the LPA process, and which we discuss later in this report. As a result, all interviewees were male, which limited not only the diversity of perspectives but also the quality of gendered analysis.

To complement the personal perspectives of key-stakeholders, the authors utilized secondary data taken from public databases and published sources. The purpose of the secondary data was to offer a data-based perspective on the context in each location – including security, social relations, and extent of IDP return – before and after each LPA was signed. To do this in a systematic way, the authors selected a set of indicators associated with safe and sustainable IDP return. The choice of indicators was based on two factors: first, we identified indicators which reflected the rights and standards set out in the IASC Framework on Durable Solutions, and second, we excluded indicators that did not have data available throughout the study period (2015-2021). The final set of indicators focused on the number of returnees, security conditions, and social cohesion, as set out in Table 2 below. All indicators were measured at sub-district level, and at regular intervals: as close as possible to LPA signature, and quarterly or bi-annually after signature.<sup>67</sup> The data source for the IDP return indicators was IOM DTM’s _Master Lists_ ,<sup>68</sup> while the security and social cohesion indicators were drawn from two sources: IOM DTM’s _Integrated Location Assessments_ (ILA),<sup>69</sup> as well as IOM DTM’s _Return Index_ .<sup>70</sup>

> 67 Specifically, IDP return indicators were measured at the closest point in time before each LPA was signed, as well as approximately 3, 6, and 12 months after each LPA was signed, while security and social cohesion indicators were measured at the closest point in time before each LPA was signed, as well as approximately 6 months after each LPA was signed (due to the lower frequency of data collection for these indicators).

> 68 The study relied on IOM DTM’s Master Lists from Round 21 (May 2015) to Round 121 (May 2021), available at: http://iraqdtm.iom.int/. Note that the DTM database defines ‘returnee’ as an Iraq who became displaced after January 2014, and subsequently returned to their location of origin.

69 The study relied on ILA Round 1 (July – October 2016), Round 3 (March – May 2018) and Round 4 (May – June 2019), as well as the Return Index Round 7 (November – December 2019) to Round 12 (March – April 2021), all available at: http://iraqdtm.iom.int/ Note that the indicators included in the ILA dataset vary with each yearly assessment. For this reason, ILA 2 was excluded from this study because the indicators included in ILA 2 were not comparable to ILA 1 or ILA 3, and no suitable proxy indicators could be identified in the dataset. Note also that the dates of each round refer to the period in which data was collected.

> 70 The _Master Lists_ contain data on IDP and returnee movements (from the onset of the ISIL crisis in 2014) and are updated every two months. The _Integrated Location Assessment_ and the _Return Index_ each provide location-level data on demographic composition, state of infrastructure, services, security, social cohesion, utilizing different but complementary indicators. While these datasets offer valuable insights into population movements and return conditions, it is important to keep in mind that DTM data aims to provide general trends on population figures, rather than precise figures. This methodology introduces some limitations to the dataset, and therefore to this study: DTM data is collected through interviews with key informants such as mukhtars, local authorities or local security actors, and not via household surveys or registration, and the number of individuals is calculated by multiplying the number of displaced / returnee households by six (being the average size of a family in Iraq.) Iraq’s difficult environment when it comes to limited access and security issues also affects the data collection process. Yet, while recognizing these limitations, it is important to note that no alternative datasets exist with the same geographic scope and breadth of time as DTM; and as such, the authors chose to rely on these datasets as one tool of analysis. For more information on DTM methodology and data collection procedures see: http://iraqdtm.iom.int/MasterList#Methodology

12