It appears that hardest hit will be businesses with a smaller percentage of export turnover as opposed to suppliers whose markets are largely export.
Yesterday, three staff from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority informally visited Blue Water Products in Dunedin, before the start of auditing using the new code.
Such visits will be made to fish exporters across the country in coming weeks.
The seafood sector has a $4 billion value, indirectly employing more than 20,000 people in New Zealand's fifth-largest export market.
Blue Water Products director Ross Hutchison said the increasing costs were "making it more difficult and expensive to get into Australia", New Zealand's largest trading partner.
"The extra costs are being driven by the need to meet European and Russian standards, not those in Australia," he said.
Blue Water, which employs about 12 full-time equivalents and has an annual payroll of more than $500,000, exports less than 5% of its annual turnover, but plans to expand kina exports into Australia.
The new NZFSA code, operating under the existing Animal Products Act, specifically targets workplaces of export-fish preparation as opposed to domestic preparation.
It came into force on August 1, and the formal audits will be done at a cost of $114 per hour.
Fish-packing houses can expect to be audited every six months as routine, but if infringements are identified they either will be downgraded to three-monthly visits or inspected more often, attracting more NZFSA audit costs.
Authority regional team manager for the southern region Colin O'Connor said the audits were "user pays" and costs could rise.
Blue Water Products says it was charged $1000 for an audit in May which was costed at $110 per hour.
"When standards are reviewed or [new] requirements are rigidly imposed, that can translate into [increased compliance] costs," Mr O'Connor said.
Southern Clams managing director Roger Belton, whose company could harvest up to 1140 tonnes of cockles around Dunedin annually and export about 90%, said the NZFSA compliance costs were "considerable", especially if a supplier was only exporting some of its catch.
However, Mr Belton said exported New Zealand seafood already had a good reputation internationally, largely because of rigorous standards applied.
"That reputation for exporters is essential. While it comes at a considerable cost, as an exporting country we just have to do it."
Mr Hutchison said he did not want compliance costs to jeopardise his firm's being able to export seafood, but the cost of the new regime could prompt him to supply only the local market.
Dunedin-based NZFSA circuit veterinarian Albi Antony said areas of concern in the forthcoming audits were production-flow areas and their preservation; separation areas, the general upkeep of facilities and personnel access.
"There are large inconsistencies across the country, which has prompted us to look at the sector, in conjunction with the Seafood Industry Council. Without a standardisation, New Zealand's brand image will be damaged," Mr Antony said.
If any food-hygiene practices were remiss, exporters would be required to fix any problem immediately, but Mr Antony said any other infringements would be notified as a "correction action request" to management and be expected to be fixed before the next audit.
