The Political Case for Mass Timber: An Interview with Peter Eriksson

Interview and photos by Andrew van Leeuwen

Peter Eriksson, former co-leader of Sweden’s Green Party and one-time Swedish Minister for Housing, discusses three decades in Swedish politics, the housing incentives he built to solve a national shortage, and why he thinks mass timber deserves a bigger role in public buildings.

AvL: How would you summarize your long and distinguished career in politics?
PE: I’ve been a member of the Green Party since almost when it started. My first full-time job in politics was in the Swedish Parliament in 1994. I came back to Parliament in 1998, then resigned to become mayor of my hometown, Kalix, for a few years. We had a good election in 2002 (the Green Party got about 43% of the vote in Kalix), and that same year I also became a spokesperson for the Swedish Greens and returned to Parliament. That was a demanding period, since for about two years I was doing three things at once: mayor, member of Parliament, and party spokesperson. I remained spokesperson for nine years, from 2002 to 2011, and for part of that time I also chaired Parliament’s Committee on the Constitution. After that I spent two years in the European Parliament, from 2014 to 2016, and then became a minister in the Swedish government, first for housing, building, and digital development, and later for international development cooperation, for a few years. After that, I resigned. So altogether, I’ve put in what you might call decades of active duty in politics.

What originally attracted you to the Green Party?
I think it was two things: the major environmental problems that came to light in the 1970s, and the discussion the Green Party raised around decentralizing the political system: questions of democracy. So, decentralization and democracy were very important to me as well.

Was there a particular policy regarding the built-environment that you’re most proud of initiating or pushing through?
I’ve worked a lot on pushing for better and more modern railways. Some of that has become reality, some hasn’t, so I can’t claim credit for all of it, but I did help lead that political debate.

I think it was also important that, in leading the Green Party, I helped it become a more responsible party, one that could be accepted as part of a government. That was part of my job. When I was minister, I set up a system that made it easier and cheaper to build housing, with the government taking responsibility for financing cost-effective apartments. I think that was quite important at the time.

What did you learn about the built environment when you were housing minister – what did that education look like for you?
It wasn’t so much an education as a situation: there was a large shortage of apartments and housing. A lot of young people were becoming adults and needed apartments, and a lot of people were arriving in Sweden from other countries, so there was a real need for a large number of new apartments. That period was just after the 2015–16 refugee intake. I was housing minister from about 2016 to 2018.

How did you solve that housing shortage?
We set up a system where, if you built apartments (smaller and medium-sized units), you could get part of the building costs covered by the government. In exchange, rents had to stay at a set level, so they couldn’t be too costly. So, developers were awarded government money if they built apartments at a fairly low cost.

How serious do you think the current housing shortage is?
We’re in a different situation now. I’m not entirely sure, but the shortage of apartments is probably not as widespread today, because immigration has been reduced considerably, and the group of young people entering adulthood is also reducing. So, the conversation now is more about that shrinking group of young people than about a housing shortage. I don’t think the problem is as big today, partly because we have a government that has wanted to reduce the number of people coming to Sweden.

If I understand correctly, developers in Sweden are required to report the climate impact of a new building, but there are no limitations or regulations tied to that, is that right?
Yes, that’s true. That was the system we introduced, but we didn’t put limits on it. It would have been interesting to have limits, or more incentives to build with lower climate impact, but there aren’t any yet. I suspect that’s a question that could come up under a new government.

Do those climate declarations come from Sweden, or from the EU?
I believe they originated in Sweden (we had that system already), but I think there are now similar rules coming from the EU as well. We put ours in place a little before that.

How do you see Sweden being able to meet its carbon emission goals? What are the key factors?
The current government has made it much harder to meet those goals, because they’ve cut fuel taxes substantially, removing incentives for people and industry to move away from fossil fuels. So, it’s harder today, but still possible. It will likely need tougher political decisions this time around if we’re going to meet the targets.

With regard to the built environment, what advancements have impressed you in architecture and construction?
I’d point to wood. I’ve seen a lot of advanced techniques for building with wood, in both apartment blocks and taller buildings, but also a more industrial approach to building generally. In my hometown of Kalix, for example, there’s been a construction company for quite a long time that manufactures bathrooms industrially and sells them to hotels and apartment buildings across Northern Europe. I think that industrial approach to building, while still allowing for individual architecture, is what’s changed, and it’s made it possible to create buildings that are distinctive but still fairly inexpensive.

In your experience, how has the public reacted to mass timber construction?
I think many people like these buildings; I’ve rarely heard anyone speak badly of them. The one concern I’ve heard recently is around fire: some say it’s harder to make timber as fire-secure as concrete or masonry.

Countries like Finland and Austria have progressed further and faster with mass timber policy. What do you think they got right that Sweden could improve upon?
I don’t know the specifics of what they’ve done, but Finland has a fairly long history of building larger structures in timber, so it’s not surprising they’ve gone further in this area.

How do municipalities work with the national authority when it comes to building codes and development for mass timber?
I can’t speak to the details; I’m not well-versed in that. But I know some municipalities like building in wood, and they’re free to do so. I think local authorities have quite a lot of freedom to promote that kind of change if they want to.

Since you left office, has Sweden’s construction sector moved toward mass timber and lower embodied carbon at the pace you’d hoped? And what would you be advocating for if you were still in office?
No, I’d like to see much more happen in this area. It would have been possible, and it would have been good both for the climate and for the forest industry, since timber producers and forest owners are often paid better for higher-value timber products than for more basic, lower-value uses of wood.
If I were still in office, I’d advocate for promoting new techniques and more industrial ways of building, since that benefits the use of timber, and for better incentives for builders to be more climate-friendly.

Are there any built projects in Sweden that exemplify the policies you champion?
I’ve heard about some very tall timber buildings being built now (20 floors, I’ve heard), though I don’t think height is really the important thing. What I’d like to see more of is good environmental materials used in public buildings: schools, hospitals, that kind of thing. Using environmentally friendly materials is also healthier, especially for kids and young people, and it would be good if more municipalities took that up.

What do you consider Sweden’s greatest environmental need at the moment?
Getting away from fossil fuels on the roads, using more biogas and electricity instead of diesel and gasoline.

What is your advice to the design and construction industries to best prepare for the future?
Try to meet what the world actually needs. Even with the current political backlash in Sweden and Europe, I think in the long run the winners in each industry will be the ones who take a long-term view of responsibility and learn what it takes to become a leader in this area.

Despite the saying that laws are like sausage, and it’s better not to watch them being made, what would you like the public to better recognize about the political process in Sweden?
I’ve also worked as a teacher (economics and social studies at the upper-secondary level), so I like it when people learn how things actually work, rather than just judging politicians on whether they’re smooth talkers or good-looking. I like creating situations where people have to learn. One of the most interesting things I did as mayor of Kalix was hold referendums, for example, on how high the municipal tax rate should be. The result was that people learned what local government actually does, because often they don’t know who’s responsible for what, or whether something is paid for by the municipality, the region, or the national government. I think a referendum is a good way to push people to learn more about what their vote depends on and what it means. That’s an approach I like to promote.

_{Interview funded in part by the Thuréus Research Home and Nature Monument Foundation for Culture, Nature, Literature and Art
– Stockholm, Sweden.}