Document 3:11 / 3:12 / 3:13 & 3:14 (2025−2026) / Published The objective of support for Ukraine is being met
The overall objective of the aid to Ukraine is being met: it has supported the country’s needs and been delivered quickly, the National Audit Office of Norway’s investigations show. At the same time, we have identified weaknesses in the management and control of the funds.
On the audit of the Nansen Programme for Ukraine
- Norwegian support programme for both civilian and military aid.
- Total budget as of December 2025 of NOK 274.5 billion from 2023 to 2030.
- The National Audit Office of Norway is monitoring the programme closely and will report to the Storting on an ongoing basis.
Overall assessment of the four investigations
The objective of the Nansen Programme is for Norway to provide the most effective and flexible support possible for Ukraine’s defence efforts. In the longer term, the objective is to contribute to a well-functioning, democratic and secure Ukraine and to support the country’s ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration. Funding through the Nansen Programme is governed by six guiding principles and frameworks for use:
- The objective is a Ukraine that can determine its own future.
- Norway’s support shall be based on Ukraine’s needs.
- Support shall be coordinated with the Ukrainian authorities and international partners.
- The Nansen Programme shall maintain a clear distinction between military and civilian support.
- All humanitarian efforts are to be based on the humanitarian principles.
- The Nansen Programme will emphasise proven delivery capability and sound control systems.
The risk that Russia will succeed in its war of aggression means that the Storting is willing to accept a greater risk than normal in the support for Ukraine. This is an important backdrop to the National Audit Office of Norway’s investigations.
We therefore limit our critical remarks to areas where, despite the constraints of what is practically possible when providing support to a country at war, we believe it should clearly have been possible to organise better management than has been the case.
- With regard to military support, we find overall that rapid implementation and Ukrainian needs have been the determining factors for Norwegian military support, but that there has not been sufficient internal control to ensure the follow-up and control of the funds.
- With regard to civilian support, we find overall that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Norad have, in a challenging situation, managed to provide support in line with Ukraine’s needs. At the same time, the audits reveal certain weaknesses in the aid administration’s risk assessments, the sharing of information from the Ministry to Norad, and the documentation of Norad’s control over the use of grant funds.
The National Audit Office of Norway refers to the conclusions and recommendations, in addition to the overall assessment, set out in each of the four audits.
Investigations into military support
The effectiveness of the management of Norwegian military support to Ukraine
The Ministry of Defence and the agencies in the sector have helped ensure that military support has been provided quickly and that it has been in line with Ukraine’s needs.
The Ministry of Defence’s management of grants for military support through the Nansen Programme
It is unsatisfactory that, after several years, the Ministry of Defence has still not finalised an internal control system that ensures adequate follow-up and control of grant funds in the Nansen Programme.
Investigations into civilian support
Norwegian support through the civilian component of the Nansen Programme
It is unsatisfactory that, in several cases, the aid administration has not assessed the risk of – and/or risk-mitigating measures against – corruption, and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not established systems and procedures to ensure that Norad receives all the information necessary to manage the aid.
Norad’s control and follow-up of grants for civilian support through the Nansen Programme
It is unsatisfactory that Norad’s follow-up and control of grants under the Nansen Programme is inadequate in several cases, and that Norad does not sufficiently document its checks and assessments.