BRICS Adopts New Delhi Declaration After May Split

The 18th BRICS Summit closed on 12 September 2026 with leaders unanimously adopting the New Delhi Declaration, a 140-paragraph text that came after a strained period for the bloc. In May, a BRICS foreign ministers' meeting in the Indian capital ended without a joint statement because members could not agree on language over the war in West Asia.

The declaration carries added weight because the United States had already threatened tariffs of up to 10 percent on BRICS members over what President Donald Trump called anti-American policies. The leaders used the text to address UN Security Council and IMF reform, de-dollarisation, sanctions and carbon border tariffs, the Pahalgam terror attack, Gaza, energy security, WTO paralysis, AI governance and conflicts from Sudan to Syria.

The bloc frames these positions from a position of collective size: its members represent roughly half the world's population, 40 percent of global GDP and 26 percent of global trade. China will take over the BRICS chairship in 2027, which makes this declaration a baseline for the next phase of institution-building.

Inside the Declaration: What It Changes on Currency, UN Reform and AI

De-dollarisation: a calibrated compromise, not a break with the dollar

The declaration tasks the BRICS Payment Task Force with continuing work on cross-border payment interoperability and supporting trade settlements and investments in local currencies. But the text explicitly says there is no one-size-fits-all approach. That is not incidental wording: it reflects the bloc's internal split between members that want to push de-dollarisation faster and others more cautious about dismantling ties to the US financial system.

For businesses, this suggests a gradual expansion of local-currency settlement options rather than a common BRICS currency or an immediate alternative to dollar clearing.

UN Security Council and IMF reform: the institutional push

The declaration backs China and Russia as permanent Security Council members and reiterates support for Brazil and India to play a greater role, including on the Security Council. On IMF governance, it calls for the 16th General Review of Quotas to enter into force without delay and for a 17th review that shifts voting power toward emerging economies while protecting the poorest members' quota shares.

The stated rationale is that quota shares should reflect countries' relative positions in the global economy. That positions BRICS as a bloc pressing for reform through existing institutions, not abandoning them.

What the declaration does not say: Ukraine is absent by name

One of the most telling omissions is the Russia-Ukraine war. The text refers only generically to conflicts in many parts of the world and rising military spending, while naming Sudan, Syria and Lebanon. That is consistent with consensus-based drafting among members with opposing positions on the war, but it also shows the limits of what BRICS can say collectively.

Tariffs, sanctions and energy: the Trump shadow and West Asia risk

The declaration condemns unilateral sanctions and carbon border adjustment mechanisms without naming any country, a signal aimed at Western trade measures while avoiding direct escalation. It also stresses that energy flows, global trade and supply chains through West Asia must remain open, and calls for protecting critical energy infrastructure, including cross-border assets.

That language is a direct response to the disruptions BRICS energy producers and importers have faced from the West Asia war and sanctions over the past year. It does not create new enforcement power, but it gives member governments a shared political position to invoke in bilateral disputes.

AI governance becomes a formal BRICS pillar

The leaders committed to implementing the BRICS Leaders' Statement on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence and cited India's AI Impact Summit in February 2026 and the World AI Conference in Shanghai. AI now sits alongside trade and finance as a core pillar of BRICS cooperation, with parallel commitments on cybersecurity and cross-border scam networks.

What the Declaration Means for Traders, Exporters and AI Firms

For businesses with exposure to the bloc's agenda, the declaration creates a policy direction rather than immediate legal change. The practical implications are specific to trade, payments and AI.

  • Exporters facing EU carbon border levies: The declaration opposes carbon border adjustment mechanisms, but does not change EU law. Companies in steel, cement, aluminium and fertilisers should model how the EU's CBAM phase-in affects exports from India, China and Brazil, and prepare trade-remedy or supply-chain documentation accordingly.
  • Firms using West Asia energy or shipping routes: The text's call to keep energy flows and civilian infrastructure open is political support, not protection. Importers and energy buyers should test contingency routing and contractual force-majeure clauses because the declaration does not bind any party to the conflict.
  • Banks and payment providers with BRICS clients: The Payment Task Force's mandate on local-currency settlement and interoperability is real but explicitly has no one-size-fits-all approach. Financial institutions can prepare by reviewing correspondent-banking and local-currency clearing options in Brazil, India, China and Russia, rather than expecting a single BRICS payment rail soon.
  • AI and cybersecurity vendors: AI governance is now a formal BRICS pillar tied to the February 2026 India AI Impact Summit and the Shanghai World AI Conference. Companies selling to BRICS governments or large enterprises should expect procurement and compliance questions to increasingly reference those forums' outcomes, especially on scam networks and cybersecurity.
  • Governments and investors tracking IMF reform: The push for entry into force of the 16th quota review and a 17th review toward emerging markets is a medium-term governance shift. It matters most for sovereign borrowers and funds exposed to IMF programme conditionality, though no date is set for completion.

Risk & Opportunity Assessment

Commercial RiskMediumThe declaration condemns unilateral sanctions and carbon border adjustment mechanisms while promoting local-currency settlement. This signals friction for companies whose supply chains or customers straddle BRICS and Western markets, though the text creates no immediate legal change.
Competitive RiskMediumFormalising AI governance and cross-border payment interoperability as BRICS pillars may advantage platforms and standards anchored in China, India and other member states, but the no one-size-fits-all language limits coordinated momentum.
Regulatory RiskMediumThe push for WTO Appellate Body restoration, IMF quota reform and opposition to carbon border tariffs sets up a policy clash with Western institutions, but BRICS has no direct regulatory authority over the EU or the United States.
Reputation RiskLowThe omission of Ukraine by name while condemning other conflicts could draw criticism from Western governments and civil society, but the declaration's consensus format makes this expected rather than reputationally damaging for individual members.
Technology DisruptionMediumAI governance now sits alongside trade and finance as a core BRICS pillar, and reference to the India AI Impact Summit and Shanghai World AI Conference suggests emerging standards could develop outside Western-led forums.
Commercial OpportunityHighThe Payment Task Force's continued work on local-currency trade settlement, plus the bloc's emphasis on critical-mineral supply chains and energy infrastructure, creates concrete openings for financial, energy and technology providers serving BRICS markets.