BRICS 2025: A Risk-Based Assessment of Brazil’s Presidency and Strategic Transitions
Written by Elisa Garbil – 18.02.2025
The Rise of BRICS as a Strategic Actor
The BRICS, formally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, hence the name BRICS, and expanded in recent years to include additional members such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Iran, now represents a significant portion of global demographics and economic activity. Together, this ensemble accounts for nearly half of the world’s population and a considerable share of global GDP and trade.
The year 2025 marked a pivotal chapter in BRICS’ evolution, with Brazil assuming the rotating presidency of the bloc. Brazil’s leadership emphasised strengthening cooperation among Global South nations and consolidating BRICS as a platform for inclusive and sustainable global governance. Brazil’s strategic priorities under its chairmanship were designed not merely as agenda items, but as responses to growing global pressures in areas such as health, climate change, finance, technology governance, peace and security, and institutional cohesion. Listen to our episode with Mihaela Papa to learn more about the outcome of Brazil’s Presidency.
Brazil’s BRICS 2025 Presidency: A Strategic Framework
Priorities and Policy Architecture
Brazil’s presidency was structured around two core priorities: (1) strengthening Global South cooperation and (2) fostering BRICS partnerships for social, economic, and environmental development. Within these priorities, six key areas of focus were identified:
- Global Health Cooperation: Projects to promote sustainable development and equitable access to medicines and vaccines.
- Trade, Investment, and Finance: Reforms to financial markets and institutions with a focus on diversification and resilience.
- Climate Change: A BRICS Climate Leadership Agenda aimed at structural change in climate finance.
- Artificial Intelligence Governance: Frameworks for inclusive and responsible AI governance.
- Multilateral Peace and Security Architecture: Calls for reform in how global peace and security mechanisms operate.
- Institutional Development: Enhancing BRICS cohesion and process integration in the wake of expansion.
This set of objectives positioned Brazil’s leadership as a comprehensive attempt to reorient BRICS towards systemic issues that intersect economic stability, public welfare, and global governance legitimacy.
Risk Assessment: Global Governance and Institutional Exposure
Risk 1: Fragmented Multilateral Architecture
Firstly, a central risk in BRICS’ strategic ambitions lies in the fragmentation within global governance structures. Many of the priorities Brazil advanced, such as reforming financial markets, diversifying trade flows, and overhauling AI governance, inherently challenge existing global institutional norms, which have historically been dominated by Western powers. This creates friction between aspirations of the Global South and entrenched institutional power. The pursuit of a reformed multilateral peace and security architecture is particularly exposed. It presupposes willingness among a diverse set of actors to adapt global processes in the United Nations and other forums to reflect contemporary realities. Yet, consensus remains elusive, and the absence of structural mechanisms such as enforcement or arbitration within BRICS itself highlights vulnerability. The risk here is clear: if BRICS cannot institutionalise robust internal governance mechanisms, its influence on wider systems may be limited or fragmented.
Risk 2: Climate Finance and Implementation Gaps
Secondly, under Brazil’s leadership, the adoption of a BRICS Climate Leadership Agenda and commitment to a Leaders’ Framework Declaration on Climate Finance were significant milestones. These initiatives signal a strategic push to mobilise substantial financing – estimated in the trillions! – toward climate mitigation and adaptation in developing economies. However, strategic risk emerges when commitments outpace delivery mechanisms. The transition from declaration to action requires complex negotiations within international financial institutions and private capital markets. Unresolved questions about financial instruments, risk management for climate investments, and equitable allocation disproportionately impact vulnerable nations. If BRICS fails to operationalise its climate finance agenda, it risks eroding credibility among Global South partners who have vested interests in both climate action and economic growth.
Risk 3: Health Initiatives and Public Policy Diversification
Thirdly, the BRICS Partnership for the Elimination of Socially Determined Diseases reflects an ambitious health agenda centered on poverty-linked illnesses. While the initiative aligns with global health priorities and addresses deep socioeconomic vulnerabilities, the risk relates to policy diversification across highly heterogeneous health systems in BRICS member states. Without coordinated implementation frameworks and shared metrics for outcome evaluation, such programs risk becoming incoherent. Moreover, differing national health priorities and governance capacities may slow action. This echoes broader risk themes of misalignment between vision and operational reality within multinational frameworks.
Risk 4: Artificial Intelligence Governance and Digital Sovereignty
Finally, Brazil’s advocacy for inclusive AI governance institutions was a highlight of the 2025 agenda. The BRICS Leaders’ Declaration on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence was one of the major documents approved under Brazil’s presidency, explicitly targeting equitable access to AI technologies and resisting monopolistic control by technologically dominant nations.
