Risk Management Agency

Climate Adaptation Plan

June 2022
2

About RMA

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Risk Management 

Agency (RMA) serves America’s agricultural producers through effective, 

market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability 

of agricultural producers and rural communities. RMA is committed to 

increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a 

risk management tool. RMA manages the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) to provide innovative crop insurance

products to America’s farmers and ranchers. Approved

Insurance Providers (AIP) sell and service Federal crop 

insurance policies in every state and in Puerto Rico through 

a public-private partnership with RMA. RMA reinsures the 

AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses 

due to major weather events.

History

RMA’s vision is to secure the

future of agriculture by 

providing world class risk 

management toolsto rural 

America.

As climate impacts the nation’s weather, there will be greater needs for 

agricultural risk management. Over the last 80 years, the Federal 

government’s involvement has evolved into one of the largest programs 

within the USDA to serve these needs.

Non-government backed crop insurance has developed in several forms 

over the years. However, a consistent problem arose where large disaster 

events like droughts caused extreme losses to occur across the risk pool, 

thus private insurers were unable to carry the capital to weather such 

events. Congressfirst authorized Federal crop insurance in the 1930s along 

with other initiativesto help agriculture recover from the combined effects 

of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. The FCIC was created in 1938 

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA or Act) to carry out the program. 

Initially, the program was started as an experiment, and crop insurance 

activities were mostly limited to major crops in the main producing areas. 

Crop insurance remained an experiment until passage of the Federal Crop 

Insurance Act of 1980. The 1980 Act expanded the crop insurance program 

to many more crops and regions of the country. It encouraged expansion 

to replace the free disaster coverage offered under Farm Bills of the 1960s 

and 1970s. To encourage participation in the expanded crop insurance 

program, the 1980 Act authorized a subsidy to offset premium costs, which 

has been expanded over the last four decades. RMA was created in 1996 

to administer FCIC programs and other non-insurance-related risk 

management and education programs that help support U.S. agriculture.

By 1998, more than two-thirds of U.S. field crops were insured under the 

program and reaching nearly 90% of those crops insured today. In 2000, 

Congress enacted legislation that expanded the role of the private sector
3

allowing entities to participate in conducting research and development of 

new insurance products and features. With the expansion of the 

contracting and partnering authority, RMA can offer contracts or create 

partnerships for research and development of new and innovative 

insurance products. Private entities may also submit unsolicited proposals 

for insurance products to the FCIC Board of Directors (Board) for approval. 

If approved by the Board, these unsolicited insurance products could 

receive reimbursement for research, development, and operating costs, in 

addition to any approved premium subsidies and reinsurance. This 

provides an avenue for the private sector to introduce innovative crop 

insurance products targeting grower needs and has been critical to 

expanding insurance offerings to new crops, growing practices, and risks 

faced in modern agriculture.

Crop Insurance 101

A crop insurance contract is a commitment between insured farmers and 

their insurance providers. Under the contract, the insured farmer agrees 

to insure all the eligible acreage of a crop planted in a particular county. 

This choice is made county by county and crop by crop. The insurance 

provider agrees to indemnify the insured farmer against losses (such as 

lower than expected yield or price, a low-quality crop, or the inability to 

plant a crop) that occur during the crop year. Losses generally must be due 

to unavoidable natural perils beyond the farmer's control. Availability 

varies by crop and location and there are many different types of 

insurance, each with its own unique features, requirements, inclusions, 

and exclusions. Producers work with a licensed crop insurance agent to 

find the right coverage

for them. Most policies 

follow an annual cycle 

from sales/renewal to 

an acreage report to a 

claim/production report 

to contract changes for 

the next year (pictured).
4

Climate Adaptation Introduction

While weather events are becoming more common and more severe, it 

translates to aggregate production changes in unpredictable ways. 

however, that is exactly what insurance is for, cover those that were 

unlucky to be hit by adverse weather, while those that have a good year 

pay into the system with their premium dollars. As long as the risk pool 

includes both groups consistently, the insurance program will stay viable.

Technology is also playing a major role in mitigating production losses due 

to climate change. Modern genetics, changing growing regions, precision 

agriculture, farm information management systems, and university 

extension research all have been highly successful in maintaining 

production and profitability in the face of volatile weather. Farmers, long 

lauded for their ability to innovate and adapt, have continued thatsuccess. 

It is critical to understand that, over time, overall production risk has gone 

down. Although that overall risk may have declined, some individual 

regions or crops have not. The asymmetric impacts of climate change 

should not be discounted and are critical to program adaptation. It is also 

unclear on the sustainability of the overall trend in the face of potential 

exponential or tipping-point style climate effects. Using current and wellresearched science1

is critical in that endeavor.

RMA’s fundamental strategy in adapting to 

climate change is to adapt the program along with 

the innovation of America’s farmers and ranchers. 

Predicting how successful future technology will 

be in adapting to climate change, or the full extent 

in production risk increases due to such changes 

are difficult to quantify. Therefore, ensuring the 

program is built to naturally adapt to any outcome 

is the most likely way to succeed in the face of 

uncertainty.

1 Unless otherwise stated, climate models come from the Fourth National Climate 

Assessment (FNCA), Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. 

Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.) (2018)

Risks associated with climate 

changes depend on the rate and 

severity of the changes and the 

ability of producers to adapt to 

changes.

- Fourth National Climate 

Assessment
5

Climate Impacts and Vulnerabilities

A large and growing literature has documented the likely impacts of 

climate change and warming temperatures on agricultural crops. Warmer 

temperatures are often associated with large, negative effects on crop 

yields at regional and global scales through both direct (e.g., heat stress) 

and indirect (e.g., soil moisture deficit) mechanisms. In general, this 

literature provides evidence that climate change has strong negative 

impacts on expected mean yields.

At the regional level, climate impacts are likely to 

cause production shocks to be correlated. At the 

producer level, the choice of input depends on the 

expectation of future revenue. When crop yields 

become more variable producers may use fewer 

inputs. Both effects will increase the probability of 

crop shortfalls and increase premium rates. This 

will increase the producer share of insurance costs 

and governmental subsidy.

Drought

Drought is the most common cause of loss (see 

graph, right) for the current Federal crop insurance 

program, accounting for nearly half of all 

indemnities. Moreover, most of the largest 

program ‘loss’ years are related to major U.S. 

drought events. 2012, which saw a widespread

Source: USDA RMA

drought across the country remains the largest aggregate program payout 

to date. This effect impactsinsurance the mostsince drought impactslarge 

geographic footprints, where other perils are confined to smaller areas or 

mitigated by other factors (e.g., higher elevation land may lessen flooding 

risks).

The literature strongly suggests that climate change is expected to reduce 

mean yields and increase yield variability (risk). A decrease in mean yields 

holding yield variance constant implies greater likelihood of a yield 

shortfall and therefore indemnity payments. The increased yield risk will 

increase premium rates and the costs to producers and the government. 

However, producer adaptation will mitigate some of these risks. For 

example, one low-cost adaptation to climate change induced yield risk and 

loss is to lengthen the growing season. On average, across eight states, 

research has demonstrated2 moving the planting date back by

2 Ortiz-Bobea (2013)
6

approximately two-weeks would reduce about half of the impact on 

expected yields. These types of adaptations may require insurance rulesto 

evolve with them to prevent other unintended consequences.

