restricted to 100 percent of the crop loan subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/- per farmer. The premium rates were 2 per cent for cereals and millets and 1 per cent for pulsesand oilseeds. Farmers‟ share of premium was collected at the time of disbursement ofloan. Half of the premium payable by small and marginal farmers was subsidizedequally by the Central and State Governments ( Tripathi, 1987) Burden of Premium and Claims was shared by Central and State Governments in a2:1 ratio, and The scheme was a multi agency effort, involving GOI, State Governments,Banking Institutions and GIC.3

2.4 Experimental Crop Insurance Scheme (ECIS) 1997-98As demanded by various states from time to time attempts were made to modify theexisting CCIS. During 1997, a new scheme, namely Experimental Crop InsuranceScheme was introduced during Rabi 1997-98 season with the intention to covereven those small and marginal farmers who do not borrow from institutionalsources. This scheme was implemented in 14 districts of five states. The Schemeprovided 100 per cent subsidy on premium. The premium and claims were shared byCentral and State Governments in 4:1 ratio.2.5 National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) 1999The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) was introduced in the countryfrom the rabi season of 1999-2000. Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd (AIC)which was incorporated in December, 2002, and started operating from April, 2003,took over the implementation of NAIS. This scheme is available to both loanees andnon-loanees. It covers all food grains, oilseeds and annual horticultural / commercial cropsfor which past yield data are available for an adequate number of years. Among the annualcommercial and horticultural crops, sugarcane, potato, cotton, ginger, onion,turmeric, chillies, coriander, cumin, jute, tapioca, banana and pineapple, are coveredunder the scheme. The scheme is operating on the basis of both area approach, forwidespread calamities, and individual approach, for localized calamities such ashailstorm, landslide, cyclone and floods.Agriculture insurance in India till recently concentrated only on crop sector andconfined to compensate yield loss. Recently some other insurance schemes have alsocome into operation in the country which goes beyond yield loss and also cover the noncropsector. These include Farm Income Insurance Scheme, Rainfall Insurance Schemeand Livestock Insurance Scheme.2.6 Pilot Scheme on Seed Crop Insurance (PSSCI)The Seed Crop Insurance Scheme was implemented on pilot basis during 1999-2000 and2000-01 and the financial assistance was provided to the identified states i.e., AndhraPradesh, Orissa, Gujrat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, U.P,Maharashtra for the implementation of the scheme. The major objectives of this schemeare:a) ObjectivesTo provide financial security and income stability to the seed growers in the eventof failure of seed cropTo build confidence in the minds of existing seed growers and stimulateparticipation of new growers to undertake seed production programme of newlyreleased hybrid / improved varietiesTo provide stability to the infrastructure established by the State owned SeedCorporations / State Farms andTo give a boost to the modern seed industry to bring it under scientific principles.

) States, Areas and Crops to be covered:Breeder', 'Foundation' and „Certified‟ seeds of the following crops in the followingStates will be covered. The identified States will opt for the crops to be covered from thelist given in Table 1.Table 1: States and Crops Covered under Pilot Scheme on Seed Crop InsuranceStateAndhra PradeshGujaratHaryanaKarnatakaMadhya PradeshMaharashtraOrissaPunjabRajasthanUttar PradeshCropsPaddy, Maize, Jowar, Bajra, Sunflower, Cotton, Groundnut, RedGramBajra, Wheat, Gram, Cotton, Groundnut, Maize, Red Gram, CastorPaddy, Wheat, Gram, Red Gram, CottonPaddy, Maize, Jowar, Bajra, Sunflower, Cotton, Groundnut, RedGram, Bengal Gram, Black Gram, Green Gram, Ragi.Paddy, Wheat, Gram, Soyabean, Sunflower, Cotton, Red Gram,Mustard.Paddy, Jowar, Bajra, Wheat, Gram, Soyabean, Sunflower, Cotton,Groundnut, Red Gram, Green Gram, Black Gram.Paddy, Groundnut, Red Gram , CottonPaddy, Wheat, Gram, Red Gram, Soyabean, Cotton.Wheat, Gram, Soyabean, Groundnut, Red Gram, Cotton, Bajra,Castor, Mustard.Paddy, Wheat, Gram, Soyabean, Sunflower, Red Gram, Cotton,Potato, Pea, Mustard.Only the Foundation and Certified Seed produce that is offered to State Seed CertificationAgency (SSCA) for certification is eligible for coverage. In case of Breeder Seed, thecoverage is subject to the production being carried out under the supervision of theconcerned Monitoring Committee. For the purpose of insurance coverage, seed areasunder jurisdiction of a sub-office / area-office of SSCA will be identified as a unit fordetermination of Average Yield and Sum Insured in respect of that unit area.c) Risks CoveredThe proposed Scheme seeks to provide protection against those risks, which are beyondcontrol of the farmers. The following types of losses will be covered:A. At Field StageA1. Failure of Seed Crop Field either in Full or in Part due to the Perils IndicatedBelow:Risks of loss against natural fire, lightning, storm, hailstorm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest,hurricane, tornado, flood, inundation, landslides, drought, dry spells, excessive rain, largescale incidence of pests and diseases are covered. Damages due to frost would also becovered under the Scheme.A2. Loss in Expected Raw Seed Yield:Following perils in addition to the perils mentioned under Para A1 above will be covered:5

Prevalence of excessive rain, blowing of hot and / or cold wind, excessive hot weatherduring flowering or seed setting stage will be covered.A3. Loss of Seed Crop after HarvestDamage to the harvested seed crop due to operation of the above-mentioned perils whilstlying on the field until the crop is removed from the field for transportation to theprocessing plant will be covered under the Scheme.B. At Seed Certification StageLosses due to seed lots having failed in 'Germination Test' due to operation of any of theinsured perils mentioned in Para A1 and A2 above will be compensated. Failure ingermination test due to any factor / reason other than the insured ones will not be covered.d) Exclusions under Seed Crop InsurancePhysical damage / losses / rejection of field / seed on account of following reasons areexcluded from the coverage:i) Poor crop stand due to either defective planting material or unfavourable conditionsprevailing during sowing period.ii)iii)iv)Non-maintenance of prescribed isolation distance.Non-rouging at appropriate times and non-conformity of prescribed standards ornon-compliance of any of the instructions of the Certification Agency.When seed crop production has not been taken up in ideal conditions with propercultural practices.v) Non-acceptance of crop due to non-synchronization of male and female plants.vi)Lodging of seed crop and resulting loss in yield except for the insured perils.vii) Loss or damage to seed crop affected by pests and/or diseases, which otherwise,would have been controlled by adopting adequate plant protection measures.viii) Losses on account of Physical Purity, Genetic Purity, and admixtures of OtherDistinguishable Varieties (ODV) or due to 'other' reasons not covered under theScheme.ix)Loss of seed crop / seeds at field stage / laboratory stage due to theft.x) Losses to seed crop whilst in transit.xi)Loss / damage due to operation of following perils directly or indirectly:a) War, invasion, civil war, rebellion, conspiracy, persons acting maliciously.b) Nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination.xii) Loss or damage due to:a) Willful negligence of the insured.b) Human action, birds and animals.e) Sum InsuredSum Insured is equivalent to preceding three / five year's Average Seed Yield certified inrespect of the identified unit area multiplied by 'Procurement Price' of the seed cropvariety prevailing in the previous season by National Seed Corporation (NSC). The Sum

Insured may be increased up to 150 per cent of the average processed, tagged certifiedSeed Yield. A producing agency opting for higher Sum Insured would be required to paya correspondingly higher premium.f) SalvageAll seed crops identified for coverage under the Scheme have salvage values.Salvage values will be calculated at a fixed percentage of Procurement Price (PP) asgiven below, which will be deducted from the claim amount before payment.Alternatively, the insurer will pay the full amount of compensation (i.e., beforededuction of salvage) and will take over the possession of the salvage. The deductionof salvage will be applicable in case of losses in Germination test only.Table 2 : Salvage Value under Seed Insurance SchemeCropSalvage as per cent of Procurement PriceHybridsOther VarietiesJowar and Bajra 30 60Maize 40 60Paddy, Wheat, Gram and Groundnut 40 60Sunflower 30 60Soyabean and Tur 40 50Cotton 20 20g) Loss Assessment MethodThe certification agency officials, who periodically inspect the field, will intimateindividual grower-wise, the details of damages / losses and rejection thereof to the seedproducing organization and to the insurer. The insurer will arrange for surveying the lossand the compensation will be estimated and paid as per graded scale mentioned earlier.The first inspection of the seed crop will be done by the State Seed Certification Agencieswithin 45 days in case loss is reported by the seed grower, otherwise if the crop is normal,the State Seed Certification Agencies will work out the inspections as per their routinenorms. The amount of claim will be proportionate to the area rejected.Excess: 20 per cent of all admissible claims will be borne by the Insured.Loss after Harvesting and until the Crop is ready for TransportationConcerned seed producing organization / grower will intimate the loss soon after theincident of loss to the insurer giving all the detailed information. The Insurer will arrangeor survey / loss assessment and the compensation will be estimated and paid.Excess: 20 per cent of all admissible claims will be borne by the Insured.Loss at Seed Certification StageCertification Agency and seed producing organization both will intimatei) Sharing of RiskPremium will go to the account of the Insurer, i.e., General Insurance Corporation ofIndia. The Claims beyond 200 per cent of premium income will be to the insurer theindividual farmer-wise Actual Quantity Rejected due to failure in germination test onaccount of natural calamity along with the laboratory test results. The maximum amountof claim will be the procurement value of the rejected quantity less salvage value asreferred in Salvage value chart.7

h) Premium RateCrop-wise premium at the following rates will be charged borne by the Government on asunset basis - in the first year 100 per cent, in the second year 50 per cent and in the thirdyear 25 per cent of losses beyond 200 per cent of the premium income might be met by theCentral Government. From the fourth year onwards the General Insurance Corporation of Indiawill meet the losses fully.Table 3 : Premium Rates under Seed Insurance SchemeCrop Rate (per cent) Crop Rate (per cent)1. Paddy 3.0 7. Wheat 2.02. Jowar 3.5 8. Bajra 5.03. Maize 5.0 9. Soyabean 5.04. Sunflower 2.5 10. Groundnut 2.05. Gram 5.0 11. Tur 5.06. Cotton 5.0i) ReinsuranceGeneral Insurance Corporation of India will negotiate suitable reinsurance arrangement inthe international market to cover the losses exceeding 100 per cent of premium income. Incase the reinsurance arrangement also covers the Government of India's liability, the samewill be adjusted while receiving the Government of India's share of claims liability.2.7 Farm Income InsuranceThe Farm Income Insurance Scheme was started on a pilot basis during 2003-04 toprovide income protection to the farmers by integrating the mechanism of insuring yieldas well as market risks. In this scheme the farmers‟ income is ensured by providingminimum guaranteed income.2.8 Livestock InsuranceLivestock insurance is provided by public sector insurance companies and the insurancecover is available for almost all livestock species. Normally, an animal is insured upto 100 per cent of the market value. The premium is 4 per cent of the sum insured forgeneral public and 2.25 per cent for Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)beneficiaries. The government subsidizes premium for IRDP beneficiaries. Progress inlivestock insurance, however, has been slow and poor.2.9 Weather Based Crop Insurance / Rainfall InsuranceDuring the year 2003-04 the private sector came out with some insurance productsin agriculture based on weather parameters. The insurance losses due to vagaries ofweather, i.e. excess or deficit rainfall, aberrations in sunshine, temperature andhumidity, etc. could be covered on the basis of weather index. If the actual indexof a specific weather event is less than the threshold, the claim becomes payableas a percentage of deviation of actual index. One such product, namely Rainfall Insurancewas developed by ICICI-Lombard General Insurance Company. This move was followedby IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company and by public sector Agricultural InsuranceCompany of India (AIC). Under the scheme, coverage for deviation in the rainfall index is

