What is Development Creep?

Who Owns Kokoda? (Part 2)

(By Kora* / Direction and editing: Glenn Armstrong)

Looking out over the Trail, there is a point where the jungle falls silent. Veterans say it is the sound of memory. Trekkers say it is humility. Papua New Guineans say it is home. But increasingly, development professionals say it is a “platform.”

And there lies the problem.

Kokoda — once a solemn site of wartime sacrifice, national identity, and local custodianship — is slowly being reframed into something else: a convenient launch pad for every fashionable development agenda, from gender mainstreaming to climate resilience to market systems strengthening.

Useful agendas in their own right, yes. But on Kokoda, they are beginning to overshadow the core story of the Trail itself.

This phenomenon has a name: development creep.

It begins quietly. A small program on environmental protection. Then a youth-empowerment add-on. Then safeguarding requirements. Then governance components. Before long, the original purpose — heritage protection and historical education — becomes only one branch of a sprawling tree no one remembers planting.

And Kokoda is not alone.

Around the world, heritage sites are being “multi-purposed” into whatever donors are willing to fund this season. The result: mission drift, cultural dilution, and the soft displacement of local ownership.

For examples of “Development Creep” from around the world, see my blog: Creep or Plague?

https://smartshopper-png.blogspot.com/2025/11/creep-or-plague.html


TIMELINE 

How Kokoda Became a Development Platform

1942 — The Kokoda Campaign

  • A pivotal WWII struggle for PNG and Australia.

  • The Trail becomes a symbol of sacrifice, alliance, and national memory. 

1945–1992 — Local Custodianship

  • Villages maintain the Trail organically.

  • Memory is passed down through story, not policy.

  • No tangible benefits for village communities. 

  • Historic sites reclaimed by the jungle. 

1990s — Rise of Trekking/Pilgrimage Tourism

  • Interest grows in adventure/pilgrimage tourism + war history.

  • PNG communities begin benefiting directly. 

2004 — Kokoda Track Authority (KTA) Established

  • A necessary administrative body,

  • but also the beginning of external managerial layers. 

2010–2015 — Conservation & Environment Add-ons

  • Donors begin funding biodiversity protection, waste management, and ecotourism frameworks.

  • Heritage still central — but no longer alone. 

2015–2020 — Social Inclusion & Governance Branches

  • New projects integrate:

        - gender equity programs

        - youth leadership

        - community governance strengthening

        - safeguarding protocols 

2020–2024 — Full “Development Creep”

  • Kokoda is now used as a platform for:

        - climate adaptation

        - HIV awareness

        - human rights training

        - market access and livelihoods

        - cultural revitalisation

  • The core WWII narrative becomes one branch on a busy donor tree.

 2025 — “Who Owns Kokoda?”

  • Increasing public debate in PNG about whether heritage is being reframed according to donor priorities instead of community custodianship and national history.


THE CORE ISSUE

Who Decides the Purpose of a Heritage Site?

Development creep does not always come from malice. Most programmes are well-intentioned, and many bring real benefits.

But the risk is this:

When heritage becomes a delivery vehicle, the story loses sovereignty.

On Kokoda:

  • The memory of wartime sacrifice risks being overshadowed.
  • Local communities risk becoming beneficiaries rather than custodians.
  • The PNG–Australia shared history risks being reframed through donor vocabulary rather than cultural truth.

Heritage sites should not become the “Swiss Army knife” of development — useful for every agenda except their own.


WHERE TO FROM HERE?

A few principles could re-ground Kokoda:

1. Narrative First, Projects Second

All programs should be required to protect — not repurpose — the core WWII narrative.

2. Cultural Sovereignty

PNG communities must be recognised as primary custodians, not stakeholders in someone else’s framework.

3. Guardrails Against Mission Drift

A national policy could define:

  • what types of development work are appropriate on the Trail,
  • and which cross-sectoral agendas must remain offsite.

4. Shared Stewardship, Not Shared Control

Australia may fund development, but PNG must lead story ownership.


THE FINAL QUESTION

Kokoda belongs to PNG. Kokoda belongs to its villages. Kokoda belongs to the memory of those who fell.

But does Kokoda still belong to Kokoda?

That is the question we must keep asking — before the tree grows so many new branches that we forget its roots entirely.

Further Reading

https://smartshopper-png.blogspot.com/2025/11/creep-or-plague.html

https://smartshopper-png.blogspot.com/2025/11/who-owns-kokoda.html





 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Closer than you think

Ovu ga'hoe! Back cover reveal!

Ben Drums Up a New Website

Who Owns Kokoda?

Ricky Mitio's book for the ages