Flooding and Excess Moisture

Crop insurance lossesto flooding and excess moisture are the second most 

common cause of loss. The 1993 flood is still one of the largest loss events 

in program history relative to program size at the time. In 2019, 

widespread flooding across the Heartland prevented over 20 million acres 

of crops from being planted, triggering program losses and an additional 

public policy response of

supplemental disaster payments on 

top of crop insurance.

The effects of excessive rainfall on 

crop yields are demonstrated by 

Rosenzweig et al. (2002), shown in 

the accompanying figure. Excess 

rainfall can directly damage crops 

due to flooding and physical damage 

or indirectly through anoxic 

conditions, increased risk of plant 

disease and insect infestation, or 

delayed planting or harvesting due 

to inability to operate machinery.

According to Rosenzweig (2002) the

climate change caused increase in 

precipitation probability of crop

Source: Rosenzweig et al. (2002)

damaging events (see figure, right). They expect that the probability of 

events causing damage comparable to, or greater than, the 1993 U.S. 

Midwest floods will double by 2030 and quadruple by 2090. Shirzaei (2021) 

found in the Midwest an increasing trend in both frequency and magnitude 

of floods and associated crop losses.

Tropical Cyclones

Tropical cyclones, the catch-all term for hurricanes, tropical storms, and 

tropical depressions, pose some risk to agricultural production. However, 

they do presentseveral unique aspectsthat complicate theirimpacts. First, 

they often produce significant rain, but depending on the speed of the 

storm, the rainfall amount can often be a positive along the storm tract. 

Localized flooding is likely to produce some crop losses, but most areas in
7

which tropical cyclones are common are highly adapted to major rainfall. 

Second, windspeed is often the more troublesome risk. Most crops are 

susceptible to high winds, whether by collapsing, losing buds or fruit, or 

losing limbs. However, RMA research suggests most tropical depressions 

and even tropical storms do not produce high enough sustained winds to 

cause widespread damage. Thus, RMA’s focus in recent years has been on 

hurricanes, especially through the introduction of a new insurance option, 

Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI).

HIP-WI is a product the covers a portion of an underlying crop insurance 

policy deductible when the policyholder’s county, or adjacent county, is hit 

by a hurricane. The product is both simple, and fast paying, leading to high 

sales volume among eligible producers. Although the product itself is a 

major achievement for RMA, more relevantly for this discussion, it shows 

producers have major risk management needs for hurricane risk.

Water

“Water systems face considerable risk even without 

anticipated future climate change,” according to the 

FNCA. Growing population and declining 

infrastructure already threaten water security. Add in 

disruption due to changes in climate and its clear 

water availability could cause concern. Moreover, it is 

likely public policy will prioritize water availability to 

human populations over agriculture, especially waterhungry luxury crops such as some tree nuts, in both 

allocation and infrastructure funding.

According to NASS3, about a quarter of U.S. farmland 

(55.9 million acres in 2018) is irrigated. Additionally, 

this is disproportionally true for California, which 

represents about 15% of irrigated acreage, but nearly 

30% of all agricultural water applied. Another example 

of a significant area of concern is the Ogallala Aquifer 

(pictured, right) which supplies water for about a 

quarter of irrigated acreage in the Great Plains. 

Aquifers refill from the natural water cycle, thus 

changes in rainfall could have dramatic effects on the

Source: Adapted from 

McGuire 2017

3

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Irrigation_and_ 

WaterManagement.pdf
8

ability to use that water. Ogallala has already seen significant decline in 

total storage since the mid-20th century4.

RMA data indicate that irrigated acreage generally tends to yield between 

20% and 60% more than non-irrigated acreage depending on crop and 

location, thus loss of water supply could cause major production declines 

in the future. Many crops are exclusively grown under irrigated practices 

such as rice, many citrus crops, and many of the tree nuts, which could 

mean a direct loss of acreage in such circumstances.

Public policy around water quality could also affect agricultural production 

systems as regulations could limit the methods and use of fertilizer and 

other chemicals. Even if not directly tied to climate change, it seems 

plausible that carbon intensive practices could presumably be targeted, 

and producers will need to adapt. It is unclear on what the possible 

production effects such changes could have but RMA should monitor and 

consider such potential risk factors.

Emerging Risks

Several other risks are worth monitoring, but currently are not major 

drivers of crop insurance losses and production risk.

In general, it is expected that warming will increase the distribution of 

warm season weeds to areas that have not experienced such weeds. 

Agronomic weeds increase competition with crops for light, nutrients, and 

water. The increase in weed pressure and decline in yields will increase 

premium rates and decrease producer revenue.

Increasing air temperature is also beneficial to insect pests. With more 

pests shifting northward, management costs are expected to increase due 

to more frequent application of pesticides. The decrease in expected net 

revenue will affect producers’ choice in crops and insurance choices.

Plant diseases are likely to increase yield losses and quality degradations. 

Increased temperature, drought, changing rainfall patterns and intensity, 

and change in cropping practices are likely to increase pathogen growth 

and changes in the geographic growth of pathogens.

Additional to all three of these risks is the potential for mitigation to be 

increased use of chemical treatments. Although such chemicals may be 

effective at solving one issue, the increase of chemical usage could cause 

other unknown effects.

4 McGuire, V.L. (2017)
9

Soil quality, a defining characteristic to successful farming (see graphic), is 

additionally at risk to erosion. The FNCA notes, “increasing soil erosion 

rates have the potential to not only reduce agricultural productivity but 

also accelerate climate change effects

through the loss of large stocks of 

carbon and nutrients stored in soil.

Warmer temperatures lead to reduced 

yields and reduced biomass increasing 

the likelihood of soil erosion. Increased 

CO2 can enhance stomatal resistance, 

suppress transpiration, and lead to a 

moister soil, conducive to greater 

runoff-induced erosion5&6. Simulation7

of climate change and management 

practice in the Midwest found that 

runoff increase by 10 to 310 percent 

and soil loss increased by 33 to 274 

percent for 2040-2059 relative to 1990-

1999.

These risks can be heightened by poor

Source: USDA RMA & NRCS

soil conservation. Although most USDA soil conservation is spearheaded 

by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), RMA partnerships 

with NRCS programs are likely to increase over time. Past actions with 

conservation compliance (requirements for highly erodible land and 

wetland conversions to receive certain Federal benefits including crop 

insurance premium subsidies) are part of a larger mitigation strategy, as 

are promotion of conservation tillage, cover crops, and grassed 

waterways. Regardless of, or in absence of, that mitigation, productivity 

losses are still ever present and may be one of the more general effects 

encountered due to climate change. Unlike droughts, floods, and 

hurricanes, soil quality degradation would have persistent and long-term 

effects. RMA will need to consider such a risk structure, as that is more 

difficult to insure in many ways than acute weather events.