extended and compensations for economic losses due to less or more than normalrainfall are paid.ICICI Lombard, World Bank and the Social Initiatives Group (SIG) of ICICI Bankcollaborated in the design and pilot testing of India‟s first index based weather insuranceproduct in 2003-04. The pilot test covered 200 groundnut and castor farmers in the rainfeddistrict of Mahaboobnagar, Andhra Pradesh. The policy was linked to crop loans givento the farmers by BASIX Group, a NGO, and sold through its Krishna Bhima SamruddhiArea Bank. The weather insurance has also been experimented with 50 soya farmers inMadhya Pradesh through Pradan, an NGO, 600 acres of paddy crop in Aligarh throughICICI Banks agribusiness group along with the crop loans, and on oranges in Jhalawardistrict of Rajasthan.Similarly, IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance (ITGI) also piloted rainfall insurance underthe name - Baarish Bima during 2004-05 in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat.Agricultural Insurance Company of India (AIC) introduced rainfall insurance (VarshaBima) during 2004 South-West Monsoon period. Varsha Bima provided for five differentoptions suiting varied requirements of farming community. These are (1) seasonalrainfall insurance based on aggregate rainfall from June to September, (2) sowingfailure insurance based on rainfall between 15th June and 15th August, (3) rainfalldistribution insurance with the weight assigned to different weeks between June andSeptember, (4) agronomic index constructed based on water requirement of cropsat different pheno-phases and (5) catastrophic option, covering extremely adversedeviations of 50 per cent and above in rainfall during the season. Varsha Bimawas piloted in 20 rain gauge areas spread over Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthanand Uttar Pradesh in 2004-05.Based on the experience of the pilot project, the scheme was fine-tuned and implementedas “Varsha Bima -2005” in about 130 districts across Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh,Gujarat, Karnataka, Mahrashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhandand Uttar Pradesh during Kharif 2005. On an average, 2 or 3 blocks /mandals / tehsilswere covered under each India Meteorological Department (IMD) rain gauge stations. Thescheme covered the major crops provided at least two coverage options namely,Seasonal Rainfall Insurance or Rainfall Distribution Index and Sowing Failure Insurance.Varsha Bima-2005 covered 1.25 lakh farmers with a premium income of Rs.3.17 croreagainst a sum insured of Rs.55.86 crore. Claims amounting to Rs.19.96 lakh were paid forthe season. Further, during kharif 2006, the scheme was implemented as Varsha Bima-2006 in and around 150 districts/ rain gauge station areas covering 16 states across thecountry.3.0 Crop Insurance Schemes in IndiaCrop insurance is recognized to be a basic instrument for maintaining stability in farmincome, through promoting technology, encouraging investment, and increasing creditflow in the agricultural sector. The crop insurance fund created at the state level isintended to provide compensation, in the event of damage due to natural calamities. Thecrops covered under this scheme are Coconut, Arecanut, Rubber, Cashew, Tapioca,Plantain (Banana, Kappa, Palayankodan, Robusta), Pineapple, Pepper, Cardamom,Ginger, Turmeric, Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Sesamum, Groundnut, Vegetables, Nutmeg, Clove,Betelvine, Pulses, Tuber crops, Sugarcane, Tobacco, and Rice. Compensation is given forloss of insured crops due to natural calamities like drought, storm, cyclone, flood, landslip, forest fire, sea erosion, earthquake and lightning.9

In order to provide a boost to the agriculture in India, a number of experimental cropinsurance schemes have been introduced in the country. The first ones of the experimentalcrop insurance schemes has been a Pilot Crop Insurance scheme. This was introduced byGIC from the year1979. Some of the important features of the scheme were that thescheme was based on "Area Approach". This scheme covered crops such as Cereals,Millets, Oilseeds, Cotton, Potato and Gram. The scheme was confined to loanee farmersonly and on voluntary basis. The risk was shared between General Insurance Corporationof India and State Governments in the ratio of 2:1. The maximum sum that could beinsured under the scheme was 100% of the crop loan, which was later increased to 150%.a. Under this scheme, 50% of the subsidy was provided for insurance chargeswhich were payable to the small / marginal farmers by the State Government andthe Government of India on 50:50basis.b. Among the earlier crop insurance schemes that were introduced was acomprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme. The Government of India introduced theComprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme with effect from 1 st April 1985. Thisscheme was introduced with the active participation of State Governments. TheScheme was optional for the State Governments.National crop insurance schemeThe Objectives of National Crop Insurance Scheme werea. To provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event ofnatural calamities, pests and diseases.b. To encourage the farmers to adopt progressive farming practices high value in-putsand higher technology in Agriculture.c. To help stabilize farm incomes, particularly in disaster years.Crops covered area. Food crops(Cereals, Millets and Pulses)b. Oilseedsc. Sugarcane, Cotton and Potato (Annual Commercial/annual Horticultural crops)other annual Commercial/annual Horticultural crops subject to availability of pastYield data will be covered in a period of three years. However, the crops whichwill be covered next year will have to be spelt before the close of preceding year.The Scheme extends to all States and Union Territories. The States / UTs opting for theScheme would be required to take up all the crops identified for coverage in a given year.All farmers including sharecroppers, tenant farmers growing the notified crops in thenotified areas are eligible for coverage.The Benefits expected from scheme is to be a critical instrument of development in thefield of crop production, providing financial support to the farmers in the event of cropfailure, Encourage farmers to adopt progressive farming practices and higher technologyin Agriculture, Help in maintaining flow of agricultural credit, Provide significant benefitsnot merely to the insured farmers, but to the entire community directly and indirectlythrough spillover and multiplier entire community directly and indirectly through spilloverand multiplier effects in terms of maintaining production and employment, generation ormarket fees, taxes etc. And net accretion to economic growth and Streamline lossassessment procedures and help in building up huge and accurate statistical base for crop

production. The state wise coverage of NAIS for 16 seasons from Rabi 1999-2000 toKharif 2007 is given in Annexure-1.Agriculture Crop Insurance Company Schemes in IndiaCrop insurance in India was started with the introduction of the All-Risk ComprehensiveCrop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) that covered the major crops in 1985 and later substitutedand replaced by the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme that came into effect from1999. Indian government and private sector companies provide Agriculture and CropInsurance Schemes in India for farmers/crops including agriculture and crop insurance. Ina country like India the crop production is been a subject to changes in climatic conditionsand constantly tackling with are the large-scale damages that are caused as a result of themajor crops in 1985 and later substituted and replaced by the National AgriculturalInsurance Scheme that came into effect from 1999. The details of crop insurance policiesare given in Table.4.Table 4: Details of Crop Insurance Policies of Agricultural Insurance Company of IndiaS.No.1. VarshaBima2. CoffeeInsuranceProduct Scope / Coverage StatesNo. ofLocationsDeficit Rainfall 15 states 1403. Poppy CropInsurance4. WheatInsurance5. MangoInsurance6. RainfallInsurance7. Potato CropInsurance8. Bio-FuelTreeInsurance9. WeatherInsurance2005-06 Yield + Deficit Karnataka 3rainfall2007-08 Adverse rainfall Karnataka / Tamil Nadu /Kerala40Named Perils (Natural Madhya Pradesh,CBNCalamities + Pests and Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh NotifiedDiseases)locationsBiomass + Temperature+ Haryana and Punjab 12RainfallUn-seasonal Rainfall +Temperature + Frost + WindDeficit and Excess rainfallNamed Perils(NaturalCalamities + Pests andDiseases)Plant/ Named Perils(NaturalCalamities Pests andDiseases)RabiMaharastra, AndhraPradesh and UttarPradeshUttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh,Maharashtra, GujaratMaharashtra and WestBengalAvailable in all parts ofIndiaUttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh andMaharashtra51005Available in allparts ofIndia75Source: Annual Report of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, 2006-07.11

Risks covered under Crop InsuranceThe crop insurance risks covered under the non-preventable category are Natural Fire andLightning. Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado etc. Flood,Inundation and slided. Drought, Dry spells, Pests / Diseases etc. The crops insurance risksdo not cover any of the losses that arise out of war and nuclear risks, malicious damageand other risks which are preventable risks. The sum insured under the crop insurancerisks covered usually extends to the value of the threshold yield of the insured crop. Afarmer may also choose to insure his crop beyond value of the threshold yield level up to150% of average yield of the notified area on payment of premium at commercial rates. Incase of Loanee farmers the sum insured would be at least equal to the amount of crop loanadvanced. In the case of the Loanee farmers, the insurance charges that will be levied willbe additional to the Scale of Finance for the purpose of obtaining loan. The matters ofCrop Loan disbursement procedures have been outlined by the RBI / NABARD arebinding.4.0. Crop Insurance Scheme in Tamil NaduCrop Insurance is appropriate to come to rescue to those farmers who have been let downby inaccuracies of the market prices of their various food produces, vagaries of the nature,man-made disasters inflicted upon the nature and many more. The objectives of the cropinsurance schemes are: (i) to provide insurance coverage and financial support to thefarmers in the event of failure of crops as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases,(ii) to encourage the farmers to adopt progressive farming practices high value inputs andhigher technology in agriculture and (iii) to help stabilize farm incomes, particularly indisaster years.Salient features of the scheme (NAIS in Tamil Nadu)Crops coveredFood crops (cereals, millets and pulses) and oilseeds annual commercial/annualhorticultural crops - sugarcane, cotton, potato, chilly, onion, ginger, turmeric, jute,tapioca, banana and pineapple.States and areas to be coveredThe Scheme extends to all States and Union Territories. The States / UTs opting for theScheme would be required to take up all the crops identified for coverage in a given year.Farmers to be coveredAll farmers including sharecroppers, tenant farmers growing insurable crops ona. Compulsory basis: All farmers growing notified crops and availing SeasonalAgricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions i.e. Loanee Farmers.b. Voluntary basis: All other farmers growing notified crops (i.e., Non-Loanee farmers)who opt for the Scheme.Risks coveredThe scheme provides comprehensive risk insurance against yield losses viz.:Natural Fire and Lightning, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane,Tornado, Flood, Inundation and Landslide, Drought, Dry spells, Pests/Diseases etc.

Sum insured /limit of coverageThe Sum Insured (SI) may extend to the value of the threshold yield of the crop with anoption to cover up to 150% of average yield of the crop on payment of extra premium.Premium RatesFood crops and OilseedsPremium rates are 3.5% for bajra, and oilseeds and 2.5% for other Kharif crops, 1.5% forwheat, and 2% for other rabi crops. In case the rates worked out on the basis of actuarialdata are less than the prescribed rate, the lower rate will be applicable.Premium subsidySubsidy premium will be allowed by state / central government and the rate will beannounced every year.Scheme ApproachWide spread calamitiesThe Scheme would operate on the basis of „Area Approach‟ i.e., Defined Areas for eachcrop. The Defined Area may be a Gram Panchayat, Mandal, Hobli, Circle, Phirka, Block,Taluka etc. to be decided by the State/UT. However, each participating State/UT Govt.will be required to reach the level of Gram Panchayat as the unit in a maximum period ofthree years.Localised calamitiesThe scheme would operate on individual basis for localised calamities such as Hailstorm,Cyclone, Flood, Inundation and Landslide on experimental basis.Levels of Indemnity and Threshold YieldThree levels of Indemnity, viz., 90%, 80% and 60% is corresponding to Low Risk.Medium Risk and High Risk areas shall be available for all crops. The insured farmers ofunit area may also opt for higher level of indemnity on payment of additional premium.The Threshold yield (TY) or Guaranteed yield for a crop in an Insurance Unit shall be themoving average based on past three years average yield in case of Rice and Wheat andfive years average yield in case of Other crops, multiplied by the level of indemnity.Loss Assessment and IndemnityWide spread calamitiesIf the „Actual Yield‟ (AY) per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area falls shortof the specified „Threshold Yield‟ (TY), all the insured farmers growing that crop in thedefined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. The Scheme seeks toprovide coverage against such contingency.Localised risksLoss assessment and settlement of claims in case of occurrence of localised perils, such ashailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood will be on individual basis, to be tried onexperimental basisCorpus fundTo meet catastrophic losses, a Corpus Fund shall be created with contributions from theGovernment of India and States/UTs on 50:50 basis.Reinsurance coverEfforts will be made by implementing agency to obtain appropriate reinsurance cover forthe proposed RKBY in the international Reinsurance market.13

