By Karin Costa Vazquez

As the BRICS group enters its second decade， the collective is now ready to consolidate its early achievements. In this context， the leaders of Brazil， Russia， India， China， and South Africa met virtually on September 9 for their 13th summit under Indias chairship， themed Cooperation for Continuity， Consolidation and Consensus. The situation in Afghanistan and its impact on the region， the reform of the multilateral system， the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic， as well as vaccine production and distribution topped the agenda of talks.

Achievements and challenges

In its first decade of existence， the BRICS was partially successful in pushing for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank quota redistribution. The five economies also offered an outside option to the international financial order through the creation of the New Development Bank （NDB） and the Contingency Reserve Agreement for the provision of infrastructure finance and liquidity to emerging and developing economies.

The group is also expected to advance a common agenda that stresses not only continuity， but also a positive transformation for its five members and the world on issues such as post-pandemic recovery， the transition to a low-carbon economy， and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Yet， the broader setting in which the BRICS grouping operates challenges the full realization of its potential.

The stagnation of the Russian and South African economies and Brazils economic and political crisis， aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic， have stalled BRICS countries attempts to take on a more significant role on the global stage. The India-China border standoff and broader competition in the Indo-Pacific have further challenged the balance within the group at a time when its original ambition to become a facilitator of alternative voices in global governance is questioned.

Against this new backdrop， the BRICS are transitioning from a concerted modus operandi （e.g.， club， bloc， coalition and community） to bilateral arrangements among the five members. This so-called bilateralization of intraBRICS relations would allow each member to pursue transnational and interstate interests whenever they overlap with one another while still benefiting from being part of the cluster when collective action is more desirable. Nevertheless， while it does give countries more flexibility， it also hinders consensus building and， most importantly， concrete action at the multilateral level.