process showing the highest engagement with civil society, women, and youth;<sup>99</sup> context indicators remained relatively poor (without change) in Mahalabiya,<sup>100</sup> and context indicators showed improvements in Yathrib<sup>101</sup> and Tal Afar.<sup>102</sup> While there are a myriad of reason why people may not report instances of violence or threats (including fear, or perceived pressure to give socially-desirable answers), and it is not possible to isolate the LPA as a source of contextual change, the available data does not suggest that the inclusion of diverse actors led to higher rates of, or safer returns.

An important contextual factor that may explain the limited influence of civil actors over the LPA process, as well as low value placed on their participation by government and tribal actors involved in the LPA negotiations, was that most LPAs were signed in an environment characterized by insecurity, a fractured security sector, and instances of revenge attacks and ongoing military operations in some areas. In this context, opportunity for community members to influence issues related to security was highly constrained, particularly high-profile issues like the return of persons with perceived ISIL affiliation. Rather, these issues are typically dealt with by a collection of security actors who often compete for dominance, alongside government officials and tribal leaders.<sup>103</sup> However, LPAs that engaged civil society and women appeared more likely to support the sustainability of IDP return, and the long-term success of the LPA, in three ways. First, the return of families suspected of ISIL affiliation took place gradually; some families with ‘lower’ levels of perceived affiliation who were less fearful of revenge attacks returned even while negotiations were ongoing, encouraged by the fact that the peace process had been initiated.<sup>104</sup> This gradual approach helped to build trust in the return process, both at the community level (that the return of families would not destabilize their community) and with IDPs with perceived ISIL affiliation (that they were safe from revenge attacks). Community members such as civil society and women played a vital role as the peace process advanced, as they shared information amongst their networks about the existence of the LPA and how it was being implemented.<sup>105</sup> This helped to generate momentum and encourage additional returns; as a political representative in Zummar noted:

> 99 According to IOM’s Integrated Location Assessment 4, the rate of physical violence, threats, mistrust and returnees ‘feeling unwelcome’ decreased within 12 months, but still remained.

> 100 Context indicators such as blocked return, social cohesion and movement restriction remained similar, according to IOM’s Return Index 12.

> 101 Context indicators in Yathrib showed marked improvement, 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, according to IOM’s Integrated Location Assessment 4.

> 102 Context indicators in Tal Afar such as blocked return, social cohesion and movement restriction improved according to IOM’s Return Index 11.

> 103 For governorate level mappings of actors involved in the return process, as well as specific challenges see: RWG Return Process Mapping series available at: http://iraqrecovery.org/RWG. For example, Anbar governorate mapping available at: http://iraqrecovery.org/Files/2051/2191.pdf shows the multiplicity of competing security actors, governmental actors and tribal leaders involved in the process of return.

> 104 Interview with thematic expert, Erbil, 20 May 2021.

> 105 Nonviolent Peaceforce (2020).

23