Extreme weather events are wreaking havoc on Indian farmers, who are not adequately prepared to handle climate change impacts. As on September 30, 2024, India experienced extreme weather events on 255 of the 274 days, which affected 3.2 million hectares (ha) of crop area. These events were spread across 35 states and Union Territories, as per the database on weather disasters managed by Down To Earth. In 2023, India experienced extreme weather events on 318 days of the 365 days and in 2022, on 314 days.This is alarming as agriculture employs 47 per cent of the country’s population and contributes 18.2 per cent to its GDP (gross domestic product), according to the “Economic Survey 2023-24”. Almost 70 per cent of the rural households still depend primarily on agriculture for their livelihood, with 89.4 per cent of farmers owning small and marginal landholdings (less than 2 ha). Furthermore, 55 per cent of the country’s net sown area is dependent on rain for irrigation needs. These rain-fed regions meet 44 per cent of the country’s food requirement, support 60 per cent of the livestock and 61 per cent of livelihood of farmers. It is therefore crucial to understand how climate change impacts different parts of the country and if adequate safety net is being provided to vulnerable farmers so that they can bear the burden of crop losses.Widespread riskThe National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA), set up by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research in 2011 to enhance resilience of Indian agriculture to climate change, has conducted a district-level risk and vulnerability assessment. Its latest 2019 assessment finds that over half (54 per cent) of the country’s 573 agriculturally relevant rural districts—or 310 districts— face “very high” or “high” risk due to climate change. Some 19 per cent (or 109) districts face “very high” climate risk and 35 per cent (201) are in “high” risk category. Only about 10 per cent districts (59) face “low” or “very low” climate risk. The remaining 36 per cent (204) districts face “medium” climate risk.This much-needed categorisation was done to help guide India’s policy and action and was published in 2019 as part of the report “Risk and Vulnerability Assessment of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change”.The 109 districts that face “very high” climate risk are spread across 22 states of India, with Uttar Pradesh being home to the maximum number of 22 districts, followed by 17 in Rajasthan, 10 in Bihar, eight in Kerala, seven in Uttarakhand, six in Odisha and five districts in Punjab. Of the remaining, three districts each are in Karnataka, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir and Haryana. Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Assam and Mizoram have two districts each that face “very high” climate risk. Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Sikkim have only one district each that are in “very high” risk category.The 201 districts that face “high” climate risk are spread across 27 states. Uttar Pradesh again has the maximum 26 districts at high risk, followed by 14 in Madhya Pradesh, 13 each in Bihar and Odisha, 12 in Karnataka, 11 each in West Bengal and Maharashtra and 10 in Rajasthan. Of the remaining, eight districts are in Haryana, seven in Jammu and Kashmir, six each in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Manipur. Kerela, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Mizoram have five districts each that are at high risk due to climate change. Punjab has four, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim have three each, Telangana has two and Meghalaya has one district that faces high climate risk.Further analysis of the data shows that a total of 310 districts in 27 states face “very high” or “high” climate risk. Eleven states have more than 10 such districts, with the top 10 states being home to 64 per cent (199) of these 310 districts.The combined analysis of very high- and high-risk districts shows that agriculture in Uttar Pradesh is extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts; 69 per cent or 48 of the state’s 70 districts are in very high or high climate risk category. It is followed by Rajasthan, which has 27 such districts (84 per cent of the total number of districts), Bihar with 23 such districts (62 per cent of 37 districts), Odisha with 19 such districts (63 per cent of its 30 districts), Madhya Pradesh with 16 such districts (36 per cent of total 45 districts), Karnataka with 15 such districts (56 per cent of total 27 districts), West Bengal which has 14 such districts (82 per cent of its 17 districts), 13 each in Maharashtra (39 per cent of its 33 districts) and Kerala (93 per cent of its 14 districts) and 11 in Haryana (58 per cent of its 19 districts).More than half the districts of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland belong to this category. Sikkim and Meghalaya have all their districts categorised as very high risk or high risk.NICRA categorised the districts based on four risk determinants: exposure, vulnerability, historical hazard and future hazard, with highest weight attached to vulnerability and same weight to the other three. An analysis of the 38 indicators across four risk determinants by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a public interest research organisation in Delhi, shows that rise in minimum temperature is the most important risk factor in 271 out of 310 very high risk and high risk districts. This is followed by high drought proneness in 156 districts, high net sown area in 136 districts, low net irrigated area in 116 districts and high cyclone proneness in 93 and low annual rainfall in 91 districts.Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)Agriculture insurance is a critical safety net for farmers against crop losses. Governments at the Centre and in several states have been implementing it for many years. At the central level, since 2016, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) aims to provide insurance coverage and financial support to farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases. It covers individual farmers for localised disasters like hailstorms, landslides, floods and wildfires, as well as post-harvest losses from cyclones, heavy rain and hail. In fact, PMFBY is dubbed as the largest in the world in terms of farmer applications insured.A National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP) is the digital interface of the scheme. yes tech (Yield Estimation System based on Technology) and winds (Weather information and Network Data System) are used to reduce the scope of error in the manual crop cutting experiments (CCES) done to estimate yields and compensation in PMFBY. The Restructured Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (RWBCIS), complements PMFBY and targets against the likelihood of financial loss due to crop loss resulting from adverse weather conditions such as those relating to rainfall, temperature, wind and humidity.Data on the PMFBY dashboard as on December 20, 2024, shows that 24.1 million farmers were covered under the crop insurance scheme during the kharif crop season of 2023—this is 11.7 per cent more than those covered during kharif 2018. Rabi 2023 saw an 8.5 per cent decrease during these five years. Area insured in kharif 2023 also grew limitedly by 15 per cent and in rabi decreased by five per cent. During the period, farmer applications for crop insurance, however, saw a steep rise of 180 per cent during kharif season and 150 per cent during rabi season. There was also a growth in the gross premium collected—20 per cent for kharif season crops and over 16 per cent for rabi season crops. What’s baffling is that the total claims paid for kharif 2023 decreased by over 26 per cent even though the total farmers benefitted increased by 16 per cent. For rabi, the total claims paid decreased by 63 per cent and 68 per cent less farmers benefitted.To make sense of these numbers, we at CSE analysed the information available on PMFBY dashboard as on December 20, 2024, for districts covered in NICRA’s “Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Report of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change”. The information was compared against a set of parameters such as premium, sum insured and claims for districts that fall under different categories of climate risk—from very high risk to very low-risk. But district-level information was available only for 16 states on the PMFBY dashboard. This meant, we could analyse data for only 76 of the 109 very high-risk districts, 130 of the 210 high-risk districts and 156 of the 266 remaining medium-, low- and very low-risk districts.In total, we analysed the PMFBY data of kharif 2023 for about 21.5 million farmers. We found that 5.04 million (or 23.37 per cent) farmers are from very high-risk districts; 7.79 million (or 36.15 per cent) farmers are from high-risk districts; and 8.72 million (or 40.48 per cent) farmers are from medium-, low- and very low-risk districts.At 36.63 per cent, Rajasthan has a major share of farmers living in very high-risk districts. It is followed by Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha. Together, these four states house 87 per cent of farmers living in “very high” risk districts. These four states also have 74 per cent of farmers in “high” risk districts with Maharashtra at the top. Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh add up to 80 per cent of farmers from medium-, low-, very low-risk districts taken together.We further analysed the information related to premium, sum insured and claims settled in the at-risk districts. The findings are startling.Premium burden on vulnerablePremiums are based on multiple aspects such as crops, sum insured and risks. To better understand the gross premium and premium paid by state governments and farmers, the total values in each of the three sets of at-risk districts are divided by the number of farmers in each set. It is clear that the gross premium per farmer is higher in “very high” risk districts followed by “high” risk districts and least in “medium-, low- and very low risk” districts. The contribution of different states clearly varies across the three sets of at-risk districts. This means, the state governments on an average pay higher premiums in districts that face “very high” and “high” climate risks. But contrary to the expectation, the average premium paid by the most vulnerable farmers is also the highest in “very high” risk districts followed by those in “high” risk districts. On an average a farmer in “very high” risk district pays about 70 per cent more premium than a farmer in “medium-, low- and very low-risk” districts and about 60 per cent more than a farmer in “high” risk district.Sum not well insuredThe sum insured per farmer is also lowest in “very high” risk” districts, which means that in the event of a crop loss, the compensation received by a farmer in a “very high” risk district will be lower than a farmer in “medium-, low- and very low-” risk districts.Inadequate claimsAbout 42 per cent of farmers got claim benefits in kharif 2023 in very high-risk districts compared to 31 per cent farmers in “medium-, low- and very low-risk” districts taken together. This is logical but the amount of claim benefits is less. For example, on an average, a farmer in “very high” risk” district received about 20 per cent less benefit than a farmer in “medium-, low-, very low-risk” district. A farmer in “high risk” district got over 10 per cent less.Paying more for lessWhile situations would likely vary in different districts and states, the analysis suggests that on an average a farmer in “very high” or “high” risk district despite being more vulnerable to climate impacts has to pay more for less.Their premiums are higher, which to a certain extent is understandable from the perspective of how the insurance industry works. But from the farmers’ point of view, this is not acceptable. As our analysis shows, farmers have to bear a greater burden of the premiums as evident from their greater share of the gross premium. On top of that, they also receive less amount of claim benefits in the event of crop losses.PMFBY has a huge potential to provide safety net to the country’s huge farmer population. It can be a significant tool to build resilience against climate change events. A large part of farmers in India are in “very high” and “high” risk districts. The scheme needs to be upscaled and reach to a greater number of farmers in the country. Part of that can happen if more farmers perceive benefits in adopting it, which means those vulnerable have to pay less (if at all) for better support..This was first published in the State of India’s Environment 2025