leaders and government authorities (and to a lesser extent, actors such as mukhtars.) Tribal leaders typically understood that it was their role to meet with constituents (i.e. people who belonged to their tribe) who were also civil society actors, academics, teachers, or activists, in order to discuss the proposed terms – similar to a track-two process – and the responsible tribal leader would then present community views during the negotiations. As one tribal leader in Yathrib explained: _The head of the tribal leaders, me and some local [people] from Yathrib like researchers, doctors, teachers... initiated the agreement negotiations. ... The [head] Sheikh played a big role by discussing the issue, and explaining more to the other tribes, encouraging us that we should vote for this agreement and the aim is to create a safe environment after return_ .<sup>95</sup> Sometimes the role of engaging civil society actors in a track-two process was taken on by a government representative (typically local authorities such as the Mayor) although even in that case, tribal leaders remained important constituents and the role of civil society actors was downplayed. A government official in Mahalabiya noted that: _My role (in the process) was assembling a group of tribal leaders, activists, and representatives from different areas, and we agreed on which items to add to the agreement..._ _<mark>the most influential person was [government representative] and also the support of the tribal leaders ...</mark> voting [took place] amongst the representatives of the community layers ... it was inclusive because we included all the tribes and the governmental side too._<sup>96</sup> The absence of diverse actors from the LPA peace process did not appear to affect immediate conditions for safe IDP return, with contextual indicators giving mixed results. Of the three LPAs that did not engage diverse actors, both Tikrit and Anbar witnessed high rates of IDP return<sup>97</sup> and both locations showed marked contextual changes: in Tikrit, there were no reports of discrimination or conflict between IDPs and host communities post-signature, a notable finding given the high rates of tension and threat of violence reported pre-signature,<sup>98</sup> and in Anbar, threats, blocked returns and ‘returnees feeling unwelcome’ all reduced to zero within 6 months of signature in the provincial capital of Ramadi, with no concerns over revenge attacks or tribal tension were reported. Of the five LPAs that did involve women, youth or civil society actors in the peace process, conduciveness of safe return remained low in Ayadhiya, where threats towards IDPs, physical attacks, mistrust and concern over tribal tension remained relatively high in the post-agreement period despite the LPA

> 95 Interview with Tribal Leader #1, Yathrib, 26 April 2021.

> 96 Interview with political representative, Mahalabiya, 12 May 2021.

> 97 In Tikrit, 1,500 IDPs returned within 2 months of the LPA signature, and 63,360 IDPs returned within 6 months, according to IOM’s DTM Master List. For Anbar, 405,696 IDPs had returned to Ramadi by roughly the same time as the LPA was signed, and this increased incrementally, with 478,596 IDPs returning within 12 months of signature, according to IOM’s DTM Master List.

> 98 See footnote 88 above.

22