Search results

In Australia broadacre crops can be insured against hail and fire damage and some other perils but not against losses caused by drought, flood or frost. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the private provision of crop insurance in Western Australia.

A farm survey was conducted with the cooperation of dryland farmers belonging to Western Australian grower groups. The willingness to pay for hail insurance is modelled as a function of risk aversion, risk of crop failure and government assistance; and the effect of expected crop yield in t/ha on the crop area is investigated.

The empirical analysis shows that the coefficient of relative risk aversion is 2.7. An increase in the variability of crop yield by 20 per cent, which may be caused by future climate change, would raise the willingness to pay for crop insurance one‐to‐one by 20 per cent. Adverse selection plays a minor role because almost all farmers buy full coverage for hail insurance and associated risks. A future supplier of multi‐peril crop insurance must, however, consider the potential for ex ante moral hazard because the size of the crop area depends on the expected crop yield in t/ha.

The Global Financial Crisis has provided a stark reminder that society crucially depends on the efficient and fair allocation of risk. Climate change threatens the livelihood of farmers and food security. Private multi‐peril crop insurance, which has yet to emerge, would improve the welfare of rural populations and the efficiency of farming.

Few empirical studies deal with the private provision of multi‐peril crop insurance because the market for multi‐peril crop insurance fails worldwide and private insurance does not exist. In this study, Australian crop insurance serves as a proxy to gain an understanding of multi‐peril crop insurance.

From the perspectives of the probable replacement of the national calamity funds by multi-peril grassland insurance, the purpose of this paper is to estimate demand for grassland production insurance.

A discrete stochastic programming model with a three-year planning horizon was used to run simulations for farms raising suckler cows primarily with grasslands. In this model, the annual area insured and some production decisions are optimized under grasland yield uncertainty, with possible ex post production-system adjustments. The effects of insurance loading cost (14 levels), insurance coverage level (three levels), risk aversion (two levels) and stock levels (forage and animal stocks vary according to grassland yields and to farm management of the previous years) were analyzed.

The results show that grassland insurance could be used as a flexible risk management tool, when farm becomes vulnerable to fodder shortfall. According to previous years’ grassland yields and to the subsequent states of hay stock and animal liveweight, the area insured could vary between nearly the none and full. Farmers with low-average stocking rate and important hay storage capacity have less incentive to buy grassland insurance. The author also demonstrates that for a given loading cost, more insurance is purchased at a coverage level of 70 percent of average yield than at higher coverage levels. The cost of self-insurance increases for important and rare losses while multi-peril grassland insurance premium decreases. Higher levels of risk aversion also raise the quantity of insurance subscribed. Eventually, insurance price is a key factor. Almost no insurance is bought for loading costs greater than 1.1 under low-risk aversion and for loading costs greater than 1.3 under moderate risk aversion.

The willingness to pay for insurance could have been overestimated for different reasons. First, basis risks have not been introduced in the simulation framework. Although the Forage Production Index performed quite well, basis risks are high enough to trigger inappropriate indemnifications in some cases. Consequences of these risks should be estimated in further research. Second, other self-insurance options and public emergency measures such as subsidized loan or reduction in social security contributions should also be considered to assess and reduce farmers vulnerability to risks.

The launching of the multi-peril grassland insurance is likely to be successful thanks to the 65 percent of public subsidies on insurance premiuml. However, considering that the loading cost is likely to be high and that demand for grassland production insurance is rather low, multi-peril grassland production insurance may struggle to continue unsubsidized.

This paper provides a framework that enables to estimate demand for grassland production insurance factoring in substitution with self-insurance and taking into account successive risks.

This study evaluates the impacts on gross revenue distributions of the use of alternative crop insurance products across different coverage levels and across locations with differing yield risks. Results are presented in terms of net costs, values‐at‐risk, and certainty equivalent returns associated with five types of multi‐peril crop insurance across different coverage levels. Findings show that the group policies often result in average payments exceeding their premium costs. Individual revenue products reduce risk in the tails more than group policies, but result in greater reductions in mean revenues. Rankings based on certainty equivalent returns and low frequency VaRs generally favor revenue products. As expected, crop insurance is associated with greater relative risk reduction in locations with greater underlying yield variability.

The purpose of this paper is to determine which factors influence the choice to adopt subsidized multi-peril crop insurance (MPCI) in the Netherlands and whether prior hail insurance uptake is one of the determinants of MPCI adoption. In addition, it is analyzed whether subsidized MPCI has reduced disaster relief spending.

