affect they have had on community relationship and safe and sustainable IDP return. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge by examining the terms, negotiation process, and implementation of eight LPAs, comparing these findings with the scholarly expectations regarding what makes a ‘good’ peace agreement,<sup>6</sup> and then considering how the LPA characteristics affected conditions for safe and sustainable IDP return.

This paper complements the work of other scholars in this series who describe the ways that community cohesion and social conflict are affected by displacement, and how fractured social cohesion associated with IDP return can be addressed. The paper authored by Tellez and Balcells highlights the willingness of conflict-displaced IDPs to contribute to peace-building efforts, even when they expect insecurity to continue or when the context is unstable,<sup>7</sup> a perspective that reinforces the finding in our paper that IDPs should be involved in local peace agreements even while community relations are tense, utilizing representatives if direct negotiations are not feasible. Analysis by Ruiz and Vargas-Silva regarding returned refugees to Burundi offers further insight, pointing to the negative impact IDP return can have on certain aspects of social cohesion: if there is a negative attitude in the community towards the return of conflict-affected populations, it may affect the willingness of community members to help each other and may interfere with the perception of the community as a peaceful space.<sup>8</sup> Our study emphasizes the role that LPAs can play in situations where there is a negative perception towards returning IDPs, since an LPA can offer a way to navigate the return of IDPs rejected by their communities and build community trust in the return process. Finally, the paper by Bove, Salvatore and Elia indicates how the international community can enable conditions for voluntary, safe and sustainable return of displaced people: their study of UN peacekeeping operations in South Sudan found that displaced people are more likely to return home if peacekeepers are deployed in their province of destination, and that the presence of peacekeepers contributes to better relations between local populations and returnees.<sup>9</sup> Our paper aligns with these findings by demonstrating that local peace agreements in Iraq, most of which were brokered or supported by international actors in cooperation with local peacebuilding actors, also contributed to safe and sustainable IDP return and better community relations post-return.

> 6 Scholars have started to identify the type of peace agreements most likely to contribute to durable peace, and the type of engagement with IDPs during peace processes most likely to support durable solutions. This issue is discussed throughout the present study, but for an overview, see: Andersen-Rodgers, D.R. (2015). _Back home again: Assessing the impact of provisions for internally displaced persons in comprehensive peace accords._ Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34(3), pp.24-45. 7 Juan F. Tellez and Laia Balcells (2021), “The social, economic, and political effects of displacement. Evidence from rural Colombia”, _Unpublished Working Paper._ Commissioned as part of the “Preventing Social Conflict and Promoting Social Cohesion in Forced Displacement Contexts” Series. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

> 8 Isabel Ruiz and Carlos Vargas-Silva (2021), “Refugee Return and Social Cohesion”, _Unpublished Working Paper._ Commissioned as part of the “Preventing Social Conflict and Promoting Social Cohesion in Forced Displacement Contexts” Series. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

> 9 Vincenzo Bove, Jessica De Salvatore and Leandor Elia (2021), “How does UN peacekeeping shape attitudes toward displacement and return for IDPs and host communities?”, _Unpublished Working Paper._ Commissioned as part of the “Preventing Social Conflict and Promoting Social Cohesion in Forced Displacement Contexts” Series. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

3