5

Schulze (2000)

6 Pruski and Nearing (2002)

7 O’Neil et al. (2005)
10

Asymmetric Impacts and Equity

The effects of climate change on crop production vary by region, some of 

which have already been felt by producers around the country. The maps 

on this page and the next highlight models showing how impacts are 

projected to vary across the country. Importantly, specialty crops are 

generally more sensitive to climatic stressors such as increasingly variable 

weather and require more comprehensive

management compared to traditional row 

crops. Perennials such as grapevines and 

nut trees represent a major investment 

and, unlike annual field crops, cannot be 

abandoned or fallowed in the event of a 

severe drought, storm, or heat wave, in 

addition to commonly facing higher 

replacement and maintenance costs 

regardless. Further, many areas most at 

risk for major impactsfrom climate change 

are where specialty crops are the 

dominant agricultural activity. Much of the

climate change impacts are increasing 

challenges for underserved producers in

these regions. Such producers often lack 

accessto specialized training or knowledge 

to explicitly address these challenges in

Source: Fourth National Climate

Assessment - Higher Emissionssimulated 

change for 2036–2065, compared to 

1976–2005

their farm planning. Often, U.S. agriculture focuses on the vast acreage of 

grain crops across the Corn Belt, or the picturesque fields of cotton in 

bloom in the South. However, below is highlighted other critical 

agricultural regions that will be impacted by climate change and may, in 

fact, have a greater economic significance if not properly considered.

West

The western region, stretching from Oregon to Idaho and Washington to 

California, is home to incredible crop diversity. The highest value 

commodity groups in the region include fruit, tree nuts, and berries ($17.9 

B); and vegetables, melons, and potatoes($7.2 B). California isthe number

crops recorded.

Drought

Southwestern agriculture is defined by water scarcity. More than 92% of 

the region’s cropland is irrigated. The region produces many high-value 

perennial crops, including apples, blueberries, cherries, and wine grapes 

that rely heavily on irrigation from surface and groundwater sources

one U.S. producer of specialty crops and accounts for more than half of 

specialty crop production nationwide, with a total of over 400 different
11

during the dry season. Water is a precious commodity across the west and 

is at risk of declining due to climate change. Drought affects the market 

value of fruits and vegetables because sales depend on good visual 

appearance. Perennial plants live for decades and are thus at a 

disadvantage in terms of adapting to climate change because of the time 

and costs required to re-plant and produce strong yields.

About 90 percent of crops harvested in California are grown on farms that 

are entirely irrigated, so a sustained decrease in the amount of water 

available for irrigation would force farmers to either reduce the acreage 

under cultivation or shift away from the most water-intensive crops.

Rising Temperatures

Climate change projections for the 

southwest suggest an increase in extreme 

heat. Hotter climate conditions may reach 

temperature thresholds for warm-season 

vegetable crops, thereby limiting growth 

and viability. More frequent heat waves 

accelerate crop ripening and maturity and 

reduce yields of tree fruit and wine 

grapes. These impacts are projected to 

continue and intensify, possibly displacing 

existing growers and affecting farming 

communities.

Rising temperatures could transform 

California’s agriculture. Fruit trees and 

grape vines need a certain number of 

chilling hours in the winter before they

Source: Fourth National Climate 

Assessment - Higher Emissionssimulated 

change for 2036–2065, compared to 

1976–2005

can flower. Projections show that chilling requirements for fruit and nut 

trees in California will not be met by the middle to the end of this century. 

In fact, the area capable of consistently producing grapes for the highestquality wines is likely to shrink by more than 50 percent during the next 75 

years. Likewise, extreme heat has led to damaged blueberries and apples 

in Washington. Warmer temperatures may also prevent stonefruit (such 

as peaches and cherries) from experiencing the chill-hours needed for 

proper flowering.

Wildfires

Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to 

climate change, have increased wildfires in the Southwest. Fire models 

project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive 

areas.
12

On average, 4 percent of the land in California has burned per decade since 

1984. The combination of more fires and drier conditions may expand 

deserts and otherwise change parts of California’s landscape. Wildfire 

smoke has damaged California grown grapes and affected the state’s $40 

billion wine industry.

Northeast

Drought and Rising Temperatures

nursery plants. Increased drought frequency in the Northeast, together

with warmer growing season temperatures will result in perennial 

specialty crops having reduced yield and quality. Midwinter warming can 

lead to early bloom of some perennial plants, resulting in frost damage 

when cold winter temperatures return. Yields will be negatively affected if 

the chilling requirement is not completely satisfied because flower 

emergence and viability will be low.

An added challenge is the high prevalence of direct marketing sales

channels in the area. This increases the financial pressure on producers as 

weather events may trigger losses on many non-production related valueadd activitiesthat would normally be absorbed by other parts of the supply 

chain for most commodities elsewhere.

Southeast

Hurricanes

Hurricanes and tropical storms have become more intense during the past 

20 years. Such events are important drivers of flooding events in the 

Southeast. The frequency and intensity of hurricanes is expected to 

increase under projected climate change scenarios, stressing agricultural 

crops, triggering replacement costs for downed trees, and decreasing 

yields.

This particularly impacts Florida, which is the second highest producing 

state of annual specialty crops, ranging from citrus groves and nurseries in 

Central and South Florida, to vegetables in various regions around the 

state. In 2019, Florida ranked first in the U.S. in the value of production for 

bell peppers for fresh market, grapefruit, oranges, fresh market tomatoes, 

and watermelons.

Drought and Rising Temperatures

Although the Southeast often receives excessive precipitation, drought 

conditions can develop rapidly across the region from lack of tropical 

cyclone activity and warm season rainfall variability. La Niña is associated

The northeast region ranks high nationally for production of many highvalue fruit, vegetable, and specialty crops, such as apples, grapes, fresh 

market sweet corn, snap beans, cabbage, mushrooms, and ornamental
13

with negative precipitation anomalies and increased risk of drought across 

the region. Yields of citrusfruits could decrease with warmer temperatures 

in the southernmost part of Florida because of a lack of a sufficient 

dormant period.

Environmental Justice

Although not all encompassing, the above highlights how communities will 

be disproportionally impacted by the various climate changes that will 

occur over time. Producersin areasthat face greater, or importantly, more 

rapid change are likely to face greater economic impacts that may lead to 

maladaptation. Communities that are dependent on monoculture 

agriculture are also at risk. Commonly, the Midwest corn and soybean 

growing areas are referred to in that context, but from citrus production 

in Florida to Native American communities in California that produce 

acorns for food, there are countless other examples. Further, tribal areas 

may be especially vulnerable to drought as most tribal agriculture is 

livestock/pasture based. Assessing insurance needs for specialty crops will 

be critical in promoting equity within the program.

Additionally, in the event of climatic shifts that impact the productivity or 

location of agriculture, the low-skilled and seasonal workers would be the 

first to lose their jobs. Employment would be affected by two different 

ways. First, increases in the frequency and the intensity of extreme 

weather events will yield risks and revenue losses that could lead to

layoffs. Second, changing weather and precipitation patterns could require 

investments in adaptation measures, changing crops, and increase in 

inputs8. Climate change is also likely to have a disparate impact on 

beginning farms and those with little or no capital reserves. Ideally, crop 

insurance will be able to mitigate revenue impacts and allow producers 

time to invest in climate adaption measures.

