Skip to content

5. Farmer Communication

Farmer

This section will assess the company’s work in 1) communicating and educating farmers about insurance, 2) monitoring outputs from these communication and training efforts, and 3) handling complaints and grievances, to make the insurance product truly valuable for farmers. These questions will primarily be qualitative with verification through submission of documents (training plans, questionnaires, etc.)

Questions

📣 Communications Strategy

  • For the proposed product, what is your planned communication and training strategy?
  • Who will do the communication and training?
  • What activities will be done?

📊 Monitoring Strategy

  • For the proposed product, how do you plan to check that farmers understand the insurance?
  • How will you ensure their expectations are set correctly?

🛡️ Grievance and Remedy Mechanisms

  • For the proposed contract, what grievance and remedy mechanisms will you put in place for farmers who experience losses but did not receive payouts?

Scoring

A qualitative scoring rubric can be used to assess farmer communications and the quality and reliability of an implementing partner’s approach to communicating with farmers about agricultural index insurance. Each area is scored from 0 to 3, based on both past performance and proposed plans. Scores are averaged across each criteria.

  • Communications Strategy: Evaluate the quality and structure of communication and training provided to farmers. A high score reflects clear, well-documented strategies, materials, and outreach activities.
  • Monitoring Strategy: Measure farmer understanding and satisfaction with insurance products are tracked. Strong plans include credible documentation, defined tools, responsible parties, and structured follow-up.
  • Remedy & Grievance Mechanism: Assess how complaints are handled, especially when there are disputed payouts during bad years. A good score requires past examples of resolution, clear procedures, and supporting documentation such as logs and testimonials.

Rubric

  • 0 - 1: No or limited evidence with some documentation weak or at times, missing; no proposed strategy.
  • 2: Fair, some evidence but lacking in depth, unclear outcomes, and credibility; some proposed strategies
  • 3: Sound evidence and plan, with emerging strategies in place to bridge information & evidence gaps

Interpretation

The average score of the quality of communication will be the main metric for this section.

🔗 Illustrative Verification Sheet

"