1.      Introduction

Annette Kliemann welcomed the participants to the in-person meeting with the objective to discuss the practical implications of the second phase of the UK’s import regime for EU agri-food imports, the Border Target Operating Model, BTOM.

2.      Presentation

The EU Delegation was interested in hearing the experiences of Member States and the Chambers with the introduction of the second phase of the BTOM, under which the UK introduced sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls for medium-risk animal products, plants and plant products.

Topics of particular interest were handling of border controls, IT systems as well as the financial impact of the Common User Charge levied on EU agri-food imports entering the UK via the government-run Dover Port or the border control post Sevington.

3.    Discussion

Member States’ delegates and the representatives of the Chambers shared the following experiences.

There was a converging view that the main challenge of the UK SPS border controls are the costs of the Common User Charge and the lack of transparency by the UK government when announcing e.g. updates on border controls rates, on charges or on the risk categorisation of EU import products. Colleagues agreed that the resulting uncertainty constitutes a significant problem for European suppliers, exporters and wholesalers. Higher costs for obtaining health certificates in the Member States, difficulties to plan ahead financially, complications with UK IT systems result in overall higher administration and export costs and might ultimately lead some suppliers to discontinue providing the UK market. Most Member States – but there were exceptions – reported that they did not hear about major delays at UK borders during the last 2 weeks. They rather described incidents of border holdups as ‘teething problems’.

However, delegates of Member States pointed out that currently the UK operates a very light touch regime at borders with a low control rate. When border checks will be scaled up, more significant delays could occur. This would be a serious problem for fresh produce deliveries, but also with respect to the legal maximum working time of drivers. Ultimately, delays would have an impact on costs.

Border Delays/IT problems

  • Most Member States reported only minor border delays, but confirmed that there were IT problems last weekend, as also reported by the UK government and picked up by the Guardian. Some Member States and Chambers reported that communication between the HMRC customs sytems (CDS) and DEFRA’s SPS IT systems (IPAFFS) was flawed. This can result in border delays, as trucks will be called for actual physical checks, if the customs and SPS documents do not match. Other Member States reported that the pre-notification in IPAFFS (the UK’s pre-notification system for imports) resulted in frequent error messages.
  •  One Member State reported significant problems at border due to the type of import product that requires a larger number of common health certificates (CHED) and resulted in border checks with sometimes delay up to 30 hours. Another Member State reported problems with 4 lorries delivering hatching eggs, which were delayed for up to 5 hours and had to be un- and re-loaded. Hatching eggs should be kept at a stable temperature.

Costs

  • Many Member States pointed to higher costs resulting in particular from the Common User Charge. The products in a lorry often originate from various suppliers and/or will be delivered to various UK buyers. This means that multiple CHEDs are necessary. As the Common User Charge is calculated per line of consignment for the single CHED, despite the cap of 5 lines with a maximum of £145 per single CHED, suppliers have to pay multiple times the maximum amount if their shipments require several CHEDs.
  • One Member State shared the experience of a customs agent who calculated £7000 to 8000 higher cost per month for his client. This roughly matches the additional costs for European exporters, as reported in the UK press. These costs result from paying the Common User Charge, but also include the costs of obtaining health certificates from EU Member States veterinaries.
  • Increased personnel costs: Other Member States reported further additional export costs due to the need to employ more staff to fill out notifications in IPAFFS.

Risk categorisation

  • Risk categorisation and obtaining clarity whether a product is considered ‘medium risk’ was identified as another ongoing problem. E.g. one Member State explained recent difficulties to distinguish between composite and compound products. Defra updated its website on this distinction on 15 April, but the distinction is complex, even for experts.
  • Member States appreciated the willingness to help from DEFRA in answering BTOM related questions, but pointed out that sometimes the answers take too much time. One Member State reported that for a product that has a shelf life of three months, one month might already be used up for organising health certificates and other border related administration.

Transparency

  • Many Member States raised issues linked to lack of transparency or unprecise information. For some time there had been confusion on the risk categorisation of fruit and vegetables (medium risk products, but currently treated as low risk). Member States recently learnt that the easement period to treat fruits and vegetables as “low risk” would continue until 31 January 2025. However, it is still unclear how three products (e.g. leaves of spinacia oleracea) that were recently categorised as medium risk will be controlled: do they follow the rules for medium risk A products as of today, or only as of 31 January 2025?
  • Member States also reported unhappiness of their stakeholders on the fact that first monthly invoices for the Common User Charge will be sent 12 weeks late. The resulting uncertainty on what the exact costs for a shipment will be, is highly unsatisfactory for suppliers. It also makes it currently impossible for the chain to decide on a division of these costs, e.g. between a EU wholesale exporter and a UK wholesale importer.
  • Member States also observe that the handling of incoming lorries varies across the border control posts. A suggestion would be for DEFRA to develop a minimum check-list that could be published and applied uniformly to all Border Control Posts.

Going forward

  • Many Member States expressed concerns on the envisaged upscaling of checks, for which the UK government has not communicated any time-line and which could result in border delays. Apart from being problematic for some import products, e.g. fresh produce, this can also result in other issues and costs. In particular, longer border delays may not be compatible with the legal maximum working time of drivers, who would have to wait before continue their journey.