As a beginning point in the discussion of drought management policy, it is important to identify the various types of drought policies that are available and have been utilized for drought management. The most common approach, and the one most often followed by both developing and developed nations, is post-impact government (or nongovernment) interventions. These interventions are normally relief measures in the form of emergency assistance programs aimed at providing money or other specific types of assistance (e.g., livestock feed, water, food) to the victims (or those experiencing the most severe impacts) of the drought. This reactive approach is seriously flawed from the perspective of vulnerability reduction since the recipients of this assistance are not expected to change behaviors or resource management practices as a condition of the assistance. For example, livestock producers that do not maintain adequate on-farm storage of feed for livestock as a drought management strategy will be those that first experience the impacts of extended precipitation shortfalls. These producers will be the first that turn to the government or other organizations for assistance in order to maintain herds until the drought is over and feedstocks return to adequate levels. This reliance on the government for relief is contrary to the philosophy of encouraging selfreliance through investments in creating improved coping capacity. Government assistance or incentives that encourage these investments would be a philosophical change in how governments respond and would promote a change in the expectations of livestock producers as to the role of government in these response efforts. The more traditional approach of providing relief is also flawed in terms of the timing of assistance being provided. It often takes weeks or months for assistance to be received, at times well beyond the window of when the relief would be of greatest value in addressing the impacts of drought.