Benefits expected from schemeThe scheme is expected to1. Be a critical instrument of development in the field of crop production, providingfinancial support to the farmers in the event of crop failure.2. Encourage farmers to adopt progressive farming practices and higher technology inAgriculture.3. Help in maintaining flow of agricultural credit.4. Provide significant benefits not merely to the insured farmers, but to the entirecommunity directly and indirectly through spillover and multiplier entire communitydirectly and indirectly through spillover and multiplier effects in terms of maintainingproduction and employment, generation or market fees, taxes etc. And net accretion toeconomic growth.5. Streamline loss assessment procedures and help in building up huge and accuratestatistical base for crop production.Tamil Nadu ranks lowest in terms of crop insurance penetration, which is just 3.12 per cent,as compared with 25-40 per cent in other states in the country. Attributing this to lack ofawareness about crop insurance among the farmers, an Agriculture Insurance Company ofIndia (AIC) official said the problem gets further aggravated as few public sector banks arewilling to cover farmers under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS). Of thearound 7-million farmers in the state, only 586,000 are covered by AIC, compared with 15.1million in Maharashtra, 11.9 million in Andhra Pradesh, 6.6 million in Gujarat and 5.7million in Karnataka. According to AIC data, NAIS penetration in Rajasthan is at 40 percent, while it is 30 per cent in Andhra Pradesh and 29 per cent in Karnataka.Public sector banks in Tamil Nadu disbursed loans worth over Rs 16,000 crore (Rs 160billion) to farmers in 2007-08. Majority of them had taken loan against jewellery insteadof crop insurance, which is against the Reserve Bank of India‟s diktat for compulsory cropinsurance when banks lend money to farmers. While agreeing that crop insurance is yet tocatch on, a few public banks felt they alone should not be blamed. A Chennai-basedpublic sector bank's chairman and managing director said they were willing to give cropinsurance but farmers were reluctant to avail of this benefit. They shun from paying the Rs200 premium for an insurance cover. The cap on the number of crops that can be coveredunder NAIS too has been removed. In 2007, AIC settled claims worth Rs 267 crore (Rs2.67 billion), compared with Rs 7.88 crore (Rs 78.8 million) in 2006, an increase of 167per cent. Of this, Rs 222 crore was settled through co-operative banks, Rs 17 crore (Rs170 million) through regional rural banks (RRBs) and Rs 38 crore through commercialbanks.

Table 5 : Performance of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in Tamil Nadu- District wise from 2000 to 2006Number in „000sAmount in Rs. LakhsDistrictNo. ofFarmersAreaCovered (Ha)SumInsured(Rs)Premium (Rs)Subsidy(Rs)Claims(Rs)No. ofBenefi–ciariesKancheepuram 47.08 82.55 8135.52 164.53 18.71 165.16 6.51Thiruvallur 28.82 55.20 5579.24 114.84 11.65 95.97 2.51Cuddalore 101.87 145.35 19231.41 386.28 41.53 1592.34 34.25Villupuram 68.35 105.41 7216.36 143.52 25.64 96.88 7.69Vellore 38.20 49.07 5705.41 130.79 14.09 105.09 7.99Thiruvannamalai 71.26 104.49 10689.30 218.33 24.94 212.11 11.55Salem 6.43 7.09 1076.00 34.97 3.57 3.72 0.14Namakkal 7.33 10.80 1443.41 40.60 4.18 14.21 0.57Dharmapuri 1.51 1.81 251.63 9.01 0.83 2.94 0.09Krishnagiri 0.64 0.37 48.11 2.16 0.20 0.13 0.02Coimbatore 6.08 15.13 2414.03 76.43 4.88 2.27 0.05Erode 6.68 7.07 1157.37 25.04 3.23 2.88 0.16Tiruchirapalli 33.45 50.37 5406.32 127.47 17.50 104.87 4.46Karur 3.76 7.29 714.61 17.58 1.42 7.03 0.36Perambalur 14.06 22.06 2143.36 47.15 5.83 42.07 1.34Pudukottai 27.93 48.08 2807.44 62.56 8.24 131.74 7.43Thanjavur 119.96 187.01 18541.03 405.53 35.63 689.41 28.88Thiruvarur 175.18 284.54 30446.48 629.75 77.06 3641.79 48.08Nagapattinam 181.98 312.76 31746.96 654.12 73.57 7597.08 83.75Madurai 2.06 2.27 281.01 5.03 0.78 4.61 0.43Theni 0.13 0.26 25.04 0.55 0.03 1.40 0.03Dindigul 5.71 10.94 853.27 17.19 1.21 24.06 0.58Ramanathapuram 25.43 73.82 2471.31 50.49 4.36 180.96 6.88Virudhunagar 5.12 8.70 522.02 12.17 2.10 14.38 0.81Sivagangai 20.50 22.57 1870.92 37.95 8.85 574.72 10.25Tirunelveli 3.45 7.06 560.00 14.16 1.69 0.83 0.1415

Thoothukudi 1.14 1.64 209.13 9.36 0.82 1.51 0.04The Nilgiris 2.58 4.41 889.14 48.38 5.14 12.50 0.88Kanyakumari 1.59 1.93 151.91 5.03 0.85 5.65 0.48State Total1008.261630.05162587.733490.97398.52 15328.30 266.35Source: The Regional Office, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited, Chennai.Table 6 : Year Wise / Season Wise Performance under National Agricultural InsuranceScheme in Tamil NaduYear Crops No. ofFarmersCovered2000200120022003200420052006200720082000200120022003Paddy-AllOtherCropsAreaCovered(ha)Sum Insured(Rs)Premium(Rs)ClaimsDisbursed(Rs)No.ofFarmersBenifited79312 147788 994932297 20222357 4120787 2551141048 215608 1642328862 32524421 163265675 6678971877 123431 1059582538 21293149 315039487 5365249970 86932 865963032 17248285 85229374 14380123397 195064 2268325310 48575316 369861169 44277108453 172160 2142228603 48930836 463591282 45763279649 393551 4481138525 94537958 79897179 18015504045 782493 8367520749 169126594727488 839122 190332163973869017322678246585season inprogress286478462625709 84326 425320984 7700392 936363 84122669 33325 322484864 6716498 2834787 236415442 23163 217189968 4568340 16305218 783515994 15880 176133831 3987859 4218653 2067200 22242 16120 177850481 13496622 8468048 2233

42005200620072008200020012002200320042005200620072008AllCropsTotal 231587211514 5973 63868161 5982708 19142885 386835795 46691 563094859 21830944 14464240 486253436 75109 1140913241 37544634 117303235 1399727832 36494 536170613 25617518 season inprogress105021 232114 1420253281 27922749 5057150 3392163717 248933 1964813726 39240919 166100462 6915387319 146594 1276772506 25861489 331344705 6148765964 102812 1042096863 21236144 89448027 16447145639 211184 2446175791 62071938 378329217 46510119967 178133 2206096764 54913544 482734167 49631315444 440242 5044233384 116368902557481 857602 9508433990 206671228755320 875616 19569387010329323044478263315412519250966806163094361419 228772795549820season inprogress43429249673004754626574598Source: Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited, New Delhi.17

Table 7 : Coverage of Loanee and Non-Farmers under NAIS in Tamil Nadufrom 2000 to 2008YearCategory ofFarmersFarmersCoveredArea(ha)SumInsured(Rs.lakh)Premium(Rs.lakhs)Claims(Rs.lakhs)2000 Loanee 109416 231228 14091.90 292.14 59.74Non-Loanee 898 880 109.42 2.23 0.00Sub-Total 110314 232108 14201.32 294.37 59.742001 Loanee 163285 248209 19574.13 391.04 1656.13Non-Loanee 441 725 73.72 1.40 5.01Sub-Total 163726 248934 19647.85 392.45 1661.142002 Loanee 87135 146438 12722.35 257.85 3282.12Non-Loanee 184 204 38.12 0.76 31.33Sub-Total 87319 146642 12760.47 258.61 3313.452003 Loanee 64768 101525 10158.37 207.09 704.32Non-Loanee 1196 1286 262.60 5.27 190.16Sub-Total 65964 102811 10420.97 212.36 894.482004 Loanee 142103 243139 28490.50 604.29 3459.13Non-Loanee 3536 3953 819.86 16.43 324.15Sub-Total 145639 247092 29310.36 620.72 3783.292005 Loanee 104829 196238 22727.19 491.81 4215.19Non-Loanee 15138 16299 2819.31 57.33 612.15Sub-Total 119967 212537 25546.50 549.14 4827.342006 Loanee 225150 351621 39443.38 938.90 524.06Non-Loanee 90294 88622 11000.00 224.79 419.55Sub-Total 315444 440243 50443.38 1163.69 943.612007 Loanee 198335 325549 42056.96 995.94 4126.40Non-Loanee 359146 532052 53030.00 1070.78 23830.00Sub-Total 557481 857601 95086.96 2066.71 27956.402008 Loanee 180875 254765 42374.41 986.49 61.45Non-Loanee 574541 620937 153319.31 3140.09 NASub-Total 755416 875702 195693.72 4126.58 61.452000-2008LoaneeNon-LoaneeGrand Total1275896(55.0)1045374(45.0)2321270(100.0)2098712(62.4)1264958(37.6)3363670(100.0)231639.19(51.1)221472.34(48.9)453111.53(100.0)5165.55(53.3)4519.08(46.7)9684.63(100.0)18088.54(41.6)25412.35(58.4)43500.89(100.0)

Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to total.Source: Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited, New Delhi.Table 8 : Crop wise Coverage of Farmers under NAIS in Tamil Nadu during 2008-09CropCategory of Farmers Area Sum Insured PremiumFarmers Covered (Ha) (Rs.lakhs) (Rs lakhs)1. Paddy Loanee 165973 237326 38479.85 783.20Non-Laonee 561515 601795 151821.27 3085.82Sub-Total 727488 839121 190301.12 3869.02% to Total 96.30 95.82 97.24 93.762. Jowar- irrigated Loanee 1 2 0.33 0.01Jowar-un irrigated Non-Loanee 254 54 1.19 0.03Sub-Total 255 56 1.52 0.04% to Total 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.003. Bajra- irrigated Non-Loanee 180 198 17.92 0.36Bajra –unirrigated Non-Loanee 137 63 2.52 0.09Sub-Total 317 261 20.44 0.45% to Total 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.014. Maize- irrigated Loanee 338 693 67.15 1.34Non-Loanee 645 1362 81.67 1.63Maize-un irrigated Loanee 70 91 6.92 0.16Sub-Total 1053 2146 155.74 3.13% to Total 0.14 0.25 0.08 0.085. Ragi Loanee 1 3 0.21 0.00Non-Loanee 168 135 23.31 0.47Sub-Total 169 138 23.52 0.47% to Total 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.016. Black gram Loanee 334 851 44.54 0.95Non-Loanee 4799 9211 497.13 10.96Sub-Total 5133 10062 541.67 11.91% to Total 0.68 1.15 0.28 0.297. Green gram Loanee 321 1294 111.72 2.23Non-Loanee 3372 5963 423.19 9.98Sub-Total 3693 7257 534.91 12.21% to Total 0.49 0.83 0.27 0.308. Sugarcane Loanee 3361 3917 1138.63 51.24Non-Laonee 19 30 9.83 0.44Sub-Total 3380 3947 1148.46 51.68% to Total 0.45 0.45 0.59 1.2519

