negotiations. The context after the Tikrit Peace Accords improved and become more conducive of safe return, and returns took place at a very high rate following the LPA.<sup>74</sup> **<u><mark>Covenant of Anbar (2016 and 2018)</mark></u>** The Anbar Covenant is the only LPA whose terms have been revised. Neither the original 2016 Covenant nor the 2018 Covenant included IDPs accused of ISIL affiliation in negotiations directly; however, they were represented by their tribal leaders. Civil society and women were not included in either process. The 2016 Covenant focused on punishing accused persons via tribal mechanisms, while the revised 2018 Covenant committed to refer tribesmen accused of ISIL affiliation to the state legal system for prosecution. The 2016 Covenant established (and the 2018 Covenant remandated) a Committee headed by tribal leaders and government officials to monitor implementation and take the lead in reviewing decisions made by government actors to permit (or deny) the return of ISIL-affiliated families. The context after the LPA appears to have improved in Ramadi city and seems to be more conducive of safe return.<sup>75</sup>

# **<mark>Declaration for Southwest Kirkuk (2017)</mark>**

The Declaration for Southwest Kirkuk was significantly more securitized than other LPAs. IDPs accused of ISIL affiliation were represented by their tribal leaders, and civil society and women were included by the end of negotiations. The Declaration dealt primarily with issues of security and justice and committed to using state institutions not tribal mechanisms. A central Committee was established (comprised of tribal leaders, security actors, officials) and worked with regional (localized) Committees to pursue security-related objectives. The central Committee was responsible to identify ISIL suspects and refer them to the state judicial system, and the regional committees were tasked to prepare evidence of ISIL crimes and cooperate with local security actors. There is no reliable context data available regarding context changes as the agreement was signed while ISIL was still in power; however, after the area was retaken from ISIL, the agreement and context appeared to support safe IDP return to some degree.<sup>76</sup>

# **<mark>Peaceful Coexistence</mark>** **<u><mark>and Stabilization Agreement for Yathrib (2018)</mark></u>**

IDPs accused of ISIL affiliation were represented by their tribal leaders and did not engage directly in negotiations. Civil society was present at the signing and was given a role in the Committee postsignature. 11% of signatories were women. The Yathrib Agreement addressed issues related to security and justice, and focused on preventing retaliation via tribal justice (including collective punishments. The Agreement established a Committee comprised of religious leaders, community members, government actors and NGOs mandated to meet regularly to resolve conflict peacefully. However, this Committee does not appear to play a role in the return of IDPs or engagement with security or judicial actors in determining ISIL affiliation. The context after the Yathrib LPA seemed to improve and become more conducive of safe return.<sup>77</sup> 74 According to IOM’s DTM Master List, 1,500 IDPs returned within 2 months of the Tikrit LPA signature, and 63,360 IDPs returned within 6 months. No incidents of discrimination or conflict between IDPs and host communities was registered by the IOM Integrated Location Assessment 1 during this period.

75 By the time the Anbar Covenant was signed, IDP return had taken place at a high level: according to IOM’s DTM Master List, 405,696 IDPs had returned to the provincial capital 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. Context indicators show notable change, with threats, blocked returns and ‘returnees feeling unwelcome’ all reducing to zero in Ramadi within 6 months of signature, and no concerns over revenge attacks or tribal tension reported, according to IOM’s Integrated Location Assessment 4.

76 According to IOM’s DTM Master List, within 6 months of the Southwest Kirkuk LPA signature, IDP returns increased from 3,000 (at 3 months post-signature) to 22,248 (at 6 months post-signature). No context indicators were available due to lack of systematic data collection during that period.

77 According to IOM’s DTM Master List, 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. Context indicators showed marked improvement, with threats between tribal groups, blocked IDP return, and returnees ‘feeling unwelcome’ 15