# **<mark>Ayadhiya Pact</mark>** **<u><mark>of Honor(2018)</mark></u>**

The Ayadhiya Pact of Honor was more inclusive than other LPAs, since the peace process included civil society, youth activists and women activists as signatories and also gave them a role during the post-signature monitoring process. IDPs accused of ISIL affiliation were represented by their tribal leaders. The Pact affirmed both tribal and judicial structures as legitimate for dealing with ISIL suspects. The Pact established criteria for IDP return and mandated a Tribal Council (Committee) to assess IDPs against that criteria and give (or deny) approval to return, meaning that the Ayadhiya Committee was more involved in IDP return than other LPAs. There was a slight improvement in the security and social cohesion context after the LPA was signed, although conduciveness of safe return remained low, with threats towards IDPs, physical attacks, mistrust and concern over tribal tension reported in the post-agreement period.<sup>78</sup>

# **<u><mark>Covenant for Peaceful Coexistence in Zummar (2020)</mark></u>**

The Zummar Covenant is less operational and more principle-based than other LPAs and also has a comparatively wider mandate. IDPs accused of ISIL affiliation were represented by their tribal leaders, and civil society and women were not included in negotiations. The dialogue sessions preceding signature identified land disputes as a key source of instability in Zummar, and the Covenant therefore specified land ownership disputes as within the mandate of the Council to solve. Yet the Covenant offered no concrete information on the type of disputes or authority of the Council. The Agreement established a Committee titled the ‘Community Dialogue Council for Conflict Resolution,’ to address local conflict related to property disputes, IDP return, tribal conflicts, and conflicts over resources and services, affording it a wider mandate than other Committees. The indicator concerning daily public life slightly deteriorated after the LPA, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.<sup>79</sup>

# **<u><mark>Tal Afar Covenant (2020)</mark></u>**

The Tal Afar Covenant had a relatively strong focus on security. IDPs accused of ISIL affiliation were represented by their tribal leaders, and while civil society actors did not participate in negotiations, female activists did. There was a strong focus on cooperation with security authorities to identify ISIL suspects, and on the role of security actors to vet potential returnees and permit or refuse their return. The pre-existing Local Peace Committee in Tal Afar was mandated to monitor and implement the Covenant. Overall, the context appeared to improve after signature, including improvements to blocked returns, social cohesion, and movement restrictions.<sup>80</sup> reported before the LPA was signed and absent 3 months post-signature, and no concerns over revenge attacks or tribal tension reported, according to IOM’s Integrated Location Assessment 4.

78 According to IOM’s DTM Master List, 18,984 IDPs had returned by roughly the time the Ayadhiya LPA was signed, and this increased to 25,086 by 12 months post-signature. Context indicators indicated poor return conditions: the rate of physical violence, threats, mistrust and returnees ‘feeling unwelcome’ decreased within 12 months, but still remained, according to IOM’s Integrated Location Assessment 4.

79 According to IOM’s DTM Master List, the rate of IDP return increased only marginally following the signature of the LPA in Zummar (likely influenced by the timing of the LPA and the fact that many IDPs had returned already.) Prior to signature, 95,124 IDPs had returned, and this increased to 97,410 after 12 months. Context indicators did not show significant change, with IOM’s Return Index showing similar rates of concern over revenge attacks and ethnoreligious tension pre- and post-signature.

80 According to IOM’s DTM Master List, the rate of IDP return increased only marginally following the signature of the LPA in Tal Aafar (likely influenced by the timing of the LPA and the fact that many IDPs had returned already.) Prior to signature, 169,686 IDPs had returned, which increased to 172,098 after signature. Context indicators such as blocked return, social cohesion and movement restriction improved according to IOM’s Return Index 11.

16