Finland’s State Audit Office has raised concerns over the way the financial impact of the country’s Nato membership has been presented, saying decision-makers lacked a full picture of the costs when the accession process moved forward.
The findings appear in a new audit report that examined Finland’s preparation for Nato membership, decision-making procedures and the economic consequences that followed the country’s entry into the alliance in April 2023. The report concludes that the overall process worked well, but identifies gaps in cost assessments and information flow between authorities and Parliament.
The audit found that ministers and lawmakers did not have access to an estimate of the scale of indirect Nato-related costs when Finland decided to join the alliance. While the government projected direct annual membership costs of between €70 million and €100 million during the accession phase, broader obligations linked to Nato commitments were not fully quantified.
According to the report, those indirect costs are substantially higher than the direct expenses associated with membership fees and participation in Nato structures. They include spending linked to implementing alliance requirements, maintaining readiness levels and contributing to collective defence activities during peacetime.
The watchdog also questioned the transparency of public reporting on Nato-related spending since Finland joined the alliance. It said information is available through government budget proposals and public finance plans, but remains fragmented across different documents.
As a result, tracking the total cost of membership and understanding how spending has developed over time is difficult using publicly available information.
The report notes that only one estimate of indirect costs has been produced since Finland joined Nato and that assessment has not been made public.
Juho-Matti Paavola, Senior Auditor at the State Audit Office, said Nato obligations should be implemented through cost-effective measures supported by clear assessments of their impact on state finances.
The report acknowledges that separating Nato spending from broader defence expenditure is becoming more difficult. Future costs linked to alliance commitments are expected to be absorbed into Finland’s expanding defence budget rather than presented as a distinct category.
In 2025, member states agreed on a goal of allocating five per cent of gross domestic product to defence and defence-related expenditure by 2035.
Despite concerns over financial transparency, the State Audit Office said Finland’s accession process was largely successful. It found that government agencies established functioning structures for handling Nato matters in a short period and enabled Finland to formulate positions within the alliance on a tight timetable.
The report also concludes that Finnish authorities generally produced sufficient information to support decision-making and that the government provided Parliament with regular updates on Nato issues.
HT