Crop Insurance as a Risk Management Strategy in Bangladesh

6.3 Farmer’s Views on Climatic Effects, Risk Mitigation and Crop Insurance: Focus
Group Discussion (FGD)
The research carried out discussions (FGDs) with the farmers groups in all the three study
sites. Farmers described their own observations on the effects of climate change on
agriculture (especially on cropping practices) in the recent years as opposed to their historical
experiences. Because of the distinct nature of each field sites e.g. drought prone
(Lalmonirhat), salinity prone (Pirojpur), and flood prone (Tahirpur) the nature and dimension
of climatic effects as expressed by the farmers are different and so is the causes of risk.
However, the common perception in all of them is that climate is changing and that change
has already posed a significant risk to the agriculture as well as to their livelihoods.
Therefore, all the groups feel the necessity to address such risk. The views and opinions of
the groups from each study area on climatic risks and crop insurance scheme as coverage to
such risk are summarized here:
6.3.1 FGD in Lalmonirhat: Farmers in this area believe that the climate is changing and
temperature is rising day by day. These farmers, regardless of category (high, medium, and
low), therefore, feel that crop production in the area is gradually reducing due to changed
climatic conditions e.g. drought is causing disaster more frequently in the recent years than it
used to do in the earlier decades. Due to such unfavorable climate and resultant soil
conditions the production volume of many crops like Wheat and Mango has declined
significantly. They are also observing that such changed climate are affecting the crop
seasonality and cropping practices (pattern) e.g. Wheat producers are switching to Maize etc.
Meanwhile, against such backdrops set by the climate-induced natural disaster, these farmers
are not well aware of agricultural risk coverage. Moreover they are also not reliant on
government bodies or local government agencies like agricultural department due to their
insignificant cooperation after natural disasters. “Agricultural officer does not visit us and
government does not take required initiative after disaster” as mentioned by a discussant.
They, therefore, like the idea of adopting Crop Insurance scheme as a disaster risk mitigation
measure upon clear understanding on the premium rate per acre, duration, and other related
procedures.
Notwithstanding adoption of such scheme, however, the farmers are suspicious of getting
compensation after disaster (especially drought) from insurance company as an NGO earlier
started such scheme in the area and lastly disappeared with the money without any notice. As
a result now they suspect the very existence or authenticity of such companies and therefore
they propose that if the policy is arranged by local bank they will have more confident to go
with such scheme than with the NGOs.
As far as the affordability of such CI policy concerns, extreme poor and marginal farmers
would even fail to pay a premium of Tk. 50 per month while the middle and higher category
farmers intend to buy it. The major concern of the majority of the farmers is that they badly
need financial help after disaster. Many of them think that fertilizer is the much needed item
for them as the fertilizer crisis is very common in the area. Since the price of the fertilizer is a
great problem to them during their bad times the insurance money will help them in buying
fertilizer to restart their cropping and recovering from disaster.
95