Departmental Alignment

These vulnerabilities are consistent with the overarching threats USDA has 

identified in its Climate Adaption Plan. Each weather event directly 

correlates to the Department’s first risk of “decreased agricultural 

productivity.” Many of the same concerns and responses mentioned in the 

plan are repeated here in more detail. The USDA’s third identified 

vulnerability, “disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities,” also 

aligns with RMA’s concern with asymmetric impacts of climate. RMA’s 

work with specialty crops will have the most relevance for crop insurance’s 

contribution to climate adaption for those communities. Finally, “shocks

8

Shonkoff et al. (2011)
14

due to extreme climate events,” is relevant in that many insurance 

products are directly tied to providing support after such events. In a way, 

the crop insurance program exists for these impacts. So as those shocks 

become more frequent, crop insurance will become more relevant. 

Moreover, the same shocks could impact RMA’s internal operations, thus 

the actions to promote continuity of operations become paramount to 

properly controlling that risk.
15

Action

Create products that promote Climate-Smart Ag

Action A - Implement Incentives to Encourage Cover Crop Planting

Cover crops have the potential to provide multiple benefits in a cropping 

system. They can preventsoil and wind erosion, improve soil’s physical and 

biological properties, supply nutrients, suppress weeds, improve the 

availability of soil water, and break pest cycles along with various other 

benefits. Although those benefits extend well beyond climate adaptation, 

the soil conservation value is critical to maintaining strong productive 

capacity, and thus viable crop insurance products.

Beginning in 2017, RMA entered into an agreement with the State of Iowa 

to incentivize cover crops by applying up to $5 per acre of additional 

premium subsidy on a policyholder’s insured crop that followed a cover 

crop. The program enrolled approximately 170,000 acres the first year and 

was a major success in promoting an agronomic practice with climate and 

environmental benefits. The funding is provided by the state, as is the 

enrollment process and eligibility information. The program was also 

adopted by the State of Illinois the next year, followed the year after by 

the State of Indiana for a targeted watershed. Building upon that, in 

response to the pandemic, RMA launched the Pandemic Cover Crop 

Program (PCCP) that was a nationwide implementation of the cover crop 

premium support based on reported acres to FSA.

These programs have achieved several key advantages. First, they have 

changed widespread perceptions that cover crops could cause insurance 

claims to be denied. By officially endorsing the practices, producers 

understand that cover crops can be a part of a producer’s overall 

agronomic plan. Second, the direct financial support helps incentivize 

more producers to adopt cover crops and reap their benefit. With these 

already-issued program regulations and existing design, should resources 

again become available, RMA will prioritize this program so more 

producers could adopt cover crops and reap the climate benefits, while 

maintaining a strong linkage with Federal crop insurance and sound risk

management practices.

Action B - Implement Incentives to Encourage Smart Water Use

As discussed earlier, water availability is already a major challenge in some 

regions, and those stresses are likely to continue as the climate changes. 

Being proactive and encouraging the use of water-saving practices could
16

lessen program risk due to lack of water availability. For example, systems 

like drip or subsurface irrigation reduces water usage considerably by 

targeting the irrigation more precisely and limiting (or eliminating) loss to 

evaporation. Water recycling systems lessen the need for water simply by 

not wasting water the producer already has available. Certain crops have

water efficient practices, such as intermittent 

flood irrigation for rice. There are many other 

examples as well.

Like cover crops, should resources and data 

become available, RMA will prioritize such a 

program within existing authorities to help 

incentivize the practices and strengthen the 

link between such practices and crop insurance 

as a full-featured risk management strategy. 

Smart water usage also has the added effect of 

potentially reducing drought risks, thus the 

program could be used in conjunction with

premium rate adjustments.

Action C - Implement Incentives to Encourage Other Climate Smart 

Practices

Of course, the first two proposed actions with cover crops and smart water 

use are the most well understood today. However, it stands to reason that 

new research, technology, or public policy outcome will provide other 

avenues to allow crop insurance to promote such a practice within the 

existing program. RMA will continue to explore other options to 

implement incentivesfor climate smart agriculture, especially where there 

is known risk reducing effects.

Reducing premium costs for these causes is advantageous because it does 

not conflict with legal requirements for the program to be actuarially 

sound. Rates will still reflect the proper risk; policyholders will simply have 

cheaper insurance if they choose to engage in the targeted practice. 

Another option is bonus payments for losses, which does have the 

advantage of being popular with producers because they would receive 

money (as opposed to smaller premium bills). That approach does have 

drawbacks. The first is simple accounting, as RMA would need to separate 

losses associated with base insurance and whatever program incentive is 

being designed. This administrative burden provides no value to taxpayers, 

the government, or the policyholder and creates budget uncertainty in the 

face of variable weather. Second, an additional loss payment would incur 

increased administrative costs, may have tax implications, and potentially
17

lead to debt issues should claims ever be revised. Last, permanent 

programs in this area could incentivize producers to incur greater losses 

and make insurance more expensive in the long run.

Another potential incentive is reducing paperwork. Policyholders typically 

like the least amount of paperwork required. Perhaps a future technology 

associated with a climate-smart practice is so automatic, that once a 

producer proves they engage in the technology, no other records are 

required. This is, of course, speculative; however, it is a common request 

from stakeholders and RMA should be willing to adapt if such a 

development occurs.

Another avenue for this support is the Agricultural Management 

Assistance (AMA) program, which helps agricultural producers manage 

financial risk through diversification, marketing, or natural resource 

conservation practices. AMA is available in 16 states where participation 

in crop insurance is historically low (primarily the Northeast). RMA has 

partnered with NRCS since 2017 to provide funding for financial assistance 

to producers who implement or improve select conservation practices 

such as watershed management or irrigation structures, soil erosion 

control, integrated pest management, and organic farming. RMA is 

currently apportioned $4M annually for this program.

This action has no immediate implementation plan, outside of the existing 

AMA support, and is rather a catch-all for unknown developments. 

However, given the power of additional insurance subsidy on behavior, it 

should be called out as a valuable public policy tool available to RMA and 

the USDA to promote climate-smart practices as they develop.

Evaluate and monitor climate risks and update program 

parameters

Action D – Continue Updating Program Premium Rates to Reflect 

Changes in Risk Due to Climate Change

RMA continuously reviews and revises its premium rating methodology. 

Changes include using a shorter historical timeframe to measure risk, and 

the introduction of a process that explicitly considers weather variables in 

calculating premium rates. This makes premium rates more responsive to 

any changes in agronomic risks, whether due to climate change or other 

factors. Actuarial reviews consist of evaluating and updating the factors 

used to calculate premium rates, generally based on historical experience. 

Several review categories exist: Actual Production History (APH), dollar
18

Source: RMA

plan, pilot program, and 

specialty plans of insurance. Full 

actuarial reviews for APH-based 

programs are generally 

conducted on a three-year cycle 

by RMA staff. These reviews 

have maintained the program in 

an actuarially sound manner 

effectively, as seen on the 

accompanying chart showing 

loss ratios (Indemnity / 

Premium) over time.

