This article delves into the critical role of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in ensuring the effectiveness of aid in conflict-affected areas, focusing particularly on early recovery efforts. With over half a century of concern for aid effectiveness, the introduction of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has heightened commitments to accountability and results. This momentum has given rise to a robust M&E industry, crucial for validating the substantial investments made by donors annually.

Key highlights from the article include:

1. Challenges in TPME Selection:
   Accessing project sites in war-torn regions like Syria requires careful selection of Third-Party Monitoring and Evaluation (TPME) outfits. However, selection standards have often been compromised, leading to potential conflicts of interest.

2. Inadequate Evaluation Standards:
   The OECD-DAC criteria, commonly used for standard development projects, are often unsuitable for emergency-mode projects. The article discusses the unrealistic expectations set by these standards and their premature enforcement in initial project phases.

3. Resource Allocation and Impact Transparency:
   M&E resources are typically allocated on a project-by-project basis, with little transparency regarding the overall impact of aid packages. The article calls for comprehensive reviews and better transparency in aid distribution.

4. Reputational Risks and Oversight Challenges:
   While donors have complex vetting processes to avoid reputational risks, they often overlook the broader implications of aid distribution, such as legitimizing de facto powers.

5. Criteria Beyond Effectiveness:
   The focus in conflict conditions is often on saving lives, sidelining other essential criteria like efficiency, impact, relevance, sustainability, and coherence. The article argues for a broader integration of these criteria in early recovery efforts.

6. Adjusting the Logic of Aid:
   Early recovery requires a fundamental shift in the logic of aid, ensuring projects are sustainable and community-driven. M&E processes must be adjusted to incorporate relevant criteria genuinely.

7. Transforming M&E into a Learning Process:
   M&E should be a dialogic process that engages and empowers beneficiaries. The article advocates for TPME businesses to evolve from evaluators to partners in development and early recovery.

By rethinking traditional approaches and prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and sustainability, this article provides a comprehensive guide for optimizing M&E processes to better support communities recovering from conflict.