The End of Kafala?: Evaluating Recent Migrant Labor Reforms in Qatar

On January 16, 2020, the Ministry of the Interior in Qatar officially announced the implementation of Ministerial Decision no. 95, the latest reform to the country's foreign worker sponsorship laws, known in Arabic as the kafala system.¹ This new policy lifted the requirement to obtain an exit permit for nearly all of the non-Qatari expatriate population and provided a moment of renewed optimism for Qatar's migrant labor situation. International organizations, the media, and noncitizens workers stand to be affected by such legislation. For example, almost immediately after the reform was announced, local and international news sources hailed this reform as the "end of kafala."² The International Labour Organization (ILO), which has worked closely with the Qatari government on such reform, heralded the policy as a "momentous step forward in upholding the rights of migrant workers … mark[ing] the end of kafala in the country."³

Such framing, however, is misleading, as this reform alone certainly does not mark the end of Qatar's kafala system. The kafala system pertains to regulations that govern the entire migration cycle for all expatriates. From entry, legal resident status, remuneration, to eventual exit, all low- and highskilled workers and their families are subject to this system. This article addresses the effects of Ministerial Decision no. 95 by highlighting recent reform efforts and prominent critiques of the kafala system and proposes that engaging a formal network of vendors and loosening worker mobility would significantly aid the migration crisis.

The Kafala Status Quo

While the practice of kafala has historical roots in the Islamic world and in the pearl diving industry, today it is the central institution through which migrants are accounted for across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, including Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE).⁴ Nearly all foreigners find themselves subject to this sponsorship system in some way, which amounts to roughly 85 percent of Qatar's 2.6 million residents.⁵ The most pronounced feature of this system is that it ties each foreign worker directly to a specific employer-sponsor (kafeel), who may be a company or private citizen. The regulation of foreign residents is overseen by the Ministry of the Interior, though in reality it is the sponsor who dictates the terms of the migration process from start to finish.⁶

For example, the sponsor must first initiate an application with the Ministry of Interior for permission to bring non-Qatari labor into the country. This initial step locks the worker into a legal and economic relationship with the sponsor for the duration of the contract, which is usually two years. After entry, the sponsor must begin the process of acquiring a residence permit and health card. During this time, the sponsor is fully responsible for the migrant, providing not only salary but transportation, housing, airfare, and bureaucratic costs. Contract renewals, terminations, and access to future labor market mobility are also at the discretion of the sponsor. For example, should a migrant wish to change jobs, the worker must apply for a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the current sponsor. Even permission to leave the country, either temporarily or permanently, is in the hands of the sponsor.⁷ Given the sheer scope of the sponsorship apparatus, this latest 2020 policy will most certainly not make the kafala system obsolete. In that sense, the headlines referring to the reform as the "end of kafala" were, at the very least, exaggerated. However, this initially optimistic sentiment did reveal an enduring truth: the kafala system is in need of significant reform.

This revelation has become a matter of international debate since 2010, when the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) announced that Qatar would host the 2022 World Cup. Already home to a significant migrant labor population, the reality of building the infrastructure necessary to host the games—stadiums, hotels, metro, and so on—meant importing hundreds of thousands of additional workers. Very quickly, international scrutiny of the migrant situation increased and a number of human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, issued reports painting a dire...