Just transition allocation in a coal region facing mine closure
A coal region of 95,000 people will see its last two mines close by 2027, removing 3,800 direct jobs. The local employment multiplier is 1.6, and 28% of workers have only lower-secondary education. The region has been allocated €120m from the Just Transition Fund over six years. Proposal 1 is an offshore wind port and nacelle assembly plant: it needs 45 ha of dredged land, €85m of infrastructure, and would create 900 permanent jobs by year 8; about 60% require technical certification. Proposal 2 is a logistics and distribution park on reclaimed mine land: it costs €55m, could create 1,400 jobs by year 4, and about 70% would be low-skill; it would use 120 ha of greenfield and add road congestion. Proposal 3 is a split allocation. Local unions want jobs before 2027; the regional government wants higher-value industry.
1. Compare Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 on time-to-jobs and skills mismatch. Use the employment figures and education constraint.
Read the worked answer
Proposal 1 delivers 900 jobs by year 8, after the 2027 closures, and 60% (540) require technical certification. Against a workforce where 28% of 3,800 direct miners (about 1,064 people) have only lower-secondary education, the immediate skills fit is poor unless training begins now. Proposal 2 delivers 1,400 jobs by year 4, before or around closure, and 70% (980) are low-skill, which fits the existing workforce better in the short run. The time profile is decisive: a job in 2032 is worth less to a miner displaced in 2027 than a job in 2025, even if the latter is lower-skilled. But P2's jobs may be more precarious and lower-paid, and its multiplier may be lower than the 1.6 direct multiplier assumed for mining. P1 builds a higher-value base and could retain skilled workers, but it risks a 'jobs vs workers' mismatch if certification take-up is low. The comparison should be in job-years and wage levels, not just job counts.
2. Recommend an allocation of the €120m among the proposals. Justify with explicit criteria and identify the main risk.
Read the worked answer
Allocate roughly €55m to Proposal 2, €50m to Proposal 1 (phase 1 port infrastructure), and €15m to a reskilling and certification fund. Criteria: speed to employment, skills fit, land take, and option value. P2 uses reclaimed mine land, delivers before 2027, and matches the low-skill segment, but 120 ha of greenfield and congestion are real costs; make funding conditional on a transport plan and a brownfield-first audit. P1 needs €85m, so €50m cannot deliver it alone; phase it with milestone gates and seek private or national co-funding. The reskilling fund is not a residual: 540 technical roles require certification, and without it P1 will import workers while former miners remain unemployed. Risk: the split may underfund both. Therefore set a review at year 3: if P1 has not secured co-funding or 40% certification completion, redirect the remaining P1 allocation to P2 expansion and care/retrofit training.
3. Identify one indicator that would show the strategy is failing former mine workers specifically, and a threshold for redesign.
Read the worked answer
Indicator: the share of former mine workers employed in supported projects within 24 months of mine closure. A threshold of 25% by the end of year 3 should trigger redesign. A second indicator is certification completion among former miners: if fewer than 40% of the 540 technical places are filled by local displaced workers by year 4, the 'jobs vs workers' mismatch is materialising. A third is commute share: if more than half of new jobs go to in-commuters, the local multiplier assumption is failing. These indicators matter because aggregate job creation can look successful while the targeted group remains unemployed. The response should be a redesign of training contracts and recruitment agreements, not simply more funding.