Crop Insurance Policies in India: An Empirical Analysis of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana

: India is home to over one-third of all undernourished children worldwide, and it ranks 94th out of 107 nations in the Global Hunger Index 2020. Instability in production and market risks make agriculture a risky business and directly affect farmers’ income levels, thereby impacting food security. This review aimed to understand various features of different crop insurance policies in India and to analyze the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana’s (PMFBY) impacts on Indian farmers. A literature search was performed in all popular databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, AGRICOLA, AGRIS, and Google search engines, as well as annual Indian government reports. The keywords “Crop Insurance” OR “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” OR “National Agriculture Schemes” AND “India” were searched to obtain relevant articles. By using cumulative data, we conducted a multiple regression analysis and a model was developed to estimate the effects of insurance characteristics on farmer coverage for the years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. Agricultural insurance coverage under PMFBY remained low in terms of the number of farmers insured, the area insured, claims paid, and total farmers beneﬁted. Compared to other schemes, the beneﬁciary and claim premium ratios were substantially lower under the PMFBY. The multiple regression analysis showed that farmers’ premiums have a signiﬁcant effect on the number of farmers insured over time, although the subsidies do not have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence in farmers’ insurance participation. Delays in claim settlement, the complexity of the system, and a lack of awareness among farmers are the major weaknesses of the PMFBY. Greater use of digital media could help spread awareness of these schemes among farmers.


Introduction
India is home to over one-third of all undernourished children worldwide, and it ranks 94th out of 107 nations in the Global Hunger Index 2020 study (Global Hunger Index 2020). Instability in production and market risks make agriculture a risky business and directly affect farmers' income levels (Gulati et al. 2018). The predominance of rainfed agriculture adds to the riskiness of agriculture, on which 58 percent of the Indian population is dependent (India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) 2021). According to the United Nations Committee on World Food Security, food security means that all people have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that always fits their food preferences and dietary needs for an active and healthy life (IFPRI 2021). It is projected for the next decades that due to the changing climate, an increasing global population, rising food prices, and other environmental stressors will all have The effects of insurance characteristics on farmers coverage under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana were estimated through multiple regression analysis by using cumulative data for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 as: Farmer's coverage(insured) under PMFBY = α + β1(Subsidy t,i ) + β2(Claims paid t,i ) + β3(Farmers Premium t,i ) + u, where u is the error term and i refers to various states.

Review of Various Crop Insurance Schemes in India
The major findings are discussed in two subsections, namely (1) the various crop insurance schemes adopted in India and (2) the state-wise performance of PMFBY.

Various Crop Insurance Schemes in India
A review of various crop insurance schemes is summarized below, along with Table 1.

Individual Indemnity-Based Experimental Crop Insurance Scheme
After independence, for the first time, the General Insurance Corporation of India introduced the Individual Indemnity-Based Experimental Crop Insurance Scheme on H-4 cotton in Gujarat. Afterwards, the scheme was extended to three other crops-groundnut, wheat, and potato. It was introduced in six states-Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. The scheme was based on the "individual approach" 2 and was discontinued in 1979. Participation in this scheme was voluntary. The premium rates were between 5 and 10 percent. The insurance scheme covered a small number of farmers, i.e., 3110, for a premium of 4.54 lakh against a claim of 37.78 lakh during 1972-1978 (Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. 2021). The implementation of the scheme led to the realization that the individual farm-based crop insurance scheme had too many drawbacks for it to be sustainable (Raju and Chand 2008).

Pilot Crop Insurance Scheme
The Pilot Crop Insurance Scheme (PCIS) was introduced in 1979. Prof V.M Dandekar of the Indian School of Political Economy, known as the father of crop insurance in India, recommended the homogeneous area approach as an alternative. The recommendations were accepted by the General Insurance Corporation of India, which introduced the PCIS, covering crops such as cereals, millets, cotton, potato, gram, oilseeds, and barley (Raju and Chand 2008). The scheme was voluntary, and the risk was shared by both the General Insurance Corporation of India and local state governments at a ratio of 2:1. The premium rate was between 5 and 10 percent of the sum insured (Dandekar 1985). This scheme continued until 1984. A total of 6.91 lakh hectares were insured during 1979-1984(Raju and Chand 2008. A total of 6.22 lakh farmers from 12 states were insured, and a total premium of Rs. 195.01 lakh was collected. Total claims during the period amounted to Rs. 155.68 lakh (Tripathi 1987). The main drawback of the scheme was that it was directly linked to loans that banks or other financial institutions gave. Most of the small and marginal farmers could not participate in this scheme because they had poor access to institutional credit (Raju and Chand 2008). Covered all farmers; initially, participation was compulsory for loanee farmers but from kharif 2020 it was made voluntary for loanee farmers; use of modern technologies for claims assessment report; one season, one premium; low premium rates; covered risks from pre-sowing to post-harvest period; implemented by 27 states and union territories during 2016-2017.
Source: (Raju and Chand 2008) and compiled by authors from Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, New Delhi.

Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme
In 1985, the scheme was replaced by the Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS), the first nationwide crop insurance scheme implemented in India. The scheme was based on the homogeneous area approach, and the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers. The insurance scheme was adopted in 15 states and 2 union territories and the insurance was linked to credit institutions (Mishra 1994). The premium rate was 2 percent for cereals (rice, wheat) and millets and 1 percent for pulses and oilseeds. For small and marginal farmers, a 50 percent subsidy was provided under the scheme and claims, and premiums for all farmers were shared by the central government and state governments at a ratio of 2:1 (Tripathi 1987). The insurance scheme continued up to kharif 1999. Over 763 lakh farmers were insured for a premium of Rs. 402.81 crore; total claims amounted to Rs. 2305.04 crore between 1985-1986and 1999-2000(Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. 2021. A total of 59.78 lakh farmers benefited. The maximum claims were paid in Gujarat, i.e., Rs. 1336.93 crore and the least at Rs. 322.70 crore in Andhra Pradesh state during the period (Raju and Chand 2008). The northeastern states and highly irrigated states such as Punjab and Haryana did not participate in this scheme. The major drawbacks of the scheme were the area approach, the limited number of crops covered, the uniform premium rate for all farmers, and delays in premium payments (Jain 2004).

National Agriculture Insurance Scheme
In rabi 1999, the Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme was replaced by the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS), implemented by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited. The scheme covered all farmers, both loanee and non-loanee, against losses due to crop failure on account of natural calamities. The main feature of this scheme was that it covered all food grains and non-food grain crops, such as cereals, millets, pulses, oilseeds, and horticulture crops, for which data on the yield for the past year were available. The scheme was based on the area approach, whereby each state is assured of the unit of insurance (Mahajan and Bobade 2012). The premium rate was 3.5 percent for bajra and oilseeds, 1.5 percent for wheat, 2.5 percent for other kharif crops, and 2.0 percent for rabi crops. Initially, a 50 percent subsidy was provided on the premium to small and marginal farmers by the central and state governments (Raju and Chand 2008).
The NAIS scheme was implemented by 25 states and 2 union territories from 1999-2000 to 2016-2017. The scheme continued up to 2016, and a total of 2712.2 lakh farmers over an area of 3599.3 lakh hectares were insured for a sum amounting to Rs. 467,504.76 crore; total claims during the period amounted to Rs. 56,453.77 crore. Around 781.02 lakh farmers benefited from this scheme. Maharashtra had the highest number of total farmers insured (517.71 lakh) and the highest number of beneficiaries (248.1 lakh) (Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. 2021) (Appendix A; Table A1).

Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme
The Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) introduced in 2007-2008 included a weather index, which covered losses due to unexpected weather, i.e., high or low temperatures, excess or deficit rainfall. At that time, private sector insurance companies came into the market (Nair 2010b). The scheme is a repackaged version of a rainfall insurance scheme introduced as an experiment by ICICI Lombard in 2003 for groundnut and caster sugar farmers from Mahboobnagar district in Andhra Pradesh. Later, IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company and the public sector Agricultural Insurance Company of India (AIC) introduced similar schemes (Nair 2010a). The scheme was based on the "area approach", and the premium rates were high, i.e., 8-10 percent for food crops and oilseeds and 12 percent for commercial crops, and was shared equally by the central and state governments. Participation in the scheme was compulsory for loanees and voluntary for non-loanee farmers. In 2007-2008, the scheme was implemented in selected states, such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, respectively (Raju and Chand 2008). It was later extended to 21 states and Union Territories. The scheme continued up until 2016. A total of 720.2 lakh farmers over an area of 886.62 lakh hectares were insured for a sum amounting to Rs. 122,941.03 crore from 2007Rs. 122,941.03 crore from -2008 to [2015][2016]. The gross premium was Rs. 12,161.4 crore, while claims amounted to Rs. 9665.47 crore. A total of 511.04 lakh farmers benefited from this scheme. Rajasthan and Bihar states were among the major beneficiaries of this scheme (Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2019) (Appendix A; Table A2).
3.1.6. Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme The Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) was introduced in 2010 and replaced the NAIS, although several states continued the NAIS scheme and MNAIS through rabi 2015-2016. The main objectives of the new scheme were to provide insurance coverage and financial support to farmers in the event of crop failure of any of the notified crops in the notified area. The scheme encouraged the farmers to adopt the best innovative technology and high-value inputs in agriculture. Both loanee and non-loanee farmers were insured under this scheme, and it covered crop losses from the pre-sowing period to the post-harvest period. The participation was compulsory for loanee farmers and voluntary for non-loanee farmers, covering cereals, pulses, millets, oilseeds, horticulture, and commercial crops for which data for the past year were available. Another feature of this scheme was that it was based on an individual assessment, and a subsidy of 75 percent on the premium was provided to all category farmers, the cost of which was shared equally by the central and state governments. The MNAIS scheme was implemented in 21 states and union territories. The Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme continued up to 2016. A total of 276.62 lakh farmers and an area of 297.59 lakh hectares were insured for a sum of Rs. 62,079.32 crore over the period 2010-2011 to 2015-2016. The gross premium collected was Rs. 4935.77 crore, with claims amounting to Rs. 5578.42 crore. A total of 99.26 lakh farmers benefited from this scheme (Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2019) (Appendix A; Table A3).

Restructured Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme
On 18 February 2016, the Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme was renamed the Restructured Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme (RWBCIS) to provide monetary support to farmers against crop loss to natural calamities. Initially, the scheme was implemented in 12 states during kharif 2016 and nine states during rabi 2016-2017 (Department of Financial Services 2021). The scheme was administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare. The scheme was based on the weather-index-based area approach. The insurance scheme covers cereals, millets, pulses, oilseeds, annual husbandry, horticultural, and commercial crops. This insurance scheme covered all farmers, including sharecroppers and tenants. Participation was compulsory for loanee farmers and voluntary for non-loanee farmers. The scheme covered risks from the pre-sowing period to the majority period. 3 The premium rate ranged from 2.0 percent for kharif crops to 1.5 percent for rabi crops and 5.0 percent for horticultural and commercial crops. The progress of the RWBCIS is shown in Appendix A under In 2016, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) was introduced by the government with new features, and an initial amount of Rs. 5500 crore was allocated in the 2016-2017 union budget (Rai 2019). This scheme provides a comprehensive risk solution at the lowest uniform premium rate across India. This scheme has replaced other crop insurance schemes, such as the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, which had some inherent drawbacks. The insurance scheme operates on an area approach. The scheme covers all farmers, including loanee, non-loanee, tenants, and sharecroppers. Initially, the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers who had taken a loan from any financial institution and voluntary for non-loanee farmers, but it was made optional for loanee farmers from kharif 2020 (Government of India 2020). Various public and private insurance companies implement the scheme under the overall control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare. The main feature of this scheme is 'one premium, one season'. It covers agricultural risks from the pre-sowing period to the post-harvest period and encourages the use of modern techniques such as global positioning systems (GPS), remote sensing, smartphones, and drones for accurate measurement of crops yields and losses for easy and fast settlements of claims. The scheme covers all kharif and rabi crops, as well as annual horticultural and commercial crops. The premium rate charged from farmers is uniform at 2.0 percent for kharif crops, 1.50 percent for rabi crops, and 5.0 percent for annual horticultural and commercial crops, with the remaining share of the premium paid equally by the central and state governments. Several changes were introduced in the scheme after it was first implemented to broaden coverage of both the number of farmers and the area. The major changes that the government has made so far are presented in Table 2 In 2020-2021, several changes were made by the Government of India as suggested by various policymakers, which included the voluntary participation of all farmers, business allocation to insurance companies for three years instead of one year during 2016-2017 to 2019-2020, limited premium subsidies (i.e., 30 percent for unirrigated areas and 25 percent for irrigated areas), an increase of the premium subsidy from 50 percent to 90 percent for the northeastern states, fixed cut-off dates for the states to release the premium subsidy payments (i.e., 31 March and 30 September for the kharif and rabi seasons, respectively), flexibility for states to choose crop loss parameters, and new provisions made for insurance companies (i.e., 0.5 percent of total premium to be spent on information and education).   --

Participation
Compulsory for loanee and voluntary for non-loanee farmers.
Compulsory for loanee and voluntary for non-loanee farmers.
Compulsory for loanee farmers and voluntary for non-loanee farmers.
Compulsory for loanee farmers and voluntary for non-loanee farmers.
From 2020 onwards, voluntary for all farmers.

