'We can't afford to lose international visitors': Tourism expert warns against renaming Kruger National Park
The Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature’s adoption of a motion to rename the Kruger National Park to Skukuza National Park has triggered immediate warnings over the massive financial and economic consequences for South Africa’s key tourism sector.
Tourism experts are cautioning that the substantial costs of rebranding, coupled with the potential loss of international goodwill, could undermine one of the country’s most vital economic engines.
The motion, which was brought forward by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and adopted by the provincial legislature earlier this week, aims to replace the name of former Transvaal president Paul Kruger with Skukuza.
Financial Blow: The Cost of Rebranding a Global Brand
Prof. Elmarie Slabbert, director of the research unit Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society (TREES) at the North-West University (NWU), emphasized the severity of the financial risk.
“The change would also bring significant financial implications. A comprehensive rebranding campaign would be required, including international marketing, digital platforms, advertising, and updates for tour operators,” Slabbert warned.
She stressed that this financial hit would not be limited to the national park itself: “This ripple effect would not only impact the park itself but also everyone who promotes it, both locally and globally. The cost would be substantial, and it could take years for a new identity to become established worldwide.”
Slabbert explained that the name Kruger carries an immense and irreplaceable global brand value that South Africa risks forfeiting.
“Kruger is arguably one of the most famous wildlife brands in the world. It is mentioned alongside names such as the Serengeti and Yellowstone, which highlights its immense brand value and global recognition among international visitors and tourists,” she stated.
According to the professor, renaming it would, “without doubt, dilute that value in the short to medium term,” as a new name would take considerable time to gain the same level of international recognition.
Threat to economy and jobs
With tourism contributing about 8.8% to South Africa’s GDP and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs, experts argue the country cannot afford the disruption.
Slabbert delivered a clear-cut caution against any action that could jeopardize foreign revenue: “It is important to stress that we cannot afford to lose international visitors at this point, nor can we risk creating confusion around one of our flagship attractions. Renaming would almost certainly lead to short-term brand loss, visitor uncertainty, and broader economic costs across the tourism sector.”
She concluded by questioning the timing, given that South Africa’s international tourist numbers have not yet fully returned to pre-Covid-19 levels.
The legal and political hurdle
Despite the political victory in the provincial house, legal and opposition voices have been quick to dismiss the motion as “political posturing”. They assert that the provincial legislature has no legal jurisdiction to change the name of a national park, which is a national asset requiring a formal, extensive, and multi-ministerial process involving the South African Geographical Names Council (SAGNC) before any change can be finalized.
The battle now moves to the national sphere, where the financial risks will form a central argument against the change.
jonisayi.maromo@iol.co.za
IOL News