9. Banana Loanee 5941 4900 1491.14 95.94Non-Loanee 915 348 46.33 3.13Sub-Total 6856 5248 1537.47 99.07% to Total 0.91 0.60 0.79 2.4010. Onion Loanee 20 18 3.16 0.09Sub-Total 20 18 3.16 0.09% to Total * * * *11. Chilly Loanee 48 33 5.97 0.54Non-Loanee 861 739 227.20 20.79Sub-Total 909 772 233.17 21.33% to Total 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.5212.Turmeric Loanee 1095 1046 273.58 15.84Non-Loanee 4 0 0.04 0.00Sub-Total 1099 1046 273.62 15.84% to Total 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.3813. Potato Loanee 56 96 41.87 1.06Sub-Total 56 96 41.87 1.06% to Total 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0314. Tapioca Loanee 2105 2826 500.31 22.95Non-Loanee 5 2 0.42 0.02Sub-Total 2110 2828 500.73 22.97% to Total 0.28 0.32 0.26 0.5615. Ground nut- Loanee 379 557 70.85 1.42irrigatedNon-Loanee 26 22 8.85 0.18Ground nut-Loanee 481 587 70.27 2.46un irrigatedNon-Loanee 1566 954 149.91 5.25Sub-Total 2452 2120 299.88 9.30% to Total 0.33 0.24 0.15 0.2316. Sesasum –irrigated Non-Loanee 3 1 0.27 0.01Sesasum –un irrigated Non-Loanee 21 9 0.28 0.01Sesasum –un irrigated Loanee 9 8 0.88 0.02Sub-Total 33 18 1.43 0.04% to Total * * * *17. Cotton irrigated Loanee 14 29 1.24 0.11Cotton – un irrigated Loanee 327 485 65.37 6.86Cotton – Rice Fallow Loanee 1 3 0.42 0.06Cotton irrigated Non-Loanee 20 34 3.05 0.26Cotton – un irrigated Non-Loanee 21 6 0.53 0.06Cotton - Rice Fallow Non-Loanee 10 11 4.40 0.61Sub-Total 393 568 75.01 7.96% to Total 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.19All crops Loanee 180875 254765 42374.41 986.49

Non-Loanee 574541 620937 153319.31 3140.09Grand Total 755416 875702 195693.72 4126.58% to Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00* - Negligible.Source: Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited, New Delhi.In terms of premium, commercial banks brought in only Rs 2.27 crore (Rs 22.7 million) ,as compared with Rs 12.72 crore (Rs 127.2 million) by cooperative banks and Rs 48 lakhby RRBs in 2007-08.Currently, cooperative banks account for 80 per cent of AIC'sbusiness in Tamil Nadu, since these banks were initially responsible for the promotion ofcrop insurance in the state, which has now taken over by the agriculture department. Thestate government has set a target of covering 2.5 million farmers under NAIS andallocated Rs 40 crore (Rs 400 million) as subsidy compared with Rs 15 crore (Rs 150million) in 2007.4.1 Implementation of weather insurance plan in Tamil NaduTamil Nadu has joined 13 other states to run a weather insurance plan on a pilot basis. Theplan is expected to cover around 1 million farmers by the end of the current rabi season.The pilot, which is being run by AIC in 13 states including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, offers farmers a substitute to theNational Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS).Initially, five districts - Dharmapuri, Salem, Virudunagar, Ariyalur and Perambalur - willbe covered in Tamil Nadu. The pilot project will run for 2 or 3 seasons for which centraland state governments have provided Rs 2 crore each as subsidy. The premium for Rs10,000 sum assured would be Rs 1,095, of which Rs 870 will be contributed by bothcentral and state governments while farmers will contribute the remaining Rs 225.The Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited would implement weather-based cropinsurance during the kharif season in virudhunagar and the insurance would be implementedfor food grains, cotton and horticulture crops. All farmers immaterial of whether they availthemselves of crop loan or not could benefit from the insurance scheme. They should pay thepremiums at nationalised banks, primary agriculture cooperative banks. The compensation forevery acre of paddy, maize and ground nut is Rs. 10,000. While the premium for paddy andmaize is Rs. 276, it is Rs. 386 for ground nut. The compensation for various crops is in therange of Rs. 5,000 an acre to Rs. 40,000. The premium is in the range of Rs. 138 to Rs. 2,647.4.2 Role of Tamil Nadu Government in Crop InsuranceA. National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (Provision of 50% Premium Subsidy toNon - Loanee and Loanee Farmers)National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is being implemented in Tamil Nadu from theyear Kharif 2000 onwards. National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is implemented in allthe districts by the state Government through Agricultural Insurance Company of IndiaLtd with the objective;21

To provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event offailure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests anddiseases.To encourage the farmers to adopt progressive farming practices, high value inputsand higher technology in Agriculture.To help stabilize farm incomes, particularly in disaster years.Under this scheme, the Food crops (Cereals, Millets and Pulses), Oilseeds, Sugarcane,Cotton, Annual Commercial/ Annual Horticultural Crops are covered. All farmersincluding share croppers, tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the notified areasare eligible for coverage. Till 2005-06, only the enrolled loanee farmers got the benefits.In order to provide the benefits of the scheme to non loanee farmers also, the StateGovernment have sanctioned Rs.8 crores to extend 50% premium subsidy during 2006-07to non-loanee farmers to motivate them to enroll under crop insurance scheme.Table 9: Premium subsidy in Tamil NaduLoanee FarmersNon-Loanee Farmers% of subsidy on premiumby StateGovernmentbyGovt. ofIndiaSmall and Marginal 5 50 55FarmersOther Farmers - 50 50Small and Marginal 5 50 55FarmersOther Farmers - 50 50Total(%)During 2007-08, the State Government sanctioned Rs 15 crores to extend 50% premiumsubsidy both for non-loanee and loanee farmers. During 2008-09, an amount of Rs.40crores sanctioned to extend 50% subsidy and Tamil Nadu is the only State providingpremium subsidy under crop insurance scheme for protecting the farmers. Besides, as perGovernment of India norms 5% subsidy is provided by Government of India to small andmarginal farmers in both loanee and non-loanee category. Because of the massiveassistance provided by the Government, for the first time in Tamil Nadu, farmers receivedhigh compensation to the tune of Rs.279.55 crores for the crop loss in 2007-08.Weather Based Crop Insurance SchemeThe Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme aims to mitigate the hardship of the insuredfarmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop lossresulting from incidence of adverse weather conditions. The scheme will cover the risk ofdeficit and excess rainfall.The scheme is applicable to all major Cereals, Millets, Pulses, Oilseeds and Commercial /Horticultural Crops. The scheme is compulsory for loanee and optional for Non-loaneefarmers. The scheme was implemented in Tamil Nadu on pilot basis in 8 districts from

through the following companies. Around 12,664 farmers have been enrolled underWeather Based Crop Insurance Scheme by providing 50% subsidy on premium cost.Table 10: Insurance Companies in Weather Based Crop Insurance SchemeName of the Insurance CompanyAgricultural Insurance CompanyICICI Lombard Insurance CompanyIFFCO-TOKIO Insurance CompanyDistricts CoveredDharmapuri, Salem, Virudhunagar,Perambalur and AriyalurVillupuram and DindigulCoimbatoreTable 11: Details of financial allocation, number of farmers enrolled, subsidyutilized and compensation amount received by the farmers (2006-2009)Details 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09Funds sanctioned for 50% premium subsidy 8.00 15.00 40.00(Rs. In crores)Subsidy utilized (Rs. in crores) 1.16 10.29 24.34Farmers enrolled (Lakh nos ) 1.05 5.57 10.37Compensation disbursedAmount (Rs. in crores)9.43 279.55 --The compensation claim for 2008-09 is being worked out by Agricultural InsuranceCompany. These schemes will be continued with the financial allocation of Rs.40 croresduring 2009-2010.4.3 Current issues on crop insurance in Tamil NaduFor Dindigul District government has sanctioned Rs.25 lakh to assist farmers in insuringtheir crops for 2009-10. Paddy, maize, cotton, millet, groundnut, sugarcane, banana, onionand all kharif crops, will be insured during this season .Those who wanted to insure theircrops could contact the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Banks and nationalised banks fordetails. Even leased farmers can avail the benefits. The State government would pay 50per cent of the total premium. Compensation would be given for crop damage owing toflood, cyclone, drought, fire and lightening and pest attacks.In case of Nagapattinam District Farmers in the Cauvery delta region have urged theGovernment to extend the time limit for paying crop insurance premium to November 30to those farmers, who had not secured loans from cooperatives and commercial banks.Thanjavur District Farmers Association said farmers were entitled to have their cropsinsured by paying a premium of two per cent of the total cost of cultivation. As per thenational agricultural insurance scheme, the premium would be deducted from loans offarmers, who got loans from primary agricultural cooperative banks and commercialbanks on or before November 30 every year. But farmers, who could not get loans or availthemselves of loans from commercial banks or cooperatives, should have paid thepremium before September 30 directly through the respective PACBs with all particularsincluding the total extent of the land and expenses incurred towards cost of cultivation and23

also large number of farmers did not pay the premium before September 30 since theyanticipated that they would get crop loan in time.The Cauvery Delta farmers, in an appeal to the State Government, have sought extensionof time limit in paying crop insurance premium to November 30. Thanjavur DistrictFarmers Association, farmers are entitled to avail themselves of crop insurance by payinga premium of 2 per cent of the total cost of cultivation. As per the scheme in vogue, thepremium could be deducted from the loans obtained from primary agricultural cooperativebanks and the commercial banks on or before November 30 every year.Crop insurance scheme is gaining popularity among farmers in the State. There had been agradual increase in the number of farmers covered under the scheme. About 5.5 lakhfarmers had been covered in the last financial year compared to one lakh farmers in 2005,and about three lakh farmers in 2006. Premium rates for different crops per hectare hasbeen fixed by the Agricultural Insurance Company of India and paddy, dhal, groundnut,cotton, sugarcane, turmeric and oilseeds are some of the crops covered. The StateGovernment is meeting 50 per cent subsidy on premium and for this the State hasallocated Rs. 3 crore in 2006-07, Rs. 15 crore in 2007-08 and Rs. 40 crore in the currentfinancial year.In Nagercoil, the Agriculture Insurance Company of India explored the ways and meansto launch an innovative insurance scheme to provide crop insurance for various food andhorticultural crops, including rubber, coconut, banana and flower crops, said P.R.Prasidha, Administrative Officer, who conducted a survey recently in different parts of thedistrict.Three prime schemes of the AIC already existing in the State were NationalAgriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS), Weather Based crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS)and Varshabhima.According to Regional Manager Anbarasu, under the NAIS in the State the premiumcollected was Rs.103.37 crore as on date and the claim amounting to Rs.1259.91 crore, ofwhich Rs.815 crore approximately, would be paid in a couple of months. In Kanyakumaridistrict under the NAIS the premium amount collected was Rs.23.96 lakh from theinception of the scheme from 1999-2000 and the claim paid was Rs.24 lakh.Under the NAIS, in the kharif season 2009 the crops notified in the District were paddy Iand II, banana and tapioca. The NAIS was a scheme where the claim settlement was basedon the yield furnished by the State Government. Steps were taken to incorporate banana inweather based insurance scheme in the district since the loss caused by high wind speedwas identified as one of the major distress among the growers. In Tamil Nadu for 2008 thepremium amount for samba crop was Rs.47 crore, but the claim was around Rs.800 crore,which was estimated and to be paid shortly under the NAIS.AICI had already launched the rubber insurance scheme in Kerala, which was beneficialto the farmers. The existing scheme covered the losses caused by damages due to nature‟sfury, including fire, lightning, storm, cyclone, etc. Claim amounting to Rs.75 lakh to thepremium of Rs 1.25 crores was given by AIC in Kerala. In Kanyakumari district, whichwas one of the important traditional rubbers growing region of India, a study has beenconducted by the AICI, Chennai Regional Office, to identify the problems faced by rubbergrowers. Powdery mildew, Phytophthora infestation and abnormal leaf fall were felt as the