Cross-sectional survey with 512 respondents using a stratified design comprising MPCI adopters and non-adopters sampled from the Dutch national census data base. The national census, including information on subsidized MPCI adoption from 2010 up to and including 2015, was supplemented with information on (prior) traditional market-based hail insurance uptake, and other underlying determining factors were elicited. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which factors influence the choice to adopt MPCI.

Analysis of MPCI adoption reveals that subsidized MPCI mainly substituted for market-based hail insurance uptake up to now. Growers who did not insure against hail in the past were hardly reached. Approximately, three-quarter of MPCI adopters insured hail prior to market introduction of MPCI. In the arable sector, MPCI adoption was 2.89 (p<0.01) more likely for prior hail insurance adopters compared to non-adopters, while it was 9.67 (p<0.01) more likely in the fruit sector.

In the arable sector, it is expected that MPCI uptake in the coming years will reach more prior non-adopters of hail insurance as demand is expected to increase. Prior hail insurance adopters in the arable sector can be seen as the early MPCI adopters. In the fruit sector, adoption rates are already at a relative high level and a further significant increase by targeting non-adopters of hail insurance is not likely.

Governmental support has crowded out to some extend traditional market-based hail insurance in the Netherlands. Since the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union is creating more momentum to subsidize crop insurance more member states with a long history of a mature hail insurance market may be confronted with similar crowding-out effects.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Dual Use (DU) Option – a crop insurance policy created by the 2018 Farm Bill – relative to other policies available to dual-purpose annual forage producers. The new policy combines existing rainfall-based policies for annual forage crops and multi-peril policies for grain, allowing coverage for multiple crop uses on the same acres during the same growing season.

The paper uses a simulation model to examine crop insurance choices for a typical Texas dual-purpose wheat farm. The certainty equivalent (CE) of wealth is used to rank choices within and between three insurance plans and to analyze the effects of those choices over a range of producer risk aversion levels and for three cases of yield expectations.

The DU Option is more preferred as risk aversion increases, but it is not universally preferred. Therefore, while the policy can be a viable risk management tool, certain restrictions may be limiting its effectiveness.

The findings of this paper can help explain farm-level decision making related to dual-purpose annual forage crop insurance program choices.

This paper contributes to the literature by documenting a new crop insurance program made available in the 2018 Farm Bill and provides insights into producers' possible choices by evaluating extensive scenarios.

The outstanding reform of the Common Agriculture Policy allows for changes regarding its most criticized component, the direct payment scheme. The purpose of this paper is to investigate farmers’ acceptance of subsidized whole farm income insurance (WFI) and single-crop, multi-peril revenue insurance (RI) that are associated with a reduction of direct payments.

By applying a generalized multinomial logit model on data of a discrete choice experiment, German farmers’ preferences, expressed as their willingness to pay (WTP), for WFI and RI are revealed.

The results show a positive WTP for WFI and RI. The average farmer has a higher WTP for WFI than for RI. By increasing the coverage level, the negative influence of a reduction of direct payments on WTP for insurance can be compensated. Individual risk attitude and assessed importance of direct payments for the farm business show a statistically significant influence on the WTP.

The results suggest that, even if direct payments were abolished in order to subsidize WFI or RI, German farmers’ WTP for both insurance products would remain positive. However, to finally assess whether subsidizing insurance is the right means of providing public support, it is necessary to assess whether farmers’ WTP meets the costs for such an insurance scheme.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study investigating German farmers’ WTP for WFI and RI using an experimental approach by explicitly considering the partial to complete replacement of direct payments by subsidized insurance.

The study analyses the preference for forestry insurance amongst tree growers in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Specifically, the authors examine the factors influencing the amount of forestry insurance and the choice for forestry insurance types.

A total of one hundred and seventy (170) tree growers were sampled for the study. The tobit model, multi-nomial regression and Kendall's tau were employed to analyse the factors affecting the amount for forestry insurance, the choice for forestry insurance types and the perils to forest quality, respectively.