Requirement of Aadhaar Card
Aadhaar card is optional for enrollment.

Business Allocation
One year allocation to insurance companies.
One year allocation to insurance companies.
One year allocation to insurance companies.
One year allocation to insurance companies.
From 2020 onwards, three-year allocation to insurance companies.

Premium Subsidy
Premium subsidies are equally shared by central and state governments.
Premium subsidies are equally shared by central and state governments.
Premium subsidies are equally shared by central and state governments.
Premium subsidies are equally shared by central and state governments.
From 2020 onwards, central Subsidy rates to be limited, i.e., 30 percent for unirrigated area and 25 percent for the irrigated area, and premium subsidy rates increased to 90 percent for the northeastern states.

Cut-off dates
No cut-off date is fixed for states to release states' subsidy share No cut-off date is fixed for states to release states' subsidy share No cut-off date is fixed for states to release states' subsidy share No cut-off date is fixed for states to release states' subsidy share.
In 2020 onwards, for state participation, the cut-off dates are fixed, i.e., March 31 and September 30, for the kharif and rabi seasons, respectively. If states do not release their premium shares before the given dates, they will not be allowed to participate in the scheme. From 2020 onwards, it is mandatory for insurance companies to spend 0.5 percent of total premium on information, education, etc.

Yield Estimation process
Yield estimation process is adopted three or more times Yield estimation process is adopted three or more times Yield estimation process is adopted three or more times Yield estimation process is adopted three or more times.
From 2020 onwards, a two-step yield estimation process has been adopted by the previous yield estimation process     (2017)  In rabi season, a similar trend was found for numbers of farmers and areas insured; thus, the data revealed that both the numbers of farmers and areas insured were greater in PMFBY than under other crop insurance schemes. Table 5 shows the season-wise gross premium collection amounts and claims paid under crop insurance schemes during 2000-2001 to 2018-2019. The gross premium collection amount under NAIS (Rs. 511.94 crore) was more than the gross premium collection amount under WBCIS (Rs. 31.68 crore) during kharif 2008-2009. Similarly, the total amount of claims paid under NAIS (Rs. 176,361.9 crore) was more than the total amount of claims paid under WBCIS (Rs. 14.39 crore) in the same season. In the rabi season, a similar trend was found for gross premium collection and total amount of claims paid. This shows that gross premium amount and total amount of claims paid were highest under NAIS rather than WBCIS during 2008-2009.  The gross premium collection amount under WBCIS (Rs. 986.56 crore) was greater than gross premium collection amount under MNAIS (Rs. 807.16 crore) during kharif 2015-2016. Similarly, the total amount of claims paid under WBCIS (Rs. 1314.11 crore) was greater than the total amount of claims paid under MNAIS (Rs. 1127.16 crore) in the same season. In the rabi season, a similar trend was found for the gross premium collection amounts and claims paid. This shows that the gross premium amount and claims paid were higher under WBCIS compared to MNAIS during 2015-2016. The gross premium collection amount under PMFBY (Rs. 13,179.91 crore) was greater than for RWBCIS (Rs. 1720.99 crore) during 2018-2019. Similarly, the total amount of claims paid under PMFBY (Rs. 4179.3 crore) was greater than under RWBCIS (Rs. 935.22 crore) in the same season. In the rabi season, a similar trend was found for gross premium collection amounts and claims paid; thus, the data show that both the gross premium collection amount and claim paid were greater under PMFBY than RWBCIS from 2015-2016 to 2018-2019. Figures 1 and 2 show the gross premium collection amounts and claims paid under the PMFBY for kharif and rabi seasons from 2016 to 2018. In the kharif and rabi seasons, the gross premium collection amount increased during the time period. In 2016-2017, the total amount of claims paid was lower during the kharif season than the rabi season, but in 2017-2018 more claims were paid during the kharif season compared to the rabi season; thus, the figures below show that the gross premium collection amount was greater than total amount of claims paid under PMFBY during 2016-2017 to 2018-2019.   [2008][2009]. Similarly, the total amount of claims paid under NAIS (Rs. 176,361.9 crore) was more than the total amount of claims paid under WBCIS (Rs. 14.39 crore) in the same season. In the rabi season, a similar trend was found for gross premium collection and total amount of claims paid. This shows that gross premium amount and total amount of claims paid were highest under NAIS rather than WBCIS during 2008-2009.