RMA uses well established 

methods and a past research

study on rating methodology9to set premium rates, that is the percent of 

liability representing the expected loss plus a reasonable reserve. The 

study defined a weather index methodology and a methodology to adjust 

insurance experience prior to 1995 to, in a broad manner, account for 

changes in underwriting and policy improvements as well as the mix in 

business. The study based this adjustment on a comparison between the 

loss performance of the program in the pre- and post-1995 periods, 

accounting for differences in weather. Given the use of the weather index 

and pre-1995 adjustment, the study also recommended the adoption of a 

rolling 20-year timeframe for calculating the variable portion of the rate 

(the county unloaded rate). Despite shortening the time-period used to 

calculate the county unloaded rate, RMA maintains the entire history back 

to 1975 for calculating the catastrophic load or fixed portion of the rate. 

The indemnities, more than the 90th percentile loss cost ratio for each 

county, form the basis for the catastrophic load. In general, RMA pools the 

excess indemnities at the weather district level and assigns the resulting 

load to each county within the district as a fixed rate.

In addition to the weather district catastrophic load, the fixed rate is also 

comprised of the prevented planting load, replant load, and quality 

adjustment load. In general, RMA calculates prevented planting and 

replant loads as the average frequency of occurrence (prevented planting 

acreage or replant acreage divided by total insured acreage) multiplied by 

the payment rate established in the policy provisions. The quality 

adjustment load was introduced in 2001 following modifications to the 

quality adjustment procedures. Over time, this load is being phased out

9 https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/Topics/Publications
19

given the proportion of years within the 20-year base rate period that 

reflect the adjusted procedures.

Critical in all this, the program will naturally update its measures of risk 

under current methods to address increases or decreases in risk for each 

crop insurance offer. RMA will also continue to periodically review its 

methodology for enhancements due to new technology, methods, or 

external drivers such as climate change.

Action E - Continue Updating Program Yieldsto Reflect ChangesinOutput 

Due to Climate Change

Like rates, program yields also undergo regular review to keep them 

relevant in the face of changing weather, climate, genetic, technology, and 

production practices. The reference yield (in combination with the 

producer’s average yield and exponent) provides a means to classify 

production risk. As a producer’s yield increases relative to the county, the 

premium rate charged decreases. Conversely, as a producer’s yield 

decreases relative to the county, the premium rate charged increases. 

Generally regarded as the average yield, RMA previously updated 

reference yields based on transitional yields (T-yields) under the premise 

that this moved reference yields in a direction more consistent with the 

average yield of producers in the county. However, this process ignored 

the latency effect resulting from the full T-Yield reviews that occurred 

every 4 to 5 years at that time. Beginning with the 2011 crop year, RMA 

developed and implemented a more appropriate reference yield 

methodology for those commodities undergoing an actuarial review. In 

general, the methodology bases reference yields on the acre-weighted 

average of average yields reported by crop insurance participants for the 

most recently available crop year. In addition, RMA considers various levels 

of aggregation or statistical models in limited data scenarios. These 

reviews now occur on the same cycle as rates, that is, every 3 years, and 

use the most recent 10 years of yield data.

The exponent determines the amount of the rate increase or decrease 

warranted given the relationship between the producer’s average yield 

and the reference yield. For determining exponents, RMA structures data 

hierarchically, pooling individual data within counties, then nests it within 

climate regions, then nests it within states. This leads to using explicit 

multilevel modeling methodsto take advantage of the data structure. Such 

models are a compromise between no pooling (where the exponent is 

estimated separately for each geographic area) and total pooling (where a 

single, common exponent for all geographic areas is developed). Instead, 

RMA matches producer average yields and actual realized yields through
20

the available history to estimate the exponential relationship between the 

unit-level yield ratio and the loss cost ratio.

Again, these methods are regularly reviewed and conducted to naturally 

adapt to any agronomic change and keep crop insurance yields 

appropriate into the future.

Action F - Continue Updating Program Dates to Reflect Changes in 

Agronomic Practices to Climate Change

RMA regional offices review key dates, rates, and yield information for all 

crops at least once every 5 years. For example, to review planting dates, 

regional offices use climate data such as growing degree days available in 

a county, average frost and freeze dates, and key weather causes of loss 

by dates. They also work with university extension experts and other 

industry experts to make sure dates are adaptive to changing climates, 

new crop hybrids, and new farming practices down to the county level. In 

addition to the climate data and agronomic experts, they also use RMA and 

FSA data to identify when the crop was mostly planted, when yields start 

to increase or decrease, impacts to loss ratios by planting date, and causes 

of loss by planting date. Using this combined information givesthe regional 

offices a well-rounded approach to see crop production, climate, and 

insurance performance all be considered on a consistent basis. Similar 

processes can be used to look at appropriate acreage reporting dates, 

which must be early enough to prevent moral hazards, but late enough to 

ensure all the crop is planted.

RMA will continue this approach, using the expertise of regional experts 

on staff to maintain appropriate dates in the face of temporal changes 

caused by climate change.

Action G - Continue Updating Program Map Areas to Reflect Changes in 

Risk Due to Climate Change

Most program offer data is at the county level geographically. However, 

crop insurance defines specific areas within counties when conditions 

suggest an area has significant variance in risk, yield, price, growing time, 

etc. from the rest of the county. The most common use of these are floodprone areas around major waterways. These map areas, or sub-counties, 

need to be aggregated to ensure the risk pool is properly segregated to 

ensure a fair actuarial offer.

In 2022, regional offices will review all actuarial maps, including flood 

prone maps on a 5-year recurring cycle. Advancementsin technology have
21

allowed regional offices to review these more quickly than was possible 

historically as there is a lot of new climate and insurance information 

available to them to be able to get a clearer picture of the different crop 

risks within a county in a faster amount of time. In the example of flood 

prone ground, regional offices identify where land is impacted by flood 

occurrencesthat create insurance experience that is different than the rest 

of the county. To do this, they use a combination of geospatial and 

insurance data, including satellite imagery, topographic maps, flood gauge 

data, and written agreement insurance experience to name a few. They 

compare the timing of these events to when they might commonly impact 

crop production and create an elevated risk that is not representative of 

the rest of the county. This allows higher risk ground to have different 

actuarial components that do not impact others in the rest of the county, 

creating a fairer insurance offer for all producers involved.

RMA will continue this approach, using the expertise of regional experts 

on staff to maintain appropriate map areas as climate change impacts 

different geographic regions in disproportionate ways. RMA will also 

incorporate new data, especially those indicators of climate change, where 

appropriate

Action H - Continue Updating Program Availability and Procedures to 

Reflect New Growing Areas and Agronomic Practices Due to Climate 

Change

Expanding and reducing the availability of insurance is also critical as 

climate change will change the viability for certain crops in certain areas. 

RMA uses its regional offices to approach this in a couple of ways. First is 

the use of written agreements, which are individually underwritten offers 

of insurance for producers that would not normally be available in the 

county they farm. RMA uses this demand to identify and target

appropriate expansion based on 

insurance experience. Regional offices 

engage stakeholders at all levelsincluding 

producers, AIPs, agents, universities, and 

other ag expertsto identify these changes 

in growing areas and farming practices. In 

general, stakeholder engagement is 

central across RMA, but regional offices 

offer localized contacts and relationships 

that have proven valuable over time. The 

map shows a good example of how that

Source: USDA NASS data impacts different regions and can be 

used to support changing program
22

availability. When improvements are identified, they then work within 

RMA to make sure policy, procedure, and insurance offers are adaptable 

and available with these changing practices and growing areas while still 

maintaining sound insurance principles.