major diseases, which resulted in the reduction of latex yield. Damage caused to the barksof rubber trees by animals like stags and wild pigs were also expressed as grievances byrubber growers amid the occurrence of pest and disease incidence and the correspondingweather phenomenon associated with that which resulted in latex reduction were alsonoticed. Feasibility of devising a scientific scheme based on the study would be analysedand if so, necessary modifications would be done in the existing scheme.Scientific loss analysis, more sum insured and speedy claims settlement would be theprime focus in the new scheme i.e., the formulation for rubber. The new scheme wasexpected to be launched in a couple of months. Rubber Board and State GovernmentHorticulture and Plantation Department would be contacted for possible subsidy if any tothe farmers. Regarding loss caused for banana wind damage was a predominant causefaced by farmers of the district. Coconut being one of the major crops in Tamil Nadu, AICwas planning to introduce coconut insurance scheme. Already a few States includingTamil Nadu were selected to launch a pilot study on coconut palm insurance scheme with50 per cent subsidy for Small and Marginal farmers. This scheme was yet to be consideredby the State Government. As per coconut growers, Red Palm Weevil infestation andEriophid Mite attack was responsible for the damage. Jasmine, Rose, Tuberose, Marigold,Chrysanthemum were some of the important flower crops grown in this district. Damagecaused by wind, heavy rain and animal menace were reported as causes for yield loss.Apart from this certain diseases associated with the intensity of monsoon showers were alsoidentified. Possibility of insurance coverage for flowers would also be explored after adiscussion with the higher authorities of State and Central Government.4.4 Constraints in the current insurance schemesCrop insurance was not comprehensive and was applicable to only a few select crops.Usually the perennial crops were insured and the seasonal and biennial crops left out ofthe purview of insurance products. The reason cited was that seasonal crops suffered fromprice variation and were perishable in nature. While insurance schemes were present inabundance, the awareness among farmers was said to be extremely poor. An NSSO surveyshowed that only four percent of farmers in India had ever insured their crops, and thereason cited by most farmers was not the inability to pay a premium, but inability of theinstitutions to create awareness about the risk-mitigating instruments among them.Additionally, members pointed out that the transaction costs (acquisition of information,supervision, etc.) of catering to small holders worked out very high for insurancecompanies as over 87 million land holdings in India are small. Another key problem wasmeasuring and surveying the several vectors on which the payout index was made.Insurance agencies were unsuccessful in developing appropriate models of insurance thatare cost-effective and reduce moral hazards.Delay in settlement of claims due a complex payout structure, improper basis for settlingof claims, false claims and prevailing corruption and lack of awareness of farmers aboutthe benefits of insurance were some of the other problems.4.5 Suggestions to make crop insurance more effective25

Insurance must be provided to farmers as a mandatory social security measure in order tosecure their livelihoods. Insurance schemes could therefore be extended to not justperennial, but also biennial and seasonal crops. The schemes could cover organic farmersin addition to those adopting modern farming techniques and practices. Offering insuranceschemes based on other factors, such as weather or rainfall. An example cited, revealedthat weather based index insurance products could be successful in India, among farmersas well as State Government. Payout from insurance based on a weather index couldeffectively reduce the farmer‟s value-at-risk (VAR) rather than compensating for a singlecrop loss only. The farmer's VAR would therefore be an effective measure of his overallvulnerability, covering his exposure to income shocks such as a wedding, a disease, or abig drought. A member however cautioned that such models may suffer from aggregation,as rainfall details for instance, may not available in a disaggregated format.Some other suggestions offered were as follows:Promote group insurance mechanism, linking premium with bank loans, andproper monitoring to improve effective operation of insurance schemes.Ensure effective network amongst bank and other credit institutions in farminsurance for maximum coverage and reach.Introduce broad based schemes that cover varied sectors such as crops, livestockand cover other risks specific to rural localities in an integrated manner.Strengthen rural insurance development funds, scientific actuarial techniques, andinsurance regulatory mechanisms.Introduce the concept of price support to cover all primary production includingagriculture crops, fruits, non-timber production etc. which are all subject to annualvariation of prices and yield.4.6 The future focusThere are about 100 million farmers in India who work the hardest and yet seem to sufferthe most. Their occupation is fraught with the highest risk as it is totally at the mercy ofnature. It becomes the primary duty of Government to think of the welfare of farmerswhich would necessitate thinking of ways and means of reducing the risk in farming.Despite various schemes launched from time to time in the country agricultureinsurance has served very limited purpose. The coverage in terms of area, numberof farmers and value of agricultural output is very small, payment of indemnity basedon area approach miss affected farmers outside the compensated area, and most ofthe schemes are not viable. Expanding the coverage of crop insurance would thereforeincrease government costs considerably. Unless the programme is restructured carefullyto make it viable, the prospects of its future expansion to include and impactmore farmers is remote. Insurance products for the rural areas should be simple in designand presentation so that they are easily understood.5.0 Instability in Tamil Nadu AgricultureInstability in farm production is causing serious shocks to supply and farm income andthere is a growing concern about increased volatility in farm production, prices and farmincome. The study has estimated instability in nine major crops in the state of Tamil Nadu.The increase in instability in agricultural production is considered adverse for several

easons. It raises the risk involved in farm production and affect farmers income and alsothe decisions to adopt high paying technologies and make investments in farming.Instability in production affects price stability and the consumers, and it increasesvulnerability of low income households to the market. Instability in agricultural and foodproduction is also important for food management and macro economic stability.This state of Tamil Nadu has a diverse set of crops covered under insurance scheme. Riskassociated with agriculture and various crops was estimated by using instability index asan indicator of risk as below:Instability index = Standard deviation of natural logarithm (Yt+1/Yt).Where, Yt is the crop area / production / yield / farm harvest prices / gross returns in thecurrent year and, Y t+1 represent the same in the next year. This index is unit free and veryrobust and it measures deviations from the underlying trend (log linear in this case).When there are no deviations from trend, the ratio Yt+1/Yt is constant, and thusstandard deviation in it is zero.5.1 Data and MethodologyThis study is based on an analysis of data on Area, production and productivity of selectedcrops which was taken from publications of Seasonal Crop Report of Tamil Nadu. Riskrevealed by instability index of area , production and productivity of selected crops ispresented in Tables.Further, the study used the data on area, yield and production for nine major crops viz.paddy, Sorghum, maize, groundnut, chilles, banana, cotton and sugarcane, total pulses forthe period 1980-81 to 2004-05. Instability index in area, production and yield for districtlevel are calculated for five periods. The Districts have a diversified cropping pattern indifferent regions depending upon agro-climatic conditions and hence all the importantcrops were selected for the present study.There were 15 original composite Districts in the year 1980-81 that have been latersubdivided into as many as 29 Districts. For purpose of analysis, later data relating tosubdivided newer administrative Districts were merged with the corresponding compositeDistricts to make the data comparable over years. Only five administrative DistrictsErode, Coimbatore, Pudukkottai, Kanniyakumari and Nilgiris have remained without subdivisions. Erstwhile individual composite Districts were considered for the analysis.1980-811. KancheepuramThiruvallur19972. VelloreThiruvannamalai19893. CuddaloreVillupuram199327

4. SalemNamakkal19965. DharmapuriKrishnagiri20036. Erode7. Coimbatore8. ThanjavurNagapattinam1991Thiruvarur19969. TrichyPerambalur199510. Pudukkottai11. MaduraiKarur1995Dindigul1985Theni19961985 Sivagangai12. RamnadVirudhunagar1985

13. ThirunelveliThoothukudi198614. Kanniyakumari15. Nilgiris5.2 Results and DiscussionThe main focus of this paper is to examine how far the year to year fluctuations in cropoutput changed from one period to another period. Accordingly instability in area,production and yield of important crops has been computed at district level in Tamil Nadustate during different periods. Instability in crop production is expected to vary overdistricts. There is lot of variation in climatic conditions natural resource endowments, thepattern of agricultural growth and development.The paper has estimated the instability at state level and then has compared it with districtlevel estimates to find dispersion and compare the change in instability over time, basedon the state level data representing aggregates and district level data representingdisaggregates. The instability index reveals that higher the value higher is the instability inthe particular variable. In the case of occurrence of risk, higher the instability index,higher is the risk. This index is unit free and very robust and it measures deviations fromthe underlying trend (log linear in this case). Instability at State Level Variability inagricultural production consists of variability in area and yield and their interactions.Variation in area under a crop occurs mainly in response to distribution, timeliness andvariations in rainfall and other climatic factors, expected prices and availability of cropspecificinputs. All these factors also affect the variations in yield. Further, yield is alsoaffected by outbreak of diseases, pests, and other natural or man-made hazards like floods,droughts and fire and many other factors. Different events may affect area and yield in thesame, opposite or different way.Instability in area, production and yield of Paddy, Sorghum, Maize, Sugarcane, Cotton,Groundnut, Chillies, Banana and total pulses experienced at the state level in Tamil Naduduring 1980-2005 has been presented in Table 12. Instability index for area under paddyhas shown an increase during 1990-05 whereas Sorghum showed a stable in area undercultivation.For instance, the instability index for paddy is worked out to 0.138, 0.237 and 0.150respectively for area, production and yield during the period 1980-2005. The instabilityindex for cotton is worked out to 0.238, 0.343 and 0.206 respectively for area, productionand yield for the above period. This implies that the instability is very low in the case ofpaddy when compared to cotton. It is evidenced that the instability is relatively high forsugarcane when compared to other crops.Table 12. Instability Indices for major crops grown in Tamil NaduCrops 1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-200529

PaddySorghumMaizeSugarcaneCottonGroundnutChilliesBananaTotalPulsesA P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y0.1320.1210.3270.1180.2420.0870.2190.1070.1370.2480.2410.2791.1370.3770.2180.3410.1950.1320.1890.1780.3071.1420.2860.1660.3180.1510.0900.0820.0640.1810.1440.1050.0880.1620.0670.0830.1700.1440.1810.1750.1300.1410.2590.1970.1910.1280.1260.0190.0680.1440.0620.2530.1780.1390.1060.0950.2630.1290.1820.0870.1980.0890.1130.2010.2010.2350.7670.2760.1760.3060.1850.1620.1540.1530.2060.7640.2150.1260.2730.1580.1110.1490.0950.1950.1880.2440.1100.1660.0810.0880.2450.1380.2090.2150.3320.1990.2370.2090.1740.1270.1260.0770.0660.1560.1010.2150.1620.1190.1380.1030.2520.1620.2380.1010.1870.0910.1110.2370.1870.2360.6770.3430.2000.2810.1960.1650.1500.1490.1890.6620.2060.1280.2480.1520.107During the period 1980-89, the instability in area and productivity was lowest in groundnutand showed high instability in area for Maize as compared to cotton. Sugarcane had highestinstability in production and yield. Instability was found low in yield in the case of maize,whereas cotton and sorghum showed least instability in area and production during 1990-99.The instability index of yield did not increase much over time in the case of rice, whereas italmost declined in groundnut from 1980-1989 to 1990-1991. Despite lot of concern aboutsusceptibility of cotton to various pests in recent years, its productivity has shown fewerfluctuations after 1980-89.Sugarcane had highest instability in production and yield. During 1980-99 least instabilitywas found in area for groundnut and banana whereas production and yield in the case oftotal pulses higher in case of sugarcane. The cotton and sorghum showed least instabilityin area and production during 1990-99. Chillies had highest instability in production andyield. Least instability in yield was found in Maize.