Gross Premium Collection Amounts and Claims Paid
The gross premium collection amount under WBCIS (Rs. 986.56 crore) was greater than gross premium collection amount under MNAIS (Rs. 807.16 crore) during kharif 2015-2016. Similarly, the total amount of claims paid under WBCIS (Rs. 1314.11 crore) was greater than the total amount of claims paid under MNAIS (Rs. 1127.16 crore) in the same season. In the rabi season, a similar trend was found for the gross premium collection amounts and claims paid. This shows that the gross premium amount and claims paid were higher under WBCIS compared to MNAIS during 2015-2016. The gross premium collection amount under PMFBY (Rs. 13,179.91 crore) was greater than for RWBCIS (Rs. 1720.99 crore) during 2018-2019. Similarly, the total amount of claims paid under PMFBY (Rs. 4179.3 crore) was greater than under RWBCIS (Rs. 935.22 crore) in the same season. In the rabi season, a similar trend was found for gross premium collection amounts and claims paid; thus, the data show that both the gross premium collection amount and claim paid were greater under PMFBY than RWBCIS from 2015-2016 to 2018-2019. Figures 1 and 2 show the gross premium collection amounts and claims paid under the PMFBY for kharif and rabi seasons from 2016 to 2018. In the kharif and rabi seasons, the gross premium collection amount increased during the time period. In 2016-2017, the total amount of claims paid was lower during the kharif season than the rabi season, but in 2017-2018 more claims were paid during the kharif season compared to the rabi season; thus, the figures below show that the gross premium collection amount was greater than total amount of claims paid under PMFBY during 2016-2017 to 2018-2019.

Beneficiary Ratio and Claim Premium Ratio
The beneficiary and claim premium ratios have also been used to evaluate various crop insurance plans. The beneficiary ratio is derived by dividing the total number of farmers who benefited by the total number of farmers who were insured under a specific scheme. The claim premium ratio, on the other hand, is computed as the ratio of claims paid out versus the gross premium collection amount under a specific scheme. Table 6