For example, this may include changes to farming practices and irrigation 

methods. For 2022, RMA’s regional offices have implemented a regional 

review program of climate smart agricultural practices to determine 

whether these practices should be covered, or whether existing coverage 

should be modified or enhanced. This year’s reviews include skip row 

cotton with extra wide skips, relay cropping, which is interplanted crops 

harvested separately, and cover crops. These reviews will also aid in RMA 

compliance efforts as up-to-date practice information will ensure 

resources are efficiently allocated to maintain program integrity.

Action I – Improve Production Reporting to Enhance Yield Data Quality 

for Research and Program Support

Currently, a producer files a production report at the beginning of the 

insurance year recording the previous year’s crop production. This means 

the previous year’s production data is organized and aggregated according 

to the optional unit structure of the current year and is used to establish 

an APH for the current year’s policy. However, this also limits RMA’s ability 

to match production to the actual location where it was produced since 

optional unit structure may differ year-to-year. RMA is planning on 

changing production reporting to be based on the optional unit structure 

in effect the year it was produced. This change would require production 

reports be tied to the location where it was produced as an “end” step to 

a crop insurance policy. By having this direct connection to the insured 

acreage, RMA could do more advanced analysis of the data.

This is critical to maintain quality data for the program to adapt to changes 

in yield at low levels. It enables specific targeting of analysis at the field 

level, whereas previously it was heavily limited to county aggregates. For 

example, it stands to reason that climate change may have disparate 

effects to low-lying areas (perhaps more prone to flooding) versus higher 

elevations (more susceptible to drought). By having data that can 

differentiate yield effects at that level is critical for programs and research 

to solve future policy needs. Not only should this help RMA programs, but 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs would also benefit from this. 

Currently, programssuch as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss 

Coverage (PLC) use county level data. However, future versions of ARC/PLC 

or other yet-to-be-created farm programs may find it valuable to better 

target sub-county areas. Advancements in precision agriculture should
23

also hasten the integration of this data into the program, which RMA policy 

should support.

This change would be implemented via updated regulations for the basic 

provisions of varying crop insurance policy documents. Further, IT 

implementation would be required. Both steps would seem 

straightforward.

Action J - Conduct Research on the Impact of Conservation Practices on 

Yield and Risk

RMA is assembling data for a joint Economic Research Service, NRCS, and 

RMA product to conduct internal research on yield and risk impacts from 

practices such as cover crops. RMA is also examining the effects of soil 

types and other environmental factors on the impact to yields. RMA is 

engaged with the University of Illinois via AGree and Meridian Institute to 

share detailed insurance data, in conjunction with FSA and NRCS 

conservation data, to analyze yield and risk impacts of conservation 

practices on prevented planting losses. These efforts have been aided 

advances by RMA’s data science work to allow data to be better 

geolocated for analysis. This also requires setting up narrow research 

contracts and protecting confidential data.

For example, county level data shows a strong correlation between soil 

quality and risk for corn. However, more precise data is necessary to 

continue the research. This will be aided greatly by the proposed changes 

to production reporting. Moreover, finding additional outside partners to 

support these lines of inquiry are critical to have a full understanding of 

these effects. With these relationships more fully understood, insurance 

rates would be able to more adequately price changes in risk as a result in 

changes to these effects on soil.

Promote and expand products that support climatesmart ag

Action K – Support Climate Literacy Among Agents and AIPs

RMA should ensure the insurance industry maintains the foresight 

necessary to tackle a broad range of climate issues. This could take the 

form of strengthening business strategy for an insurance company, or an 

agent advising a client based changing weather patterns. For example, 

climate effects may make parts of an operation more susceptible to certain
24

flood risks than others. To properly prepare for this, a producer may want 

to maintain historical production records in a manner to separate out 

vulnerable areas. Although this may be more work in the near term, it 

could greatly expand risk management options to the producer in the 

future. Educating stakeholders to understand how climate may impact 

operations would lead to more efficient and better targeted risk 

management plans.

RMA and the industry have many standing committee meetings that are 

ideal to share this type of information. Additionally, there are large 

industry meetings with the AIPs to ‘train the trainers’ that then train agents 

and staff on the upcoming changes to policy and procedure. Any issues, 

improvements, and opportunities are often addressed very closely with 

the industry to make sure policy and procedure effectively address what is 

happening on the ground. RMA also regularly receives email questions on 

specific events and instances. RMA coordinates responses within its work 

units to make sure procedure addresses the situation and issues 

clarifications if needed.

RMA could work with the USDA Climate Hubs to develop climate literacy 

and training plansto better assist with these operational risks. The Climate 

Hubs 2020 5-year review explicitly targeted greater engagement in this 

area, with the goal, “... can develop additional resources to prepare a 

climate-smart workforce nationwide.”10 Although this was likely 

envisioned for the USDA workforce, translating it to RMA’s insurance 

industry partners ought to be straightforward and worthwhile. In the past, 

the Southwest Climate Hub worked with RMA to understand how weather 

and causes of loss change over time and spatial areas. In 2017, RMA 

assisted in the collection and analysis of cause of loss data. From the 

analysis conducted, a dynamic online tool11 called AgRisk Viewer, was 

developed allowing users to examine county-level RMA cause of loss data 

and trends. To further these types of projects, funding would need to be 

allocated and objectives more precisely defined. Curriculum would seem 

straightforward, and RMA could distribute and integrate many of the 

outputs within the industry via existing avenues.

Action L – Specialty Crop Outreach

RMA is investing up to $2 million in cooperative agreements in 2022 for 

risk management education and training programs that support 

historically underserved producersto help them better understand how to

10 Steele, R., Zycherman, A., Wiener, S., Hernandez, C., Wilson, M., Johnson, R., & Steele,

C. (2020).

11 https://swclimatehub.info/rma/
25

manage risk in the face of volatile weather. These funds will be awarded 

to organizations, such as universities and nonprofits among others, to 

provide risk management training to historically underserved producers, 

specialty crop operations, and others. The outreach will emphasize 

managing risks in the face of volatile weather and climate smart solutions 

that improve the profitability and resilience of producers.

RMA’s overarching goal is to ensure Federal crop insurance meets 

customer needs and is available to as many producers as possible. To meet

this goal, producers need to know how to access 

Federal crop insurance and how it works. 

Therefore, outreach and education will 

continue to be an agency priority. By providing 

opportunities for risk management education, 

we aid in further strengthening the farm safety 

net for agricultural producers. Outreach 

conducted by RMA Regional Offices aligns with 

their role as RMA's eyes in the field, keeping in 

close contact with local producers and grower 

groups. This work is especially important given 

the asymmetric risks identified earlier.

Effective outreach is necessary to offer education and information that 

specialty crop producers need to effectively manage their risk and remain 

productive. Additionally, outreach is an opportunity to provide producers 

with the latest news and updates regarding crop insurance programs and 

climate smart initiatives, identify attributes of the program that are 

working well and the aspects that need to be changed to improve 

efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness to industry adaptations to 

climate change. Workshops are popular with farmers and have proven to 

be a catalyst for development ofrisk managementskillsin limited-resource 

communities. The training equips the agricultural community with tools 

beneficial to minority farming operations and illuminates for the industry 

and its partners the challenges faced by socially disadvantaged producers. 

