_<mark>negotiations took place at the tribal level, so there were no specific family that was prevented from participating.”</mark>_<sup>_85_</sup> In six LPAs (Anbar, Hawija, Zummar, Ayadhiya, Tal Afar, Mahalabiya) IDPs were represented by their own tribal leaders, while in two LPAs (Tikrit and Yathrib) the the participation of IDPs in the peace process was further diluted as their own tribal leaders delegated their authority to more senior leaders in the tribal hierarchy. According to stakeholders involved in the Tikrit and Yathrib LPAs, this delegation was necessary in order for negotiations to take place, since tribal leaders whose constituents were victims of ISIL were not willing to meet directly with tribal leaders whose members were implicated with ISIL atrocities. At the time of signing the LPA – sometimes only months after the war had ended – IDPs with perceived ISIL affiliation had very poor community relations and many families staunchly opposed their return, and delegating authorities to accepted figures (such as senior tribal leaders) was a way of avoiding confrontation.<sup>86</sup> One tribal leader (and mukhtar) in Tikrit explained a practice that was reported by multiple key informants in Tikrit and Yathrib: “ _The [head] Sheikh did [initiated and led] the agreement negotiations and we authorized him to do so (...) I wasn’t involved directly, I just gave my vote of agreement to the [head] Sheikh.”_<sup>_87_</sup> While this method of engaging in negotiations diluted IDP representation, the LPAs in both Tikrit and Yathrib witnessed significant returns with relatively low rates of community-led revenge attacks, which was a notable achievement given that Tikrit<sup>88</sup> and Yathrib<sup>89</sup> witnessed some of the highest tensions preceding return and were amongst the most diverse communities (with Sunni and Shia populations living in close proximity.) Tribal leaders also offered a way to ‘guarantee’ the terms of the LPA – that is, to compel compliance on the part of their constituents, whether victimized by or accused of affiliation with ISIL – reflecting the influential role that tribal hierarchy plays in daily life in Iraq, particularly in rural areas.<sup>90</sup> A tribal leader in Tikrit expressed a view that was repeated across locations, noting that:

> 85 Interview with senior tribal leader, Anbar, 25 April 2021.

> 86 All interviewees in Yathrib expressed similar sentiment.

> 87 Interview with Mukhtar #1, Tikrit, 1 May 2021.

> 88 Tikrit witnessed a surge in returns following the LPA signature: 1,500 IDPs returned within 2 months of the Tikrit LPA signature and 63,360 IDPs returned within 6 months, according to IOM’s DTM Master List. No incidents of discrimination or conflict between IDPs and host communities was registered by the IOM Integrated Location Assessment 1 during this period, which is striking given that although no quantitative data is available pre-signature, other sources point to high levels of tensions and threats of violence (for example, see: Human Rights Watch (2015). Ruinous Aftermath. _Militia Abuses Following Iraq’s Recapture of Tikrit_ and Gaston, J. and Maas, F (2017). ‘Iraq after ISIL: Tikrit and Surrounding Areas’. GPPI. 30 August Available at: https://www.gppi.net/2017/08/29/iraq-after-isil-tikrit-and-surrounding-areas). 89 In Yathrib, 21,360 IDPs had returned by the time the Yathrib LPA was signed, and this increased incrementally over 12 months, with 28,368 IDPs returning by 12 months post-signature, according to IOM’s DTM Master List. Context indicators showed marked improvement in Yathrib, with threats between tribal groups, blocked IDP return, and returnees ‘feeling unwelcome’ reported before the LPA was signed and absent 3 months post-signature, and no concerns over revenge attacks or tribal tension reported post-signature, according to IOM’s Integrated Location Assessment 4.

> 90 IOM Iraq (2020). Perceptions of Security and Police in Iraq. Baseline survey findings.

20