The results of the study indicate that the incidence of bush fire and theft were the key perils that affect forest quality. In total, 52.94% of respondents preferred forest plantation fire insurance as named-peril insurance whereas 70.59% preferred a combination of forest plantation fire, windstorm and consequential loss insurance as multi-peril insurance. The majority (89.4%) of the respondents were willing to pay an amount between Ghc 10.00–49.00 (US$ 2–8) per stand. On the one hand, results of the tobit model reveal age, income, experience in forest management, land ownership and the previous occurrence of fire as the factors affecting the amount for forestry insurance. On the other hand, the multi-nomial results indicate the previous occurrence of fire, gender, forest size, income and risk aversion significantly influenced the choice for forestry insurance types, namely named peril and multi-peril.

Several studies exist for forestry insurance in the developed countries. However, in West Africa specifically, Ghana, studies on forestry insurance appear to be non-existent. Above and beyond, this study, therefore, adds to the paucity of research on forestry insurance in Ghana and serves as a framework for agricultural insurance institutions such as the Ghana Agricultural Insurance Pool (GAIP) and World cover and other agricultural insurance institutions globally.

The purpose of this research is to study the weather risk management practices of agriculture producers. In particular, the authors look at the extent to which farmers use weather derivatives to complement insurance. Unlike insurance, weather derivatives mitigate risk associated with low intensity, high probability events and therefore offer the potential of a more complete hedge than insurance alone.

The authors conducted a survey of grain farmers in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, a typical jurisdiction in which farmers tend to face weather events that are high in frequency but low in severity, to study the usage of weather derivatives compared to insurance and identify the hurdles to their usage.

The authors find that fewer than 10 percent of their respondents use weather derivatives. Consistent with previous literature in other contexts, they identify participation costs, especially lack of awareness, to be the most significant hurdle to their usage.

A limitation of this study is that the data were collected using a survey methodology and are therefore subject to the usual risks of bias associated with that approach. Moreover, because the authors' survey was delivered online, it may have favoured the participation of farmers that were more comfortable with technology and some bias may have also been introduced into the data as a result.

The authors' findings suggest that there is significant potential to improve farmers' ability to hedge weather risk and thereby improve economic outcomes if the major barriers to the usage of weather derivatives can be overcome. The study paves the way for further research to support the development of public policy strategies that could help farmers take advantage of weather derivatives as part of their inventory of risk management tools.

To the authors' knowledge this is the first study that quantifies the usage of weather derivatives by agriculture producers and identifies the hurdles.

Understanding farmers’ preferences for crop insurance attributes is crucial in designing better insurance products and guiding government policies but such research is lacking, particularly in developing countries. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study uses a survey featuring a discrete choice experiment and policy simulation.

Overall, crop insurance has positive values to farmers, although preference is heterogeneous based on socioeconomic characteristics and risk position. Policy simulation confirms the roles of liability in strengthening insurance participants’ welfare and premium subsidy in encouraging participation. Introducing one more product into the market can accommodate farmers’ diverse needs and lead to increases in both aggregated social welfare and participation while maintaining the current level of government expense in subsidy – a potential Pareto improvement.

Methodology employed is not the most novel in the choice experiment literature as many of the advances in choice experiment design could not be applied due to the actual condition in rural China and Chinese farmers’ capability in understanding the experiment.

The results indicate that the current single-product market structure using “low liability with high premium subsidies” cannot accommodate the diverse needs among farmers. Providing more varieties of liability-subsidy combinations, e.g. a high liability with low premium subsidy insurance product, can substantially improve participants’ welfare with little impact to the probability of participation.

The authors believe that this is one of the very few studies that that analyze farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for the attributes of crop insurance products. It also shows how crop insurance product design can build upon farmers’ choices to achieve a potential Pareto improvement in aggregated social welfare in the context of a fast-developing crop insurance market.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how an organized framework for risk management called Risk Navigator SRM^© can be practically applied to common risk management problems.

The program makes complex risk principles easier to understand and access by linking together disparate and difficult risk management concepts into a single strategic risk management (SRM) framework. The strategic framework is organized into ten steps in order to organize and develop a practical and applied risk management plan. This paper demonstrates the SRM process in a crop insurance example. A simple version of the program, called Risk Navigator Lite^©, is also applied to crop insurance to demonstrate how robust the framework is for adaptation to field settings, where data may be limited or where decision makers might have limited capacity to understand complicated principles necessary for risk management.

This manuscript elaborates upon how the SRM process may be effectively implemented by agricultural producers. The information herein should also help students of risk management better comprehend how to apply what they learn.

The contribution of Risk Navigator is to make underused, sophisticated risk management concepts and tools more available to farm and ranch managers, and others, by putting them into a framework that is both easy to use and comprehensive.