Arts and culture are not peripheral to peacebuilding – they are integral. Cultural practice functions as a form of social and institutional infrastructure, shaping how individuals and communities experience, navigate, and recover from conflict. 

Cultural actors operate in multiple roles: as narrators where truth is contested, as connectors where trust is fractured, as facilitators of expression where civic space is restricted, and as sense makers within uncertainty and complexity. They also function as archivists when memory is under attack and as innovators when institutions collapse, frequently stepping into roles that exceed any formal mandate. In doing so, they contribute to processes essential to peacebuilding, including recognition, dignity, social cohesion, and resilience.

This research shifts the focus from arts and culture as tools or interventions to arts and culture as practices embedded in communities, relationships, and lived realities across different contexts and stages of conflict.

Commissioned by the British Council, this research presents a comparative, practice-based analysis of how arts and culture operate in fragile and conflict-affected settings, and what their contribution is towards sustainable peace across different stages and types of conflict.

Drawing on in-depth case studies in Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, and Syria, alongside overview perspectives from the Baltic States, Colombia, and Northern Ireland, it brings together evidence from eleven countries and four continents. 

The research draws on interviews, field visits, focus groups, and desk research conducted in collaboration with local researchers and local offices. Combining literature and policy analysis with practice-based insights, the report seeks to understand what works, under what conditions and for whom, and where and why approaches may fall short.

Key findings

• Arts and culture are part of everyday survival in conflict. They help people make sense of violence and displacement and keep relationships and trust alive when formal systems fail. 
• Impact depends less on the art form and more on the outcome it creates. What matters is why an activity is done and for whom – does it restore dignity, support voice, build trust, connect people, or hold memory? 
• The same activity can help – or harm – depending on conditions. Risks include exposure, reinforcing power imbalances, and “visibility outpacing protection.” Trauma-informed practice, safeguarding, and community ownership are critical. 
• Local cultural actors already do this work, but often without protection or sustained funding. They can operate as “first response” infrastructure yet remain excluded from mainstream peace/security planning and budgets. 
• The gap is integration, not relevance. Culture may be acknowledged symbolically, but it is still largely missing from operational planning, funding, and the rooms where decisions are made.