Yes indeed insurance is a good idea in the context of research designed to fit our crops to the environment. Equally good perhaps is having a body whose task it is to define emerging problems before they indeed become a problem. Australia had such at one time!
To make my point consider that Lovins in 1976 said the world could follow a low or high energy use path and that former boded trouble. He and like minded people continued establishing research organisations in his case the Rocky mountain Institute.
This group showed how to avoid the need for energy, how to use energy efficiently and how to design systems allowing one to do just that even coping with oil shortages forecast, as peak oil in 1975?
He also showed such moves were profitable having varying periods of pay back to cover costs of the technology. He his wife and Hawken went on to devise Natural Capitalism. Similar groups in Japan Germany and more exist.
Granted we have yet to implement much of what is on offer but like a wheat that will yield on very low water input, the knowledge is comforting.
We may yet use these findings. I am not holding my breath Australian design standards for houses have yet to escape the star rating and become energy neutral or even supply energy as is happening overseas.
Oh I nearly forgot new ways of producing energy were also offered combating climate change by producing lower emissions. A problem I believe for our wheats and ourselves currently.
Perhaps there is a difference forewarning and insurance. The former needs some intellect insurance you simply pay or does the Institute make best guesses on emerging problems?

correction. It is the high energy path bodingtrouble and trouble we now apparently have all but the most doggedof dehyers admitting there may be a problem. How many wasted years.? To find out oneneeds to know how much of say Naturalcapitalism or at least energy efficiency has been captured. I have no data other than the mantra many have!