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.
- 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
Post a Comment