RMA can also utilize other industry meetings, presentations, and 

information booths to maintain this outreach. RMA should continue to 

engage in these activities utilizing the RMA Specialty Crop Coordinator and 

the Specialty Crop Liaisons at each RMA Regional Office.

Action M - Promote Whole Farm Revenue Protection to Support Crop 

Diversification to Reduce Risk

Although difficult to predict what production crop systems may look like 

over the coming years, many speculate greater use of diversification seems
26

likely to occur. Research supports the idea that such practices may help 

mitigate impacts of climate change.

Crop diversification can improve resilience in a variety of ways: by 

engendering a greater ability to suppress pest outbreaks and dampen 

pathogen transmission, which may worsen under future climate scenarios, 

as well as by buffering crop production from the effects of greater climate 

variability and extreme events12.

RMA can support these producers who choose to diversify by promoting 

the Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP), Micro Farm, or other ‘to-bedeveloped’ products that specifically target small and/or diversified 

operations.

WFRP provides a risk management safety net for all commodities on the 

farm under one insurance policy. This insurance plan is currently tailored 

for any farm with up to $8.5 million in insured revenue, including farms 

with specialty or organic commodities (both crops and livestock), or those 

marketing to local, regional, farm-identity preserved, specialty, or direct 

markets. WFRP provides protection against the loss of insured revenue 

due to an unavoidable natural cause of loss which occurs during the 

insurance period and will also provide carryover loss coverage if you are 

insured the following year. Critically, WFRP provides additional premium 

subsidy when including multiple crops, thus is specifically tailored for 

diversified operations.

Micro Farm is a product based on WFRP which is limited to producers with 

less than $100,000 (or $125,000 for carryover insureds) in allowable 

revenue. These smaller, usually local, producers have a high prevalence of 

diversification in their operation, thus Micro Farm automatically provides 

the diversity discounts. The product also includes revenue from valueadded products (e.g., an apple producer selling pies at a farmer’s market), 

which is an important aspect of their business.

Of course, these two products currently exist, but many other new 

products could be developed that provide targeted support for diversified 

operations. Regardless, crop insurance support for producers that are 

adapting to climate change via diversification will need targeted insurance 

policy options to help them manage their production risk.

Action N - Support Private Submitters on Expansion of the Climate-Smart 

Products

12 Lin, B (2011)
27

The FCIA allows private parties to develop and submit crop insurance 

products to the Board for consideration of approval. By submitting a 

concept proposal prior to full development, these private parties may 

request advanced funding to cover a portion of their expected research 

and development costs. If advanced funding is provided, the private party 

must deliver a fully developed crop insurance product by an agreed upon 

date.

Following the submission of a fully developed crop insurance product, 

RMA and independent expert reviewers evaluate these products and the 

findings are presented to the Board. Products approved by the Board for 

implementation are eligible for Federal reinsurance and premium 

subsidies. Submitters of the privately developed product are also eligible 

for reimbursement for research and development and up to four years of 

maintenance costs if the products are approved for implementation.

An example of this product was the introduction of the Post Application 

Coverage Endorsement (PACE) in 2022. The product, initially for nonirrigated corn in select midwestern counties, provides coverage for 

producers who split-apply nitrogen to their crop. If a weather event 

prevents the in-season application of the nitrogen, the policy pays an 

indemnity equal to the lost potential production that could have been 

achieved with a complete nitrogen treatment. The product was developed 

privately and went through the rigors of the above process, critical in 

refining it for a proper pilot and introduction to growers. Moreover, the 

process will continue to be available for further modifications, 

enhancements, and expansions if warranted.

This privately developed product submission process provides a means for 

those within the public that have an interest in climate-smart agriculture 

to introduce and develop crop insurance products. From grower 

organizations to university researchers, anyone who follows the process 

established in the FCIA can submit a privately developed product. These 

private submitters act as a resource extension for the Federal government. 

Having an expanded pool of resources helps ensure innovative and 

adaptive approaches to address climate change through crop insurance 

can be adopted timely and efficiently. RMA can and will continue to 

support this process for climate-smart products for producers who are 

using new and different agronomic practices to adapt to climate change.

Action O – Engage USDA Climate Hubs for Product Development

Given the breadth of expertise employed by the USDA Climate Hubs, RMA 

could utilize cutting edge research to better design or review new
28

products. For example, if new products make claims about new agronomic 

practices or crop varieties, RMA could request the Climate Hubs to assist 

in ground-truthing those claims. Moreover, during research and 

development phases, RMA could leverage the Climate Hubs for data, 

contacts, and ideas for innovation in the climate-smart space. Those types 

of activities will increasingly be valuable as climate change accelerates and 

has new impacts across the country. The regional design of the Climate 

Hubs ought to aid in the asymmetries previously discussed to ensure RMA 

considers the proper solutions and science. The Climate Hubs could also 

aid in RMA staff climate literacy unique to newly proposed products. 

Admittedly, this will be a challenge, as often RMA product development 

timelines may not fit into the current business models of the Climate Hubs. 

However, RMA should strive to find waysintegrate the processesto ensure 

valuable feedback is not missed.

Maintain continuity of operations during weatherrelated disasters

Action P – Maintain a 100% Telework-Ready Workforce

In the past, RMA has utilized a “brick-and-mortar” based approach to 

disaster response where a team of subject matter experts would meet in 

a government facility in a conference room that had been quickly 

converted into an emergency operations center. Decisions regarding the 

actions that the organization would take to respond to the 

disaster/emergency would be made by personnel in the emergency 

operations center and then relayed out to the organization’s personnel via 

the available communications technology, typically telephone or two-way 

radio. As communications technology advanced, changes were made to 

RMA’s emergency response and recovery process.

Recently, the need to adapt and overcome the negative impacts of the 

COVID-19 pandemic have caused a significant change in how RMA is 

approaching performing the emergency response and recovery process. 

With meeting in-person at a government facility not being a viable option, 

RMA components that are responsible for conducting disaster response 

operations quickly transitioned to using the latest virtual technology to 

organize and coordinate the response to disaster/emergency situations 

such as extreme weather events or conditions. Working entirely virtually, 

the Agency is now able to perform the vital decision-making and 

information sharing activities effectively and efficiently that were 

necessary in support of the response to weather-related disasters such as
29

wildfires, drought, and hurricanes. Key to the overall success of disaster 

response and recovery efforts was the ability for leadership personnel and 

subject matter experts that were located at numerous home worksites 

throughout the country to communicate in real-time.

By successfully performing real-world disaster response and recovery 

responsibilities while operating entirely in a virtual 

environment, RMA was able to demonstrate that 

having a team of dedicated professionals that are 

capable of performing their duties in a 100% 

remote (i.e. virtual) work environment is not only

a valuable component of the continuity of 

operations program, maximizing virtual 

capabilities is also how the federal government 

will be looking to streamline disaster response 

operations. Being able to leverage the flexibilities 

that are inherent in a remote approach to 

performing disaster response and recovery 

operations has rapidly become recognized as the

way of the future when it comes to attaining, 

maintaining, and managing a state-of-the-art continuity of operations 

program. RMA istransitioning to a near 100% remote workforce. However, 

even if situations change and some employees are brought back to 

physical locations, the ability to ad hoc telework is vital to performing tasks 

under any situations. Therefore, RMA will continue to pursue technology, 

training, and infrastructure needed to maintain a full telework-ready 

workforce.

