F10 - Trade: GeneralReturn

Agricultural trade in the case of all of the analyzed countries (the Visegrad group, or only V4) represents only a minor part of the merchandise trade. The overwhelming majority of agricultural trade - export as well as import - je conducted in relation to EU countries. V4 market is also important for all analyzed countries. The share V4 market in individual V4 countries merchandise trade performance is about one fifth. If we focus on the actual objective of the article, which is to identify the comparative advantages of agricultural trade of the V4 countries in the area of commodity structure and territorial structure in relation to "their own internal market" of the V4 group countries, the following may be stated. Within the scope of mutual trade competition (2010), Poland is of course in the best positions (it controls about one third of total exports realized within V4 market). Taking in consideration the mutual trade balance among individual countries - results are the following (2000 - 2010). Polish and Czech agrarian trade is able to reach positive trade balance in relation to V4 market on the other hand Hungarian and Slovakian agrarian trade is in deficit. If we focus further on the distribution of the comparative advantages within the scope of mutual trade of the V4 countries - then it may be stated that Poland clearly dominates. Hungarian export in relation to the market of the V4 countries is also able to gain comparative advantages in some years. However, Czech and Slovak agricultural trade as a whole profile themselves as uncompetitive within the whole area of the V4 countries. But it should be mentioned that despite of Czech and Slovak total agrarian trade is not competitive, individual its segments are able to reach comparative advantages especially at the bilateral level.

This paper considers the changes between the Incoterms 2000 and the Incoterms 2010 from a risk management perspective, and highlights the challenges that traders may encounter when dealing with some of these terms. For example, the problematic FOB term and its use in containerisation is not likely to have been totally resolved, although the Incoterms 2010 have attempted to ameliorate the situation. The new terms DAT (Delivered at Terminal) and DAP (Delivered at Place) should be useful for cross border transactions within Customs Union blocs, such as the European Union. The paper concludes that the new Incoterms 2010 provide improved definitions, and more effectively contextualise the use of old terms that are out of synch with today's modern practices. However, if traders continue to cling to their old habits and fail to update their delivery terms and arrangements to reflect contemporary practices, much of the work and progress that the ICC has put into this change process will be lost.