Among the nine crops, paddy production showed lowest year-to-year fluctuations. Besidesfluctuations in production, prices received by the farmers for their produce are equallyimportant in causing variations in farm income. It is important to point out that the areashowed much lower fluctuations than those in yield and production. Instability in yield ofsugarcane and cotton showed a decline over and small increase in the case of pulses.Among the nine crops, area under groundnut and banana showed the lowest instability,yield instability showed a decline in cotton over time, Instability in production was foundhigher than that in area, yield during 1980-89 than others.The paper has also estimated the instability index at district level to find dispersion andcompare the change in area, production and productivity of these crops during the periodsconsidered in the study. The district wise instability index for different crops is given inTables A.2 through A.10.The district wise analysis of instability index for paddy indicated highest productioninstability in Erode district among various districts especially in the period 1990-2005.Cuddalore and Ramnad districts showed higher instability in terms of rice production inall these periods. Thanjavur district exhibited relatively less production instability. Overallin the state of Tamil Nadu the instability index was in the range of 0.1 to 0.25 whichindicates the production of rice is relatively more stabilized in the state. The dryland cropof Sorghum exhibited relatively higher instability during the period 1980-89 than the otherperiods. During the other periods of study the increase in the area under dry land and lesswater consuming crops and water scarcity attributed for the lower instability in sorghumcrops in the state. Cuddalore district showed higher instability followed by Kancheepuramfor the period 1980-2005. Instability in yield was higher than the instability in area inalmost all districts for Sorghum crop. Insufficient technological development and varietalimprovement in millets and minor millets research resulted high yield instability in thestate that ultimately resulted higher production instability.Districts like Tirunelveli and Trichy known for irrigated agriculture suffered a higherinstability for maize crop in all the periods under study. At the same time it is interestingto note that dry district like Ramnad and Dharmapuri also exhibited relatively highinstability for the crop. Coimbatore and Erode districts noted for their poultry sector arerelatively stable in maize production since the product of maize cultivation is the mainstay for the large number of poultry units existing in these districts for years. As far ascotton is concerned, the crop which contributes more in the agricultural trade of the stateand the country suffered hugely in major cotton growing districts like the erstwhileTrichy, Coimbatore and Erode districts as indicated by the increasing trend in theinstability index for cotton in these districts over years. Groundnut an important oilseedcrop of the state is relatively stable in terms of production as the area under this cropexhibited relatively smaller instability index in the state. Since groundnut crop is suitablefor cultivation in both irrigated and rainfed conditions, the instability is relatively low.The district wise analysis of instability index for sugarcane revealed that the instabilityindex is relatively high in Salem district followed by Tirunelveli and Dharmapuri districtsfor the period 1980-2005. It is interesting to note that the instability in production andyield is high in most of the districts during the above periods. Similarly, the instability inarea, production and yield shows an increasing trend over the years.31

Based on the estimates of instability index, we mapped the districts as more instability,moderate and low. It is revealed from the analysis that in the case of paddy, the Erodedistrict registered more instability in terms of area and production. The districts such asCuddalore, Erode and Ramnad fall under higher instability in terms of paddy production(Table.13). Similarly, Cuddalore and Ramnad fall under high instability in terms ofproductivity of paddy. As these districts have high instability in terms of area, productionand yield of paddy when compared to other districts, these districts may be emphasizedfor risk mitigation strategies such as crop insurance and the like.Table 13. Distribution of districts based on instability index for paddy (1990-2005)Instability indexclassLess than 0.3KancheepuramCuddaloreThanjavurTrichyPudukkottaiMaduraiRamnadThirunelveliKanniyakumariNilgiris0.31 to 0.60 VelloreDharmapuriCoimbatoreSalemArea Production YieldKancheepuramThirunelveliKanniyakumari0.61 and above Erode CuddaloreErodeRamnadVellore, SalemDharmapuri,CoimbatoreThanjavur, TrichyPudukkottai, MaduraiNilgirisKancheepuramVelloreSalemDharmapuriErodeCoimbatoreMaduraiThirunelveliKanniyakumariTrichyPudukkottaiNilgirisThanjavurCuddaloreRamnadThe Table 14 shows that out of fifteen districts the instability has been found higher inErode district in case of area, whereas Kancheepuram, Cuddalore and Ramnad district inyield. Trichy and Salem had shown overall lowest instability.Table 14. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Sorghum (1990-2005)Instability indexClassArea Production Yield

Less than 0.3 Vellore, SalemCoimbatoreTrichy, MaduraiRamnad,Thirunelveli0.31 to 0.60 KancheepuramCuddalore,DharmapuriTrichySalemVellore, MaduraiDharmapuriThirunelveliCoimbatorePudukkottai0.61 and above Erode KancheepuramCuddalore, ErodePudukkottai,RamnadSalemCoimbatoreTrichyVelloreDharmapuriErode, MaduraiPudukkottaiThirunelveliKancheepuramCuddaloreRamnadIt is seen from the Table.15 that the instability has been found higher in Dharmapuri ,Trichy,Pudukkottai districts in case of area, whereas Madurai, Ramnad and Thirunelveli districts inyield. The Coimbatore district had shown overall lowest instability.Table 15. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Maize (1990-2005)Instability indexClassLess than 0.3Area Production YieldSalemCoimbatoreMaduraiRamnad0.31 to 0.60 VelloreErodeThanjavurThirunelveli0.61 and above DharmapuriTrichyPudukkottaiCoimbatoreSalemErodeMaduraiVelloreDharmapuriThanjavurTrichyPudukkottaiRamnadThirunelveliVelloreSalemDharmapuriErodeCoimbatorePudukkottaiThanjavurTrichyMaduraiRamnadThirunelveliTable 16. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Sugarcane (1990-2005)Instability indexClassArea Production Yield33

ErodeCoimbatoreThanjavurTrichyPudukkottaiThe instability has been found higher in Cuddalore and Kanniyakumari districts in case ofproduction, whereas Cuddalore and Kanniyakumari districts in yield. None of the districtshad shown medium and highest instability in case of area in groundnut crop (Table.18).Table 18. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Groundnut (1990-2005)Instability index class Area Production YieldLess than 0.3KancheepuramVellore, CuddaloreSalem,DharmapuriErode, CoimbatoreThanjavur, TrichyPudukkottai,Madurai, RamnadThirunelveliKanniyakumariKancheepuram KancheepuramVelloreSalemDharmapuriErodeCoimbatorePudukkottaiThirunelveli0.31 to 0.60 .. Vellore, SalemDharmapuri, ErodeCoimbatore,Thanjavur, TrichyPudukkottai,Madurai, RamnadThirunelveli0.61 and above .. CuddaloreKanniyakumariThanjavurTrichyMaduraiRamnadCuddaloreKanniyakumariTable 19. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Chillies (1990-2005)Instability index class Area Production YieldLess than 0.3Kancheepuram.. PudukkottaiSalem, ErodeCoimbatoreTrichy, MaduraiRamnad,Thirunelveli0.31 to 0.60 VelloreCuddaloreDharmapuriVelloreDharmapuriErodeKancheepuramVellore, SalemDharmapuri35

ThanjavurPudukkottaiCoimbatore,RamnadThirunelveliPudukkottaiErode, RamnadCoimbatoreThirunelveli0.61 and above .. KancheepuramCuddaloreSalem, ThanjavurTrichy, MaduraiCuddaloreThanjavurTrichyMaduraiThe instability has been found higher in Cuddalore, Thanjavur, Trichy and MaduraiDistricts in case of yield, None of the Districts had shown highest instability in case ofarea in chillies (Table.19).Table 20. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Banana (1990-2005)Instability index class Area Production YieldLess than 0.3KancheepuramErodeCuddaloreCoimbatorePudukkottaiMaduraiRamnadThirunelveliKanniyakumariErodePudukkottaiRamnadKancheepuramVelloreSalemErodePudukkottaiRamnadCoimbatore0.31 to 0.60 VelloreSalemDharmapuriNilgirisKancheepuramVelloreSalemCoimbatoreThanjavurMaduraiThirunelveli0.61 and above - CuddaloreDharmapuriTrichyKanniyakumariNilgirisDharmapuriMaduraiThirunelveliCuddaloreThanjavurKanniyakumariNilgirisTrichyFor Banana crop, high instability is seen in production and yield. The instability has beenfound high in Cuddalore, Thanjavur, Kanniyakumari, Nilgiris and Trichy Districts in caseof yield (Table.20).Table 21. Distribution of districts based on instability index for Total pulses

Instability index class Area Production YieldLess than 0.3KancheepuramVelloreCuddaloreDharmapuriErode, TrichyCoimbatorePudukkottaiMadurai, RamnadThirunelveliKanniyakumariDharmapuriErodeCoimbatoreSalemDharmapuriErodeCoimbatoreKancheepuramVellore0.31 to 0.60 SalemThanjavurKancheepuramVellore, SalemTrichy,PudukkottaiMadurai,RamnadThirunelveliThanjavurTrichyPudukkottaiMaduraiRamnadThirunelveli0.61 and above - CuddaloreThanjavurKanniyakumariCuddaloreKanniyakumariThe instability has been found high in Cuddalore and Kanniyakumari Districts in case ofyield.6.0. CONCLUSIONThe study found that the instability in area, production and productivity of crops over theperiod in the state. The instability in area, production and yield of major crops variesacross regions and periods. The instability is much higher in crops like sugarcane andcotton when compared to food grains and other crops. The lower instability in food grainsmight be due to the technological breakthrough in agricultural production. Developmentof varieties resistant to pest and disease, development of watersheds in rain fed areas,expanding the area under irrigation are the major factors to be considered for reducing theinstability in production and yield. There is also an urgent need for large scale promotionof stabilization measures like crop insurance to face the consequences of yield andproduction variability. Crop insurance in future though is likely to be largelydemand driven, the efforts of the government to support and finance insurance productsand/or facilitate congenial environment as meaningful risk management tool would furtherenhance the potential and credibility of crop insurance. Comprehensive insurance schemesshould be based on farmers needs. These schemes must then be promoted among farmersand steps taken to ensure that farmers were acquainted with the benefits of insurance aswell as the features of different schemes, so that they could chose an option most suited tothem.37

ReferencesChavas, Jean-Paul (2006): „An International Analysis of Agricultural Productivity‟, FAOin http://www.fao.org/docrep.Mathur, Archana S, Surajit Das, Subhalakshmi Sircar (2006). Status of Agriculture inIndia Trends and Prospects, Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (52) :5327-5336.Parveen K.sardana, Veena Manocha and A.C.Gangwar. (1997). Growth and Variations inAgricultural Performance in Haryana, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52 (3) :389-393.Rao ,V M and D V Gopalappa (2004).Agricultural Growth and Farmer Distress,Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (52) : 5591-5597.Sawant, S.D. (1997). Performance of Indian Agriculture with Special Reference toRegional Variations, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52 (3): 353-373.Sidhu , R S and A S Bhullar. (2006). Patterns and Determinants of Agricultural Growth inthe Two Punjabs, Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (53): 5620-5627.Singh, I.J, K.N.Rai and J.C.Karwasra (1997). Regional Variations in AgriculturalPerformance in India, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52 (3) : 374-386.Zepeda, Lydia (2006): „Agricultural Investment, Production Capacity and Productivity‟,FAO in http://www.fao.org/docrep.Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.(2009): www.aicofindia.orgAndrea Stoppa and Ulrich Hess (2003), “Design and Use of Weather Derivatives inAgricultural Policies: the Case of Rainfall Index Insurance in Morocco”, presented atInternational Conference on Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO: Where are WeHeading?, Capri (Italy), June 23-26.Ashan, Syed, M., A.A.G.Ali, and N.J.Kurian (1982). Towards a theory of agriculturalcrop insurance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 64(3):520-529.Atwood, J.A, M.J.Watts and A.E.Baquet. (1996). An Examination of the Effects of PriceSupports and the Federal Crop Insurance upon the Economic Growth, CapitalStructure and Financial Survival of Wheat Growers in the Northern High Plains.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1) : 212-24.Babcock, B.A. and D.A.Hennessy (1996). Input Demand under yield and RevenueInsurance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1): 212-24.Hennessy, D., B.A. Babcock, and D. Hayes (1997), “The Budgetary and Producer WelfareEffects of Revenue Assurance,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79 (August1997):1024-34.39

Bruce A. Babcock (1999), “Provision of a Safety Net for U.S. Agriculture”, Paperprovided by Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa StateUniversity in its series Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD),www.ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/99-bp23. 99-bp23.Bhende, M.J. (2005). Agricultural Insurance in India: Problems and Prospects.Department of Economic Analysis and Research, National Bank for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Occasional paper – 44.Bhende, M.J.(2002). An analysis of Crop Insurance Scheme in Karnataka. Bangalore:Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Unit, Institute for Social andEconomic Change (ISEC).Binswanger, H.P. (1980). Attitudes Towards Risk: Experimental Measurement in RuralIndia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 62(3):174-82.Botts, R.R., J. N. Boles 1958 Use of Normal Curve Theory in Crop Insurance Rate-Making, J. Farm Econ. Vol. 40.Bruce A. Babcock (1999), “Provision of a Safety Net for U.S. Agriculture”, Paperprovided by Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa StateUniversity in its series Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD),www.ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/99-bp23.Chad E. Hart, Dermot J. Hayes, and Bruce A. Babcock (2003), “Insuring Eggs inBaskets”, Working Paper (339), Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, IowaState University, Ames, Iowa.Chandrakanth, M.G., N.S.P. Rebello. 1980. “Crop Insurance for Potatoes: A case study”,Financing Agriculture, Vol. 4.Dandekar,V.M (1976): Crop Insurance in India , Economic and Political Weekly, A-61 to A-80.Dandekar,V.M (1985) Crop Insurance in India A Review, 1976-77 to 1984-85,Economic and Political Weekly, 20(25and26): A-46 to A-59.Hazell. P. (1992). The Appropriate Role of Agricultural Insurance in DevelopingCountries. Journal of International Development. 4(6): 567-81.Hazell. P., L.M. Bsssoco and G.Arcia (1986). A Model foe Evaluating Farmers‟ Demandfor Insurance : Applications in Mexico and Panama. In: P.B.R.Hazell, C.Pomareda. and.Valdes (eds), Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development : Issues and Experience.Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Hogen, A. J. 1982. “The Role of Crop Credit Insurance in the Agricultural Credit Systemin Developing Economics”, Dissertation Abstracts International, 13 (8).

