University of Toronto
BRICS flags
BRICS Information Centre
Logo


2017 BRICS Xiamen Summit
Final Compliance Report

July 23, 2018

This compliance report assesses the compliance of the BRICS members over the period of 6 September 2017 and 5 July 2018. It assesses 10 priority commitments of the 125 made at the Xiamen Summit hosted by China on 3-5 September 2017. This report was prepared by the BRICS Research Group led by the Center for International Institutions Research of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) and the Global Governance Program at Trinity College in the University of Toronto.

Download the full report here.

We welcome feedback on this report! If you have any comment about our assessment, or if you know of any actions taken by a BRICS member between 6 September 2017 and 5 July 2018 that might affect that assessment, please contact us at brics@utoronto.ca


Introduction and Summary

The 2017 BRICS Xiamen Final Compliance Report, prepared by the BRICS Research Group (based at Trinity College in the University of Toronto and the Center for International Institutions Research of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration [RANEPA]), analyses compliance performance by BRICS countries with 10 selected priority commitments drawn from 125 commitments made by the leaders at the Xiamen Summit on 3-5 September 2017. The report covers actions taken by the BRICS countries during the period from 6 September 2017 to 5 July 2018.

Methodology and Scoring System

This report draws on the methodology developed by the G7 Research Group, which has been monitoring G7/8 compliance since 1996. The same methodology has been adopted for monitoring G20 performance since 2008. The use of this time-tested methodology provides for cross-institutional, cross-member and cross-issue consistency and thus allows compatibility and comparability of the compliance performance by different summit institutions and establishes a foundation for evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of these institutions.[1] The methodology uses a scale from −1 to +1, where +1 indicates full compliance with the stated commitment, −1 indicates a failure to comply or action taken that is directly opposite to the stated goal of the commitment, and 0 indicates partial compliance or work in progress, such as initiatives that have been launched but are not yet near completion and whose final results can therefore not be assessed. Each member receives a score of −1, 0 or +1 for each commitment. For convenience, the scientific scores reported in the tables in this summary have been converted to percentages, where −1 equals 0 and +1 equals 100%.[2]

Breakdown of Commitments

At Xiamen the leaders paid significant attention to the issues of information and communications technology (ICT), regional security, development and support to the least developed countries (LDCs) with special emphasis on Africa. They made the commitment to enhance joint BRICS research, development and innovation in ICT, to promote the most effective use of fossil fuels and wider use of gas, to promote the development of BRICS local currency bond markets and establish a BRICS local currency bond fund, and to improve surveillance capacity and medical services to combat infectious diseases. Members also pledged to promote BRICS industrial cooperation, including on industrial capacities and policies, new industrial infrastructure and standards, and among small, micro-and medium-sized enterprises. They committed to strengthen cooperation with Africa and help the continent to promote infrastructure development, and to support strengthening international cooperation against corruption, including through the BRICS Anti-Corruption Working Group. They agreed to standstill and rollback protectionist measures and to intensify cooperation in the Financial Action Task Force and similar regional bodies.

The commitments of the BRICS, as a group of major emerging economies, fall mainly into the areas relevant for the five countries (see Table 1). In particular, members’ priorities for stimulating domestic economic recovery are reflected in the large share of trade and development commitments. Decisions on international cooperation and the reform of international institutions, which remain at the core of the BRICS agenda, also constitute a substantial share at about 10% of the total. At the same time, each presidency strives to incorporate its own priorities in the agenda and can thus substantially influence the breakdown of commitments.

Selection of Commitments

For each compliance cycle (that is, the period between summits), the research team selects commitments that reflect the breadth of the BRICS agenda and the priorities of the summit’s host, while balancing the selection to allow for comparison with past and future summits.[3] The selection also takes into account the breakdown of issue areas and the proportion of commitments in each one. The primary criteria for selecting a priority commitment for assessment are the comprehensiveness and relevance to the summit, the BRICS and the world. Selected commitments must meet secondary criteria such as measurability and ability to comply within a year. The tertiary criteria include significance, as identified by relevant stakeholders in the host country and scientific teams. Of the total of 125 commitments made at the 2017 Xiamen Summit, the BRICS Research Group has selected ten priority commitments for its compliance assessment (see Table 2).