Action Q – Support Cloud-Based IT Processing

RMA’s role in maintaining a functioning crop insurance system is 

increasingly an information technology (IT) endeavor. Therefore, 

maintaining IT functions in the face of natural disasters is critical. Logically, 

if those natural disasters become more commonplace, the need grows to 

prioritize system design that is resilient to such concerns and create 

protocols and contingencies for disaster recovery. RMA currently defines 

its recovery time and outcomes objectives via normal processes, which is 

a critical step in understanding computing needs.

Cloud-computing means systems are hosted at external sites in a 

distributed nature. That means services can be spread out to different 

servers in different geographical locations, essentially providing complete 

protection against local natural disasters. It also means for disaster 

recovery that data backups are not maintained by RMA directly on disks or
30

physical hard drives. This makes cloud better in that it both reduces the 

likelihood and severity of disaster events damaging IT processes. 

Combined with the cost-effective nature of the process, it is a win-win for 

the Agency to migrate to cloud-based processing.

RMA, partnering with the FPAC Business Center, is already in the process 

of putting some pilot applications, services, and data into cloud-based 

systems. The escrow mission essential function has been cloud based for 

nearly a decade and new services are being migrated over the next couple 

years. RMA will continue this process over the next several years to fully 

retire localserver-based systems. Moreover, this willsynergize with efforts 

already underway to modernize RMA’s data mining tools within the 

Compliance mission which limits waste, fraud, and abuse to keep the 

program affordable to taxpayers and producers in the long run.

Action R - Maintain Network of Regional Offices to Respond to Unique, 

Geographic-Centric Issues

Too often, assumptions are made that insurance can largely be designed, 

maintained, and regulated centrally. However, as many of the ongoing 

actions previously covered, on-the-ground local expertise is critical to 

maintaining actuarial soundness in the program. Contextualizing data and 

events, staying ahead of changing farming methods and practices, and 

outreach and education are all tasks best done with local expertise. 

Combined with the ability to enable remote work, long-term, having staff 

to cover each region far exceeds any perceived efficiency gain of a 

centralized workforce. Moreover, when disasters do strike, responsiveness

is critical. Regional offices allow RMA 

to have local experts engage with 

customers on an ongoing basis, 

who understand the unique 

challenges producers face. They 

assess the situation on the 

ground, collaborate on policy 

needs, clarify how the policy 

handles the situation, providing 

immediate response and actions 

to our customers where it 

occurs. Regional Compliance 

Offices ensure program integrity, 

and they too increase their

effectiveness by understanding 

local risks and potential for

waste, fraud, or abuse.
31

Resources, Measurement, and Sustaining Adaptation

The attached table specifies the core metric(s) to track each action, if applicable. Several are 

naturally dependent on each other, as most program maintenance actions all will get 

summarized into the ultimate test of crop insurance effectiveness, do producers buy it and is it 

actuarially sound? Several metrics will need to be developed from existing data (e.g., production 

reporting or cloud-based IT), while several others are already commonly reported (e.g., cover 

crop benefits and climate-smart insurance products). The table also outlines the area of RMA 

that will lead each action, a timeframe on how each is implemented/will be implemented, and 

other stakeholders that may require coordination or collaboration.

Internally, RMA’s structure already supports these actions, leadership merely needs to maintain 

its commitment to each. All actions, even those engrained in current processes, will vary heavily 

based on emphasis placed on each by leadership. Given the long-term timeframe of this 

adaptation plan, it islikely there will be an ebb-and-flow to several actions, asfunding forsubsidy 

benefits, science of conservation practices, market forces, Agency budget constraints, and other 

factors impacts the value proposition of each. This need not be seen as a problem, but rather the 

natural adaptation of the plan itself.

Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with 

the progress of the human mind. As that becomes 

more developed, more enlightened, as new 

discoveries are made, new truths discovered and 

manners and opinions change, with the change of 

circumstances, institutions must advance also to 

keep pace with the times.

-Thomas Jefferson
32

Actions Overview

Climate 

Vulnerability Action Title/Description Type of Activity Lead Office Timeframe Coordination Progress Metrics

Accomplishments 

to Date

Soil Incentivesto Encourage 

Cover Crop Planting

Ongoing/ 

Proposed DAPM Annual Funding FSA Acres Covered

State programs, 

PCCP 21 & 22

Water Incentivesto Encourage 

Smart Water Use Proposed DAPM Annual Funding TBD Acres Covered -

Any

Incentives to Encourage

Other Climate Smart 

Practices

Proposed DAPM Annual 

Funding TBD, ARS Acres Covered -

All Update Program Premium 

Rates Ongoing DAPM 3-Year Cycle Internal

Participation 

Rate & Loss 

Ratio

Regular 

Maintenance

All Update Program Yields Ongoing DAPM 3-Year Cycle Internal

Participation 

Rate & Loss 

Ratio

Regular 

Maintenance

All Update Program Dates Ongoing DAIS Continual Internal

Participation 

Rate & Loss

Ratio

Regular 

Maintenance

Flooding Update Program Maps Ongoing DAIS 5-Year Cycle Internal

Participation

Rate & Loss 

Ratio

Regular

Maintenance, Now 

on Regular Cycle

All Update Program 

Availability and Procedures Ongoing DAIS/DAPM Continual Internal

Participation 

Rate & Loss 

Ratio

Regular 

Maintenance

All Improve Production 

Reporting Planned DAPM 2023 CY Internal Percent of Acreage -

Any Conduct Research on the 

Impact of Conservation Ongoing DAPM 1-3 Years ERS, NRCS,

Universities -

Engagement with U 

of I, NRCS, ERS

All, especially 

Asymmetries

Support Climate Literacy 

Among Agents and AIPs Proposed DAIS Continual Climate Hubs - -

All, especially 

Asymmetries Specialty Crop Outreach Ongoing DAPM Continual Internal

Participation 

Rate & Loss 

Ratio

Website, RO 

Liaisons, Board

Submission 

Requirements
33

Water, 

Pests/Disease

Promote WFRP to Support 

Crop Diversification Ongoing DAPM Continual Internal

Participation

Rate & Loss 

Ratio

Regular 

Maintenance

All, especially 

Flooding & Soil

Support Private Submitters 

on Expansion of the 

Climate-Smart Products

Ongoing DAPM Continual Internal

Number of 

ClimateSmart 

Products

Regular Outreach

Any Engage Climate Hubsfor 

Product Development Proposed DAPM 1-2 Years Climate Hubs Number of Engagements -

Flooding, 

Tropical

Cyclones

Maintain a 100% 

Telework-Ready

Workforce

Ongoing OA Continual Internal Percent of 

Employees

Accelerated due to 

Pandemic

Flooding,

Tropical 

Cyclones

Support Cloud-Based IT 

Processing Ongoing OA Continual FBC Percent of Systems

Investments

Underway, Multiple 

Systems Migrated

All Maintain Network of 

Regional Offices Ongoing DAIS/DAC Continual Internal

Number of 

ROs and 

RCOs

Current State