Horowitz, J.K and E.Lichtenberg (1993). Insurance, Moral Hazard, and Chemical Use inAgriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75(4): 926-35.Jennifer Ifft, (2001), “Government vs Weather - The True Story of Crop Insurance inIndia”, Research Internship Papers, Centre for Civil Society, www.ccsindia.org.Jodha, N.S. (1981). Role of Credit in Farmers‟ Adjustment Against Risk in Aridand Semi-Arid Tropical Areas of India. Economic and Political Weekly. XVI (22and23).Joseph W. Glauber and Keith J. Collins. 2002. Crop Insurance, Disaster Assistance, andthe Role of the Federal Government in Providing Catastrophic Risk ProtectionAgricultural Finance Review, Fall.Mishra, P.K. (1996). Agricultural Risk, Insurance and Income. Arabury, Vermont:Ashgate Publishing Company.Mishra, P.K. (1994) : Crop Insurance and Crop Credit : Impact of the ComprehensiveCrop Insurance Scheme on Cooperative Credit in Gujarat. Journal of InternationalDevelopment. 6(5): 529-68.Mizan R. Khan and Dr. Md. Sirajul Islam, Crop Insurance as a Risk Management Strategyunder Future Climate Change: Bangladesh Context Department of Environmental Scienceand Management (DESM).Pathak, B. S. “Crop Insurance: Retrospects and Prospects”, Paper presented at theNational Seminar on Crop Insurance through Co-operatives, (Mimeographed), Pune, 24-26 February 1986.Peter Hazell, Carlos Pomareda, and Alberto Valdes (1986), Crop Insurance forAgricultural Development - Issues and Experience, (London: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press).Pomareda, Carlos. (1986). An Evaluation of the Impact of Credit Insurance onBank Performance in Panama. In: Peter Hazell, Carlos Pomareda and AlbertoValdes. (eds), Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development : Issues and Experience.Batimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Raju S.S. and Ramesh Chand 2008. Agricultural Insurance in India Problems andProspects, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research.Rao, C.H.H., S.K. Ray and K. Subbarao.(1988): Unstable Agriculture andDroughts-Implications for Policy. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt.Ltd.Ray, P. K. 1987. Economics of Crop Insurance with Special Reference to the Needs andSituations in Developing Countries, Kolkata: Central Publishing Concern.Rustagi, N. K. 1988.Crop insurance in India: An analysis, Delhi: B. L. Publishing Co.41

Smith, V.H. and B.K. Goodwin (1996). Crop Insurance, Moral Hazard, and AgriculturalChemical Use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 28(2) : 428-438.Subrahmanian, K. K. 1984.Economic Feasibility for Crop Insurance for Coffee,Unpublished thesis. UAS, Bangalore.Venkatesh G. 2008. Crop Insurance In India , The Journal.Walker, T.S and N.S.Jodha, (1986). How Small Farm Households Adapt to Risk. In PeterHazell, Carlos Pomareda and Alberto Valdes (eds.), Crop Insurance for AgriculturalDevelopment. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.www.indiastat.comwww.aicofindia.orgAnnexure-ITable.A.1. State wise Coverage of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (16 Seasonsfrom Rabi 1999-2000 to Kharif 2007)S.No.1StatesAndhraPradeshFarmerscovered(„000s)16536.8Area( „000ha)25702.1SumInsured(Rs.crores)24486.1Premium (Rs.crores)Subsidy(Rs.crores)Totalclaims(Rs.crores)FarmersBenefited(„000s)692.0 82.5 1749.3 3122.02 Assam 93.5 73.3 91.3 2.1 0.3 4.2 19.43 Bihar 2688.7 3192.4 3911.0 90.6 9.9 518.0 821.34Chhattisgarh4919.410343.23241.8 84.1 5.5 174.6 992.6

5 Goa 6.2 10.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.76 Gujarat 8342.119866.316066.6683.0 41.9 2537.3 3102.07 Haryana 392.9 440.9 317.7 10.2 0.3 17.6 58.289HimachalPradeshJammu andKashmir139.5 97.4 83.3 1.9 0.3 6.0 70.118.0 23.9 13.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.410 Jharkhand 2963.1 1403.9 866.0 22.0 1.3 127.2 747.911 Karnataka 7770.113316.48803.7 283.6 17.9 1227.6 3434.212 Kerala 273.0 229.8 344.1 7.2 1.5 19.0 55.91314MadhyaPradeshMaharashtra13642.418959.536229.118765.512619.410782.0395.0 18.2 519.8 2710.9399.8 46.8 1007.8 5530.415 Meghalaya 14.2 17.0 14.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 1.416 Orissa 8202.4 8426.8 7964.5 200.1 31.2 446.7 1526.917 Rajasthan 9107.220394.58768.6 244.9 4.4 765.5 1859.018 Sikkim 1.4 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.119TamilNadu1027.3(0.93)1659.4(0.94)1665.5(1.46)36.1(1.04)3.8(1.25)156.5(1.54)270.7(0.97)20 Tripura 9.7 6.0 10.1 0.3 0.0 0.5 2.621UttarPradesh9724.012525.89945.9 205.0 21.8 514.8 2536.522 Uttranchal 69.6 73.7 104.3 1.8 0.2 5.2 18.72324WestBengalAndamanand Nicobar5535.5 2864.2 4031.6 104.917.4377.7 1075.31.0 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.125 Pondicherry 20.7 31.1 41.2 0.8 0.1 1.5 3.8Total110458.2175695.1114177.93466.6 305.5 10177.227962.1Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate percentages to total.Source: The Regional Office, Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited, Chennai43

45Annexure-IITable A.2. Instability Indices for paddy over periodsDistricts1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P YKancheepuram0.2120.3870.3080.1070.3280.3080.1610.3400.2920.1230.2750.2390.1560.3100.258Vellore0.3780.5280.2360.3270.3970.1530.3370.4430.1910.3990.4530.1230.3780.4630.170Cuddalore0.2721.1040.9710.1350.1900.1990.2090.7490.6620.1850.6530.7130.2150.8110.783Salem0.3370.4420.2340.2940.3040.0530.3480.4050.1610.4360.4950.0830.4140.4820.151Dharmapuri0.2530.4150.2600.3840.4370.1560.3190.4110.2040.4340.5160.1480.3700.4680.191Erode0.5840.6170.1430.0900.0390.0760.3950.4130.1201.1081.1100.0670.9110.9210.109Coimbatore0.3410.4020.2710.3260.3320.1120.3240.3530.1960.3750.4250.1160.3530.4020.181Thanjavur0.1260.3540.2810.0610.6390.6080.0960.4880.4470.2150.5510.4710.1810.4680.396Trichy0.1710.3580.3400.1170.4730.4660.1500.4040.3880.1670.4200.3650.1680.3870.345

Pudukkottai0.2610.6840.5560.2520.6230.3850.2480.6240.4550.2020.5250.3380.2200.5700.418Madurai0.1900.3540.2530.1440.2760.1630.1620.3070.2040.2580.3650.1570.2270.3520.192Ramnad0.1760.7790.6260.1271.0100.8890.1460.8580.7320.1050.9300.8360.1300.8450.738Thirunelveli0.2260.5060.3560.1530.2280.1370.1880.3820.2590.1810.2410.1140.1950.3560.228Kanniyakumari0.1890.5490.3950.0310.2010.1790.1290.3920.2910.1280.2680.1710.1480.3810.264Nilgiris0.1230.2880.3080.3720.6280.4090.2660.4650.3420.2870.4840.3150.2350.4100.300Tamil Nadu0.1320.2480.1890.0820.1700.1280.1060.2010.1540.1490.2450.1270.1380.2370.150Table.A.3. Instability Indices for Sorghum over periodsDistricts1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P YKancheepuram0.2260.2080.2660.2890.2700.1430.2900.3020.2060.5401.4861.5010.4561.1541.158Vellore0.2510.3800.2340.2040.3700.2800.2220.3790.2660.2050.3420.2460.2160.3600.249

47Cuddalore0.2220.5170.3400.1210.3000.3020.1910.4230.3090.3081.9181.6700.2771.5001.292Salem0.1300.4000.3720.1680.1620.0980.1510.2950.2570.1870.1990.2280.1650.2830.278Dharmapuri0.1100.3770.3640.1270.3360.2850.1280.3410.3090.3330.4310.3070.2640.3980.316Erode0.3000.4410.3030.1960.4540.4110.2470.4380.3450.7490.8020.4820.6020.6760.412Coimbatore0.1560.1910.2040.1300.3690.3240.1450.3040.2660.1240.3200.2840.1380.2880.255Trichy0.1180.3990.3800.0920.3230.2760.1060.3580.3220.1170.2840.2250.1180.3360.290Pudukkottai0.7980.5720.3110.5290.5330.3310.6740.5890.3280.5360.6220.4340.6280.6170.394Madurai0.1450.4040.3340.1190.6850.6540.1300.5370.4920.1140.5250.5060.1240.4700.435Ramnad0.3040.4810.2210.2401.0911.1280.2650.8020.7680.2360.8550.8600.2550.7150.671Thirunelveli0.1760.5540.4130.2290.6820.5290.2020.5980.4530.2430.5960.4410.2190.5650.416Tamil Nadu0.1210.2410.1780.0640.1440.1260.0950.2010.1530.0950.1380.1260.1030.1870.149

Table.A.4. Instability Indices for Maize over periodsDistrictsKancheepuramVelloreCuddaloreSalemDharmapuriErodeCoimbatoreThanjavur1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y1.3860.3920.7030.3160.4570.2591.1790.4350.6670.3570.4950.4260.3310.4510.1280.3670.2600.4160.4210.2300.7250.3770.1390.3860.4710.2280.7070.3740.1390.5250.2670.0050.0250.0080.0040.4570.9680.3430.7110.3300.3360.3110.8890.3750.6880.3450.3590.4590.3450.3020.0870.2490.1740.4160.4400.2920.7020.3390.1430.5110.5360.3180.6920.3990.1380.6620.2310.1220.0320.1510.0160.4140.8710.3430.7040.3200.3000.4200.8260.3810.6870.3680.3180.5650.3080.2800.0780.2490.1510.405

