The question is different here . Why declare an emergency if i am not in emergency ? I would be in emergency if i was estimating that i would be landing with less than final reserve fuel (FRF) . As long as my current clearance allows me to land above my FRF then i am not in emergency and thus I avoid a lot of headache after i land ( i really don't think you can get away with not having over the authorities visiting you once you state mayday )
So as i said if you are running short of fuel but still estimating that you are landing with more fuel than your FRF , then you would be using ''minimum fuel" to tell to ATC that basically you have committed to land at a specific airport and any deviation from the existing clearance might lead to actually landing with less than FRF. Officially , stating 'minimum fuel' is not an emergency declaration.
I understand the rational of the UK system but it would make sense to be used in very busy terminal areas . I want to confirm that in a non busy area the declaration of "minimum fuel" could be dealt as in the rest of europe
You are essentially saying you want to be handled as an emergency without declaring an emergency. A minimum fuel advisory serves a purpose--letting ATC know that a plane cannot accept additional delays. If a PIC feels priority is needed to ensure a safe landing, he/she should declare an emergency. The prospect of having to explain why you declared should not be a consideration.
Maybe the proper question is: Why does "the rest of Europe" handle minimum fuel differently than the UK, the US, and the basic ICAO guidance?