Beneficiary Ratio and Claim Premium Ratio
The beneficiary and claim premium ratios have also been used to evaluate various crop insurance plans. The beneficiary ratio is derived by dividing the total number of farmers who benefited by the total number of farmers who were insured under a specific scheme. The claim premium ratio, on the other hand, is computed as the ratio of claims paid out versus the gross premium collection amount under a specific scheme. Table 6 displays the beneficiary and claim premium ratios for various crop insurance schemes in India from 2000-2001 to 2018-2019. The beneficiary ratios under all schemes were less than unity; however, when we compared the beneficiary ratios of different crop insurance schemes, the ratio was greater under RWBCIS than PMFBY. The ratios ranged between 0.65 and 0.81 during 2016-2019 for RWBCIS, while they ranged between 0.23 and 0.3 for PMFBY during the same period.
On the other hand, the claim/premium ratios were greater than unity under NAIS (i.e., 5.37, 2.56, 4.43 during 2000-2001, 2005-2006, and 2009-2010), indicating that the total amount of claims paid by the insurance companies was greater than the premium collection amount. The claim premium ratios were less than unity under WBCIS (ranging between 0.59 and 0.75 during 2007-2016). The claim premium ratios were found to be less than unity for RWBCIS and PMFBY. The ratio was 0.66 in 2018-2019 under PMFBY, which was less than the ratio for RWBCIS (0.91 in 2018-2019), indicating that the total amount of claims paid by insurance companies was lower than the premium collection amount; thus, insurance companies received more profits under PMFBY during 2016-2017 to 2018-2019. Table 7 shows the state-wise pending claims to the farmers under PMFBY during 2019-2020. The data show that a total of 13 states have not received claims under PMFBY due to delays of claims by insurance companies. The data show that a total of Rs. 21,160.07 crore claims were reported, of which Rs. 8419.22 crore claims were paid, while the remaining Rs. 9364.5 crore claims are pending due to a share of the subsidies being paid by the states during 2019-2020; thus, the data show that insurance companies have held the claims due to the states' pending share of the subsidies. The data shows that the claims are delayed by more than one year; however, according to PMFBY guidelines, claims must be settled by the insurance company within 30 days after the crop loss assessment. Since farmers have been waiting for claims for more than one year, with the majority of the farmers belonging to small and marginal categories, the delayed claims process is not in favor of farmers; therefore, delayed claims are a major weakness of PMFBY. Descriptive statistics for the variables selected for the regression analysis are shown in Table 8. The numbers of farmers insured ranged from 0.0014 lakh to 217.31 lakh, with an average of 38.44 lakh for the cumulative 2017-2018 period, and ranging from 0.014 lakh to 362.33 lakh with an average of 59.89 lakh for the cumulative 2018-2019 period.
Using cumulative data, a multiple regression model was developed to estimate the effects of insurance characteristics on farmer coverage for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 (Table 9). The results indicate that the farmers' premium has a significant effect on the farmers insured over the time period. The claims paid by the insurance companies had a negative impact in the initial years, although in later years, it had a positive impact on the farmers' insurance. The subsidy did not play much of a role in the farmers' participation in the insurance scheme.    As mentioned above, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana has been facing many challenges. The coverage of the yojana is the most challenging task. Although the data in the study showed that in the initial year of PMFBY 2016-2017, coverage of agriculture insurance in terms of farmers insured, area insured, claims paid, and farmers benefited increased in kharif 2016 as compared to kharif 2015, in kharif 2017 it decreased (Bhushan and Kumar 2017;Ghosh 2018;Rai 2019). A lack of awareness is the main reason for the lower coverage in the scheme. The state governments, central government, and insurance companies need to start an awareness campaign regarding the PMFBY in rural areas (Mukherjee and Pal 2017;Rai 2019). Given the penetration of social media platforms in rural areas, greater use of digital media could help spread awareness of these schemes among farmers. There should be proper updating of data regularly on the PMFBY portal, and this portal must have social media accounts, which would help further increase the awareness of this yojana.
The other major challenge that the PMFBY faces is the slew of competing schemes launched by state governments, in which the state governments bear the entire premium costs on behalf of the farmers. These include schemes such as the Bihar government's Bihar Rajya Fasal Sahayata Yojana, the Gujarat government's Mukhya Mantri Kisan Sahay Yojana, West Bengal's Bangla Shasya Bima scheme, and the Andhra Pradesh government's YSR Free Crop Insurance scheme (Hussain 2020;Tiwari et al. 2020). The share of these states due to the high actuarial premium rate 10 under PMFBY was much higher, so these states initiated their own crop insurance policies.
Delays in claim settlement and the complexity of the system are other weaknesses of the PMFBY. This is one major reason why farmers refuse to adopt the policy (Mukherjee and Pal 2017;Ghosh 2019;Tiwari et al. 2020). Under the newly revamped guidelines for the PMFBY in 2020, state governments are required to release the subsidy share to the insurance companies within the stipulated timeframe; otherwise, the states will lose the chance to participate in the scheme in upcoming seasons. This is a major improvement to the guidelines for the yojana, requiring strict vigilance. Given India's fast-rising population, resource restrictions, and climate change issues, as well as the effects of the COVID-19 epidemic, it is critical that food security be prioritized as a core policy objective.

Conclusions
Since independence, the Government of India has launched various crop insurance schemes intermittently to sustain the farmers' income levels. Currently, two crop insurance schemes are operating in India, i.e., Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and the Restructured Weather-Based Crop Insurance Scheme (RWBCIS). As compared to previous schemes, the PMFBY has come up with modified features, i.e., one premium, one season; coverage of all kharif and rabi seasons and all annual commercial and horticulture crops; risks covered from the pre-sowing period to the post-harvesting period; use of modern technology for assessment of crop losses, such as drones and GPS; claim paid directly into farmers accounts; three levels of indemnity offered, namely 70 percent, 80 percent, and 90 percent. To make it more successful and farmer-friendly, some new features have been added, such as voluntary participation for all farmers, business allocation to insurance companies for three years rather than one, linking with the Aadhaar card, mandatory requirements for states to pay subsidies on time, and flexibility for states to decide on additional risk coverage; however, we found that PMFBY showed limited success during 2016-2017 to 2017-2018. Further, we found that the agriculture insurance coverage under PMFBY is still low in terms of the farmers insured, areas insured, claims paid, and farmers benefited. Through the multiple regression model, the effects of the characteristics of the PMFBY on the farmers' coverage were studied, showing that the farmers' premium had a significant effect on the number of farmers insured over the time period, although the subsidy did not play much of a role in farmers' participation in insurance scheme.

Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: This paper is from ICSSR major project entitled "An Evaluation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Haryana and Punjab: The Way Forward for Diversification". We thank all those involved directly and indirectly in this project.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.