Compliance Scores

The overall compliance by commitment (79%) is lower than in previous year, but higher than the average score for all summits (75%). The highest level of compliance (+1 or 100%) was registered for several commitments in the areas of development (African infrastructure), ICT, macroeconomics (Industrialization), terrorism (Terrorist Financing), energy (Natural Gas), health (Surveillance and Medical Services). BRICS compliance performance for these commitments shows the success of implementation of decisions in key spheres of cooperation as well as growing role of BRICS countries in cooperation for development. They were followed by the commitment on trade (Antiprotectionism) at 80%. Lower scores were registered for three commitments: crime and corruption with 0 (50%), regional security with −0.20 (40%) and finance with −0.60 (20%).

The score for the commitment on finance is the lowest. It can be explained by the fact that this commitment implies the long-term process of establishing the BRICS local currency bond fund and internal measures on development of national currency bond market which are hard to implement.

Thus, for the period from 6 September 2017 to 5 July 2018, the BRICS countries achieved an average final compliance score of +0.58 (79%). The final compliance scores by commitment are contained in Table 3.

Compliance Trends

This is the sixth BRICS compliance report produced by the BRICS Research Group. The 2012 Delhi Summit, at +0.28 or 64%, was a dip between the 2011 Sanya and 2013 Durban summits both at +0.48 or 74%. The 2014 Fortaleza Summit achieved a score of +0.40 (70%), close to the average for all five summits assessed (75%). The average score for compliance with the Ufa Summit commitments was +0.56 or 78%. BRICS members demonstrated the highest compliance score for the Goa Summit — 89%. The final compliance score for Xiamen summit is 79%.

Notes

[1] Informal summitry institutions are defined as international institutions with limited membership, relatively low bureaucracy and reliance on open, flexible and voluntary approaches. Regular meetings of the heads of states and governments who engage on a wide range of international, regional and domestic politics stand at the pinnacle of such international arrangements, which involve many actors operating according to established procedures on two levels: domestic and international. Commitments contained in the collectively agreed documents are not legally-binding but their implementation is stimulated by peer pressure. Among such bodies engaged in global and regional governance are G7/G8, G20, BRICS, APEC and others.

[2] The formula to convert a score into a percentage is P=50×(S+1), where P is the percentage and S is the score.

[3] Guidelines for choosing priority commitments, as well as other applicable considerations, are available in the G8 Commitment/Compliance Coding and Reference Manual.


Table 1: Distribution of BRICS Commitments across Issue Areas, 2009-2017

Issue Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Energy 5 9 1 2         6
Finance   3 1     6 6 5 9
Climate change   1 6 3 1 1 1 1 3
Macroeconomic policy   1 5 1 5 7 6 4 4
Trade   3 5 9 4 4 5 2 6
International cooperation 1 2 5 3 6 8 30 7 21
Socioeconomic 1 1 3 2   7 5 2  
Development 1 5 1 3 10 4 4 2 11
Natural disasters 1 1 1            
Food and agriculture 3   1 1   1 17   5
Information and communications technology     2     1 17 3 12
Science and education 1 1 1     2 5    
Health     1 1   1 6 2 6
Human rights     1   1 2 5   2
Accountability     1            
Regional security 1   1 4 8 6 6 4 12
Terrorism     1 1 2 2 1 4 7
Culture   1       3 1 2 3
Sport   1              
International financial institution reform 1 2 1 2 9 8 3 2 5
Non-proliferation         1     1 2
Crime and corruption           4 10 3 8
Environment           1 1 1 3
Tourism             1    
Total 15 31 38 32 47 68 130 45 125

