The Kruger National Park is here to stay

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) has confirmed that no name change has been authorised for the Kruger National Park, and the Minister has no intention of ever approving such.

In September, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) introduced a motion in the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature to change the name of Kruger National Park to Skukuza National Park  

The EFF said that the name Kruger, from former president Paul Kruger, is named after a “vicious racist who sits as the pride of Afrikaner exceptionalism, invasion and land theft.”

This has sparked fierce cultural and historical debate, with opponents warning that it would cost millions and hurt tourism in South Africa.

In response to the increased attention, the DFFE said that there has been no amendment to the name of the Kruger National Park under Section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act.

“No notice has been published in the Government Gazette to alter the name, and no such change has been approved by the Minister. The park remains legally and officially the Kruger National Park,” said the DFFE.

In terms of the Act, the Department said that only the Minister has the legal authority to assign or modify the name of a national park.

“There is nothing in progress to change the name of the Kruger National Park and I certainly have no intention of approving any request,” said Minister Dr Dion George.

Schedule 2 of the Act lists all national parks and their official names, and Kruger National Park appears under Item 11.

Any proposed name change must follow a formal legislative process, including public consultation and publication of a notice in the Government Gazette.

No such process has been initiated as of 23 October 2025.

The big name change debate

Rachel Nxele, Vice Chairperson of the South African Tourism Services Association (SATSA), recently appointed to the board of SANParks, recently told Newsday that changing the name would be expensive and damaging to tourism.

“Changing it would confuse international markets, erase decades of marketing value, and require the travel trade to reprint brochures, redesign itineraries, and reconfigure booking platforms, at the risk of redirecting demand to competitors like the Serengeti or Okavango Delta.”

The rebranding process, from signage to uniforms, to digital systems and global campaigns, would cost “hundreds of millions of rands,” she said.

To complete this, SANParks would be forced to redirect funding away from conservation, anti-poaching and community development.

At the same time, Nxele warned that politically charged changes of this nature could create perceptions of instability, undermining tourist confidence.

North West University Professor Elmarie Slabbert, who is the director of the research unit Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society, agreed.

“Kruger is arguably one of the most famous wildlife brands in the world. It is mentioned alongside names such as the Serengeti and Yellowstone,” she said,

“Renaming it would, without doubt, dilute that value in the short to medium term, as it would take considerable time for a new name to gain the same level of international recognition.”

With these costs aside, Slabbert agreed that the name, Skukuza National Park, might resonate more strongly with local communities, which is an important consideration. 

Slabbert stressed, however, that South Africa currently cannot afford to lose international visitors and cannot risk creating confusion around flagship attractions. 

“Renaming would almost certainly lead to short-term brand loss, visitor uncertainty, and broader economic costs across the tourism sector.”