Trichy0.9410.8970.1560.6600.7200.4640.8730.8780.3260.7560.7910.3510.8880.8930.283Pudukkottai0.2140.3550.4460.5160.5210.0100.3990.4580.3000.6450.6730.2050.5080.5580.308Madurai0.4610.5010.3680.2410.7140.8300.3590.5940.6060.2370.5800.6400.3360.5480.536Ramnad0.7460.7650.2630.3311.3671.1810.5671.0590.8070.2731.0440.9020.5120.9370.706Thirunelveli0.8181.3291.0310.6191.3670.9430.7431.3150.9330.5311.1190.8020.6581.1800.858Tamil Nadu0.3270.2790.3070.1810.1810.0190.2630.2350.2060.1950.2090.0770.2520.2360.189Table.A.5. Instability Indices for Sugarcane over periodsDistrictsKancheepuram1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y0.1281.0470.9990.1780.2630.1660.1620.7210.6800.2060.2610.1490.1900.6390.59249

Vellore0.1951.0931.1510.1290.1800.1160.1600.7390.7720.2700.3070.0970.2360.6730.669Cuddalore0.0991.0681.0790.1570.2060.0900.1280.7250.7220.1490.3370.3420.1300.6680.676Salem0.4311.2041.2110.1530.2020.1000.4870.8170.8730.1770.2110.0880.4340.7160.756Dharmapuri0.1681.1351.1000.2280.2290.0870.1920.7720.7360.4130.5100.1280.3300.7620.643Erode0.2141.2631.1980.1740.2250.0840.1930.8580.8010.3300.3880.1330.2860.7890.699Coimbatore0.2041.0671.0790.2250.1640.1640.2090.7250.7290.2490.3040.1740.2270.6630.638Thanjavur0.1521.3881.3540.1680.2360.1650.1680.9420.9090.1730.1980.1310.1690.8180.788Trichy0.1241.2101.2290.2110.3050.1950.1680.8320.8300.2610.3330.1690.2150.7430.722Pudukkottai0.3201.0481.1360.2170.1610.1110.2740.7140.7610.2030.2000.1050.2540.6310.661Madurai0.1441.1451.1240.1910.3070.2270.1600.7910.7650.2130.3150.2080.1840.7040.669Ramnad0.2681.3351.3460.2460.2420.2140.2450.9210.9190.2600.2860.1760.2550.8160.798

51Thirunelveli0.4931.7321.3370.3220.5580.4680.3931.2140.9460.3050.4470.3670.3681.0580.822Tamil Nadu0.1181.1371.1420.1440.1750.0680.1290.7670.7640.1880.2150.0660.1620.6770.662

Table.A.6. Instability Indices for Cotton over periodsDistricts1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P YKancheepuram0.7042.2981.8680.6380.6920.2070.6461.6051.2560.5070.5450.1700.5721.3961.089Vellore0.4040.5070.2480.4370.4430.1460.4000.4490.1990.8170.8020.2680.6680.6790.254Cuddalore0.3530.5660.2750.4290.4220.2390.3710.4800.2530.4821.1470.9660.4220.9410.759Salem0.2410.3030.3030.1510.2910.2060.2240.3970.2950.2810.4290.1970.2760.4430.271Dharmapuri0.4500.5770.3260.3470.4810.2720.3990.5240.2860.4900.7670.3480.4690.6900.330Erode0.5300.9100.4990.2240.4440.3870.4200.6890.4240.4280.6350.3610.4670.7220.401Coimbatore0.3840.5440.3440.2770.3110.1120.3320.4440.2480.3680.6290.3370.3700.5910.329Thanjavur1.0290.6880.9630.4760.8691.0770.7580.7440.9650.4700.7160.8210.6960.6810.840Trichy0.6370.6480.5640.1801.2041.3340.4440.9120.9660.6261.0911.0180.6110.9210.844

53Pudukkottai0.8250.5020.5690.7400.7310.2050.7690.6350.4060.8480.8000.2250.8290.7120.373Madurai1.3410.2871.3740.1080.3760.3360.8980.3190.9430.1780.3580.2990.7870.3230.826Ramnad0.1460.4160.3740.1150.6770.7000.1360.5420.5330.1370.5300.5430.1420.4850.473Thirunelveli0.2670.7770.7000.1280.4110.3720.2090.5990.5320.1470.4210.3470.1990.5620.486Tamil Nadu0.2420.3770.2860.1050.1300.1440.1820.2760.2150.2440.3320.1560.2380.3430.206

Table.A.7. Instability Indices for Groundnut over periodsDistricts1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P YKancheepuram0.2050.2440.1390.0890.2170.1460.1570.2190.1390.0980.1930.1350.1470.2050.133Vellore0.1170.4900.4530.1690.2600.1190.1390.4200.3660.1710.3060.1760.1470.4050.338Cuddalore0.0980.2760.2300.0890.1140.0720.0970.2040.1610.1190.7080.6090.1120.5650.484Salem0.1320.5370.5320.1050.2630.2330.1250.4840.5090.1360.3280.2530.1380.4660.462Dharmapuri0.1720.4390.3320.1570.2250.1360.1710.3470.2450.2960.4140.1690.2560.4190.236Erode0.2760.4240.2520.1480.2470.1340.2090.3270.1910.1920.3290.1610.2170.3510.191Coimbatore0.2530.3350.1180.1430.2580.1600.1990.3090.1700.1870.3550.2090.2080.3510.194Thanjavur0.1590.3370.2820.1280.6400.6150.1480.4880.4510.2240.5330.4720.2000.4560.396Trichy0.1690.4350.2800.1360.6830.6410.1480.5580.4820.1450.5320.4880.1510.4930.419

55Pudukkottai0.1100.2740.2060.1560.4550.3430.1330.3560.2670.1580.4060.2930.1420.3490.253Madurai0.1730.3490.2330.1450.5100.4450.1620.4280.3420.2350.5080.3630.2130.4480.313Ramnad0.1430.3100.2720.1380.5760.4920.1430.4400.3780.1410.5000.4670.1420.4250.391Thirunelveli0.2830.3910.2360.3110.4190.2610.2880.3910.2470.2810.3770.2100.2750.3730.220Kanniyakumari0.2800.3460.2750.3181.1711.1300.3130.8250.7760.4070.9640.8640.3690.7720.679Tamil Nadu0.0870.2180.1660.0880.1410.0620.0870.1760.1260.1100.1990.1010.1010.2000.128

Table.A.8. Instability Indices for Chillies over periodsDistricts1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P YKancheepuram0.1890.4150.3270.1540.6660.6460.1880.5300.4830.2380.6190.5260.2230.5390.445Vellore0.6770.5930.6810.2820.4800.5420.5030.5240.5850.3370.4880.4340.4760.5190.518Cuddalore0.3460.5390.4510.4050.2790.3210.3730.4160.3710.3681.8911.8260.3521.4791.419Salem0.3200.5070.3600.2950.5560.4260.2970.5080.3730.2980.6110.4570.2980.5550.406Dharmapuri0.2700.3580.4300.3220.6270.4430.3350.5220.4120.3460.5130.3920.3430.4730.389Erode0.3490.8170.6780.2240.3950.3910.3040.6240.5360.2220.3550.3460.2830.5580.478Coimbatore0.2140.4970.4640.2070.3810.2960.2320.4280.3680.2410.4890.3170.2360.4720.365Thanjavur0.3630.4970.2880.3252.1722.0250.3311.4861.3640.3521.6531.5340.3431.2951.183Trichy0.1950.3710.3420.2511.9322.0390.2331.3271.3820.2261.4731.5460.2261.1581.200

57Pudukkottai0.7740.8410.3330.2890.4560.3780.5550.6380.3420.3710.4790.3030.5310.6130.306Madurai0.2620.4510.4200.2720.7450.8300.2820.7330.6980.2640.6280.6870.2730.6660.643Ramnad0.2140.6050.5700.1970.3150.3510.2050.4580.4470.1820.3090.3310.1920.4240.415Thirunelveli0.3670.5270.4920.1130.5170.5580.2680.4980.4960.1750.4310.4410.2520.4490.441Tamil Nadu0.2190.3410.3180.1620.2590.2530.1980.3060.2730.1660.2370.2150.1870.2810.248

Table.A.9. Instability Indices for Banana over periodsDistricts1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P YKancheepuram0.1850.3080.2080.0800.3460.3330.1370.3130.2650.2790.4300.2940.2410.3750.257Vellore0.2580.5700.4550.2490.2740.2830.2500.4220.3630.3160.3720.2230.2910.4350.318Cuddalore0.2910.5340.4830.2020.4640.4330.2390.4840.4420.1581.2081.2270.2110.9780.981Salem0.1470.4800.3960.2160.2780.3120.1940.3700.3440.3050.3470.2480.2580.3840.303Dharmapuri0.3320.3200.3330.3620.6440.3470.3330.4810.3280.3090.7310.5980.3090.5880.499Erode0.1710.2810.2320.1150.2230.2320.1420.2410.2220.1640.2980.2120.1650.2810.211Coimbatore0.1450.2570.2760.2220.3480.1820.2090.3000.2320.2270.3750.2030.2100.3300.230Thanjavur0.0540.4730.4450.1180.7440.7660.1050.5880.5920.0980.5890.6060.0970.5270.531Trichy0.0890.2610.2310.1121.0671.0210.1060.7350.6980.1090.8110.7740.1060.6390.606

Pudukkottai0.3280.4880.3580.2870.3340.2620.3050.4060.2960.2400.2760.2050.2730.3600.259Madurai0.1700.3430.3010.1470.5030.4020.1860.4310.3390.1240.4120.3330.1670.3910.311Ramnad0.3140.4230.3830.1540.3290.3730.2350.3600.3590.1300.2740.2920.2090.3230.316Thirunelveli0.2150.3210.1740.1730.6230.6820.1850.4690.4730.1430.5000.5340.1660.4260.423SKanniyakumari0.0490.2030.1970.0640.4720.5000.0620.3450.3660.0651.1151.1200.0620.8610.865Nilgiris0.1340.7300.7180.1761.2331.1980.1900.9720.9400.3611.8361.6220.3021.4701.311Tamil Nadu0.1070.1950.1510.0670.1970.1780.0890.1850.1580.0810.2090.1620.0910.1960.152Table.A.10 Instability Indices for total Pulses over periodsDistrictsKancheepuram1980-89 1990-99 1980-1999 1990-2005 1980-2005A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y0.3680.3960.1190.2680.2570.0960.3540.3680.1030.2670.3110.1110.3360.3700.10959

Vellore0.1880.3120.1940.2710.4330.2160.2290.3680.1970.2660.4060.2030.2430.3730.194Cuddalore0.6010.6410.1740.1170.3870.4240.4290.5250.3090.1360.9420.8760.3800.8200.677Salem0.0950.2820.2350.0720.1390.1140.0930.2160.1770.3110.3540.1490.2630.3290.177Dharmapuri0.1220.2830.2550.2340.3020.1200.2260.3360.1950.2190.2990.1460.2230.3340.192Erode0.1490.3620.3850.1190.3140.2480.1390.3250.3060.1580.2630.2310.1580.2940.285Coimbatore0.2160.2330.2540.1300.2610.1530.1680.2350.1990.1340.2300.1370.1620.2230.181Thanjavur0.3840.4280.3980.2290.6920.6160.3000.5450.4900.3320.6090.5280.3380.5290.465Trichy0.2980.4080.2530.2170.6310.4850.2630.5150.3670.2190.5190.3770.2500.4730.326Pudukkottai0.1890.3070.1420.3490.5040.4280.3100.4180.3080.2990.4710.3780.2850.4240.304Madurai0.1770.2150.0900.1110.5590.5400.1540.4050.3650.0990.4290.4120.1420.3570.319Ramnad0.2260.3730.2230.1010.3790.3340.1830.3620.2680.1210.4300.3870.1720.4000.324

61Thirunelveli0.1370.4260.4430.1460.5220.4810.1460.4730.4460.1660.5500.4910.1520.4990.461Kanniyakumari0.5860.6250.2130.2531.3181.1620.4300.9770.7890.2401.0360.9060.3930.8790.704Tamil Nadu0.1370.1320.0900.0830.1910.1390.1130.1620.1110.0880.1740.1190.1110.1650.107