Table 2: 2017 BRICS Xiamen Summit Priority Commitments

  Issue Area Commitment
1 Trade: Antiprotectionism We recommit to our existing pledge for both standstill and rollback of protectionist measures and we call upon other countries to join us in that commitment
2 Development: African Infrastructure We reaffirm our commitment to strengthen cooperation with Africa and help the continent to promote infrastructure development
3 Macroeconomics: Industrialization We reaffirm our commitment to BRICS industrial cooperation, including on industrial capacities and policies, new industrial infrastructure and standards, and among small, micro and medium-sized enterprises (SMMEs), so as to jointly seize the opportunities brought about by the new industrial revolution and expedite our respective industrialization processes
4 Terrorism: Terrorist Financing We seek to intensify our cooperation in FATF and FATF-style regional bodies
5 Crime and Corruption: International Cooperation We support the strengthening of international cooperation against corruption, including through the BRICS Anti-Corruption Working Group, as well as on matters related to asset recovery and persons sought for corruption
6 Information and Communications Technology: Infrastructure and Connectivity We will enhance joint BRICS research, development and innovation in ICT including the Internet of Things, Cloud computing, Big Data, Data Analytics, Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and 5G and their innovative applications to elevate the level of ICT infrastructure and connectivity in our countries
7 Energy: Natural Gas We will work together to promote most effective use of fossil fuels and wider use of gas … which will contribute to the transformation toward a low emissions economy, better energy access, and sustainable development
8 Finance: Local Currency Bonds We agree to promote the development of BRICS Local Currency Bond Markets and jointly establish a BRICS Local Currency Bond Fund, as a means of contribution to the capital sustainability of financing in BRICS countries, boosting the development of BRICS domestic and regional bond markets, including by increasing foreign private sector participation, and enhancing financial resilience of BRICS countries
9 Regional Security: Iraq We congratulate the people and Government of Iraq for the recovery of Mosul and for the progress achieved in the fight against terrorism and reaffirm our commitment to Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and our support for Iraqi government and its people
10 Health: Surveillance and Medical Services We agree to improve surveillance capacity and medical services to combat infectious diseases, including Ebola, HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, as well as non-communicable diseases

Table 3: 2017 BRICS Xiamen Summit Compliance Scores

  Issue Areas Brazil Russia India China South Africa Average
1 Trade: Antiprotectionism 0 +1 0 +1 +1 +0.60 80%
2 Development: African Infrastructure +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1.00 100%
3 Macroeconomics: Industrialization +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1.00 100%
4 Terrorism: Terrorist Financing +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1.00 100%
5 Corruption: International Cooperation 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 50%
6 Information and Communications Technology: Infrastructure and Connectivity +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1.00 100%
7 Energy: Natural Gas +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1.00 100%
8 Finance: Local Currency Bonds −1 −1 0 0 −1 −0.60 20%
9 Regional Security: Iraq 0 0 0 0 −1 −0.20 40%
10 Health: Surveillance and Medical Services +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1.00 100%
  Average +0.50
75%
+0.60
80%
+0.60
80%
+0.70
85%
+0.50
75%
+0.58 79%

[back to top]

Research Team

Dr. Marina Larionova, Co-director, BRICS Research Group
Professor John Kirton, Co-director, BRICS Research Group
Brittaney Warren, Researcher, BRICS Research Group

University of Toronto Research Team

Alissa Xinhe Wang, Chair of Summit Studies, BRICS Research Group
Angela Min Yi Hou, Editor-in-Chief, BRICS Research Group
Renata Xiutong Ma, Director of Public Relations, BRICS Research Group

Country Specialists

Edward Ji Ho Kim, Brazil Country Specialist
Maria Zelenova, Russia Country Specialist
Ian Stansbury, China Country Specialist
Courtney Hallink, South Africa Country Specialist

Compliance Analysts

Flavian Berneaga
Wai Yan Chan
Jamie Huiyi Chen
Lucia Dafana-Mabika
Andres Dovale
Benjamin Falconer
Jerry Gao
Dion Hu
Kelley Prendergast
Adolphus Lau
Hongxi Li
Juntian Li
Tracy Luong
Mary-Anne Meersabeer
Ramsha Naveed
Anton Rizor
Marina Aragao Santos
Dwitipriya Sanyal
Tarun Sharatkumar
Bruno Siqueria
Wing Ka Tsang
Renze Wang
Tiffany Wang
Anushree Warrier
Aaron Wilson
Sisi Zhu

RANEPA Research Team

Irina Popova, Moscow Team Leader
Alexander Ignatov
Andrei Sakharov
Andrey Shelepov

Compliance Analysts

Anastasia Kataeva
Anna Tsvetkova
Nikita Efremov
Vadim Agroskin

[back to top]