When the season fails, cover pays.
- We count
- Farms covered on their season record; losses paid where the field confirmed them, and losses the index missed.
- From
- The insurer’s decision, logged against the record.
Parcel by parcel, season by season: what changes for farmers and their land, counted from the records a lender or an insurer has to trust, by a party that sells the farmer nothing and decides nothing about them.
Counted by a party that sells no inputs, buys no harvest and decides no credit or cover.
A dry spring, a late frost or a wave of pests can take a season. Family farms absorb it alone. Their careful work with water, soil and inputs leaves no trace an institution can read, so their risk is priced as a penalty.
Each is a change in a farmer’s season or on the land. Counting starts with the first pilot season: for each change we name what we count and the record it comes from.
The farmer records the work once, alone or with an adviser. Satellite and weather data check it parcel by parcel.
A lender, an insurer or a buyer decides on the record the farmer chose to share, under their own rules. The decision stays theirs.
Cover and credit take part of the risk off the farm. Advice on the parcel helps decide where the next investment goes. Which way practice moves is the link we test hardest.
The next season, the same parcel shows what changed: water consumed, practice kept, a loss absorbed. We compare it with its own past and with parcels like it.
Shared by the farmer for these two decisions, until 30 June. Each institution decided under its own rules.
Irrigate on Tuesday, about 28 mm: the soil reading is low and no rain is forecast this week.
Every count traces to a dated field record matched with satellite and weather data. No survey totals, no averages applied to everyone.
A change is a difference from the same parcel’s earlier seasons and from comparable parcels not yet enrolled, never from a national average.
Lenders lend, insurers cover, buyers pay. We count the decisions made on our evidence apart from what changed on the farm, and claim neither as ours.
Saving water at the pipe can mean more land irrigated and more water used. We call it a saving only when the water the crop consumes goes down.
In dry farmland soil gains carbon slowly and is costly to measure. We record soil practice for what it does for the soil and the farm, and never lead with carbon.
| Change | What we count | From which record | Compared with | First reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protected | Farms covered; losses paid where confirmed; losses the index missed | Insurer decision against the season record | The same farms before enrolment; farms not yet offered cover | After the first season |
| Financed | Farms assessed on the record they shared; credit granted, its timing, repayment | Lender decision against the season record | Applicants with the same score, with and without a verified record | Terms after the first season; repayment after the second |
| Water | Water consumed per hectare | Satellite evapotranspiration with field records | The parcel’s own past and comparable unchanged parcels | A change needs two seasons |
| Soil practice | Parcels with recorded and visible soil practice; inputs per hectare | Book of Crop entries and satellite readings, read by ARI | Before enrolment; parcels like it | After the first season |
| Markets | Lots accepted; price against comparable lots | The lot’s passport | Same season, crop and grade, with and without a passport | After the first season |
| Advice | Alerts acted on; losses on the parcel | Alert log and field records | The same alert sent at different times | Within the first season |
| Fairness | Accuracy of the score for each group | Score calibration | Each group against the others | With each version of the score |
| Control | Consents given, refused and withdrawn | The farmer’s access log | Season to season | Each season |
We build on what field studies have shown and test what they have not. Each link of the pathway, and the strength of the evidence behind it.
Insured farmers invest a little more in their fields, and they trust cover more when payouts track what happened on their land.
Sources Karlan et al. 2014, Quarterly Journal of Economics; Castaing and Gazeaud 2025, Journal of Development Economics
Credit helps some farms far more than others; timed to the crop calendar, it can raise output. When a farmer chooses to share the record, a lender sees how the farm works; we report who is served.
Sources Meager 2019, AEJ: Applied Economics; Beaman et al. 2023, Econometrica; Fink, Jack and Masiye 2020, American Economic Review
Data can widen access to credit or narrow it. Whether a verified season record widens it for small farms is what our pilots are built to measure.
Sources Björkegren and Grissen 2020, World Bank Economic Review; de Janvry, McIntosh and Sadoulet 2010, Journal of Development Economics
Less risk leads farmers to invest more, mostly in inputs. For a soil and water practice, training mattered more than money in the most direct test. So cover and credit come with advice on the parcel, and we measure which way practice moves.
Sources Aker and Jack 2025, Review of Economics and Statistics; Emerick et al. 2016, American Economic Review
Efficient irrigation often leaves the water a basin loses to crops unchanged, or raises it, because more land gets irrigated. That is why we count consumption.
Sources Grafton et al. 2018, Science; Pfeiffer and Lin 2014, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
In dry cropland, soil carbon builds slowly, varies with depth and is costly to verify. Practice is recorded for what it does for the soil and the farm.
Sources Moinet et al. 2023, Global Change Biology; Smith et al. 2020, Global Change Biology
A verified record helps a farmer meet a buyer’s requirements. On its own, it does not guarantee a better price.
Sources Meemken 2020, Global Food Security; Oya, Schaefer and Skalidou 2018, World Development
Advice matched to the field helps a little on average. We test each alert against what happens on the parcel and keep the ones that help.
Sources Fabregas, Kremer and Schilbach 2019, Science; Cole and Fernando 2021, Economic Journal
ConformScore never reads a farmer’s gender, farm size, crop or the way a record was captured. Those attributes serve one purpose: testing that the score is equally accurate for every group. The test is Equal Performance Difference, and it is part of how the score is calibrated.
A farmer who records with an adviser or through the cooperative must be scored as accurately as one who records alone.
| Risk | What we do |
|---|---|
| Left out: no smartphone, no signal, another language. | The app works offline in four languages, and an adviser or a cooperative agent can record with the farmer. |
| A record turned against the farmer. | It stays the farmer’s. Every look needs consent for a stated purpose and is logged. How consent works |
| A measurer with something to sell. | We sell no inputs, buy no harvest and decide no credit or cover. The roles we keep apart |
| Cover that misses the loss. | Field evidence checks the index before a claim is closed. Index and field |
| Water saved on paper only. | We count consumption, not delivery. |
| A score that serves some better than others. | Equal Performance Difference, tested at each version of the score. |
What we count, from which record, compared with what.
The comparison design for each change, and what would count as no effect.
The count for each change, with its definition and period.
The accuracy for each group.
An impact report with method, limits and what did not work.
Programmes, cooperatives and funders can start a pilot season with us. A date we miss stays on this page, marked as missed. If anything here looks wrong to you, tell us and we will answer. Start a pilot that measures it