The strategic risks inherent in this domain are multifaceted:
- Technological fragmentation: Competing standards and divergent regulatory approaches risk isolating markets and hindering interoperability.
- Geopolitical tensions: AI is not only a technical domain but also a geopolitical one, where national security priorities intersect with economic competitiveness.
- Implementation asymmetry: Capacity disparities within BRICS countries could translate into unequal adoption of governance frameworks.
Unless the BRICS addresses these risks through harmonised policy frameworks and cooperative systems, its AI governance initiatives may fail to shape global norms significantly.
Internal Structural Risks: Expansion and Institutional Coherence
BRICS’ expansion, which now includes a wider group of developing nations, enhances its demographic and economic heft. However, expansion also introduces structural risks. A broader membership spectrum translates to greater diversity in political interests, economic systems, and strategic priorities, as can be noticed by the European Union difficulty to agree on policies. Brazil’s prominence in steering 200 plus cooperation mechanisms in 2025, spanning hunger eradication, climate change, and emerging technologies, illustrates efforts toward functional coherence. However, sustaining these mechanisms beyond temporary presidential leadership is uncertain. Operational risks within BRICS pivot on this question of institutional continuity: if expanded membership remains loosely integrated, consensus-based decision-making could slow progress or produce diluted outcomes. This risk is amplified in negotiations that require unanimity or broad agreement across a heterogeneous group.
Geopolitical Risks: External Pressures and Strategic Realignment
Global South versus Western Power Structures
Brazil’s BRICS presidency highlighted the bloc’s potential role as a counterweight to Western dominance in economic governance and global policy norms. This positioning, underscored through declarations on finance, climate, and governance, also exposes BRICS to geopolitical pushback. Political risks arise when BRICS’ policy frameworks directly challenge the status quo, such as calls for reform of multilateral development banks or critiques of protectionist practices by Western states. The risk of diplomatic friction, trade-related countermeasures, or strategic counter-alignments must be factored into the bloc’s operational calculus. Brazil’s leadership stressed these elements, advocating for broader representation and greater legitimacy for emerging economies in institutions such as the IMF and the UN. Yet, such advocacy places BRICS at the crux of global turf battles where entrenched powers may resist rapid change.
Transition to India’s Leadership
At the conclusion of Brazil’s term, the symbolic ‘gavel’ was handed to India, initiating the BRICS presidency for 2026. This handover marks not only a ceremonial shift, but a strategic transition in focus and leadership style. India’s presidency priorities, centered on resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability, echo Brazil’s overarching themes but with nuanced emphasis on economic continuity and technological collaboration.
The strategic transfer of leadership also reflects deeper implications:
- Continuity risks: Ensuring Brazil’s agenda remains operationally embedded as India takes the helm requires strong institutional memory and well-defined implementation pathways.
- Priority recalibration: Transitioning priorities could involve adjustments to health, climate, and security frameworks, imposing strategic coherence risks if alignment across member states is weak.
- External expectations: As geopolitical dynamics evolve, India’s presidency will inherit global expectations for BRICS’ role in shaping economic governance and geopolitical balances.
India’s commitment to continuity reflects awareness of these risks, yet operationalising such continuity requires deliberate mechanisms for policy tracking, institutional support structures, and stakeholder engagement.
Risk in Implementation: Operational and Structural Barriers
Despite robust declarations and frameworks, translating BRICS policy pronouncements into actionable programs presents operational risks. These include:
- Coordination gaps: with over 200 cooperation mechanisms introduced, the risk of coordination inefficiencies increases, especially without central enforcement capacity.
- Resource constraints: mobilising adequate financial and technical resources across member states remains challenging, particularly for climate finance and AI ecosystem development.
- Governance alignment: member states’ individual regulatory environments and governance approaches may diverge, slowing harmonised action.
These barriers reaffirm that achieving BRICS’ strategic ambitions necessitates not just political consensus but durable operational platforms with accountability mechanisms.
Strategic Potential and Persistent Risks
The Brazilian presidency of BRICS in 2025 represented a defining moment for the bloc, emphasising inclusive governance, climate leadership, public health, and technological equity. Yet, as this assessment highlights, these policy ambitions entail substantial risks, such as structural, geopolitical, operational, and institutional risks. The transition to India’s presidency introduces opportunities for continuity and renewal, but also underlines the challenge of sustaining momentum across diverse strategic landscapes. BRICS’ future influence on global governance hinges upon mitigating internal fragmentation, operationalising climate finance and health frameworks, and navigating geopolitical sensitivities. In sum, the BRICS project embodies the aspirations of the Global South for greater agency in world affairs, but the pathway forward remains fraught with risks requiring thoughtful navigation, institutional reinforcement, and coherent implementation strategies.
