Across the world, Customs administrations and border authorities are being asked to manage rising volumes of shipments, increasingly complex threats, and more agile criminal networks, often without being granted additional resources. In such an environment, risk management is not a theoretical concept. It determines what is stopped, what is cleared, and what is missed.

But to be effective and efficient, risk management cannot rely solely on public authorities. Industry must accept its share of responsibility, improve data quality and cooperate with enforcement agencies to enable them to sharpen their targeting methods and allocate resources more effectively. Collaboration does not reduce Customs control. It strengthens it.

The experience in the United Kingdom, through cooperation between the UK Border Force and a European express operator, offers a practical illustration of how collaboration works in daily operations. It is not built on slogans or one-off initiatives. It is built on structure, discipline, and trust, with both sides clear about roles and accountability.

In the UK, express consignments move at speed. Border Force assesses pre-arrival data against risk profiles for prohibited and restricted items and selects consignments for intervention. This activity sits within a wider enforcement ecosystem that includes cooperation with other government departments.

For an express operator, the operating model is equally unforgiving. Shipments are door-to-door, Customs clearance is part of the service, and the network is designed for fast processing. In this context, risk management can either become a blunt instrument that disrupts legitimate trade or a targeted capability that protects society while keeping trusted flows moving.

The UK approach is based around a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that sets out what information can be exchanged, for what purpose, and under what safeguards. It is supported by a legal review and a data protection assessment, and it gives both sides confidence in the boundaries of cooperation. But the real value comes from what happens after the document is signed.

Quarterly meetings provide a structured rhythm for addressing operational concerns, implementing improvements, and aligning emerging risks. Between meetings, direct contact points enable issues to be addressed as they arise. The goal is simple: fewer surprises, faster resolution, and a shared understanding of the risk picture.

This is where partnership becomes practical rather than aspirational.

The goal is simple: fewer surprises, faster resolution, and a shared understanding of the risk picture.

One of the most instructive lessons from the UK approach is that effectiveness is not always about collecting more data. Sometimes it is about getting the timing right. On certain high-risk routes, the window between receiving pre-arrival data and landing was too narrow. With limited time to run credibility checks, the safest operational response was to stop more shipments. That created pressure on both sides and reduced efficiency, as higher intervention volumes do not necessarily produce better results. A simple operational adjustment changed the outcome. Data was provided earlier for those routes, extending the assessment window by several hours.

The results were immediate and practical. Border Force had more time for a deeper analysis. Fewer shipments were stopped. Hit rates improved. Legitimate goods moved with less disruption. This is a minor change that many administrations can replicate without waiting for large-scale technology programmes.

Express networks move quickly, and intelligence available to the authorities does not always arrive on schedule. There are occasions when Border Force identifies a high-risk movement after it has already passed the express operator’s initial sorting controls. In those cases, established communication pathways enable action to be taken even when the consignment is already in onward movement. In the UK model, consignments can, where possible, be recalled and presented for examination.

This is not a routine mechanism. It is an exceptional tool to use when there is a significant risk and speed matters. It relies on trust built over time and on confidence that recalls are proportionate and well-founded. It also reminds us that risk management is not only about algorithms. It is about relationships that function under pressure.

A major strength of this partnership is the trade’s referrals of suspected non-compliance shipments. Data alone cannot always reveal what someone sees when a shipment is physically managed, checked, or verified against its declaration. When anomalies and discrepancies are detected within express operators’ processes, referrals are made for triage and assessment, and Border Force thereafter makes appropriate examination decisions.

This referral stream has delivered very strong outcomes. Border Security Command has recorded that over 50% of direct trade referrals involve illicit goods. Even when a referral does not lead to an immediate seizure, it may still deliver value. It refreshes the intelligence picture, reveals new concealment methods, highlights new routes, and supports broader disruption efforts. It also supports better targeting in areas where routine data visibility is limited, including certain export movements.

Border Security Command has recorded that over 50% of direct trade referrals involve illicit goods. Even when a referral does not lead to an immediate seizure, it may still deliver value. It refreshes the intelligence picture, reveals new concealment methods, highlights new routes, and supports broader disruption efforts. It also supports better targeting in areas where routine data visibility is limited, including certain export movements.

The partnership is strengthened by shared learning and practical refinement. Training has been delivered to express operators’ operational managers to build an understanding of what Border Force officers look for in practice and which indicators call for suspicion. This supports higher-quality compliance referrals, earlier identification of harm, and reduced reputational risk for legitimate operators.

Operational improvements within Border Force’s examination environments also matter. Better connectivity between IT systems and facility adjustments supports faster casework, better access to targeting information, and more efficient workflows. Detection dog operations have been supported through practical facility adaptations by express operators, enabling targeted activity in environments that are not naturally suited to it.

Finally, periodic sharing of seizure commodity trends with express operators helps align risk understanding and supports upstream prevention. These are not headline-grabbing changes. They are the kind of small, operational decisions that quietly improve outcomes every day.

This UK experience is presented as a good example of where joint risk management can work. Legal frameworks, mandates, and operating environments may differ, but the design principles are transferable.

• A clear legal basis and safeguards for information exchange
• Routine governance through structured meetings and direct working contacts
• Data that arrives early enough to be used, not just collected
• A trusted pathway to act quickly when time-critical intelligence emerges
• Active compliance controls within the industry to prevent repeat offending and stop risk upstream

UK Border Force remains committed to strengthening collaboration with all express operators and to continuing to improve how risks are identified and managed, thereby supporting both control and facilitation.

The core lesson is simple. Modern borders will not be secured by control alone, and trade will not be sustained by speed alone. The most effective risk management lies in the disciplined space between the two: where trust, data quality, and shared responsibility translate into practical outcomes.