Because I tend to try to talk my way through a problem, this is my digest. Disregard if this isn't your style, if I'm behind the group as a whole, this isn't an effective use of time, etc... but let me know if you see anything you disagree with/have any feedback:
Background: You have a region that is one of the most densely populated in the world and its population is expected to continue to grow (expected to be the 4-most populous country in
2050). More people clamoring for the same resources will only add more stress to the system across all fields (economic, environmental, political, etc).
Currently, 2/3 of the 32 million population in the region are under the age of 30 and 40% of those 15-24 are estimated to be unemployed. So you have a ton of young people with few options to make a living.
80% of the country's revenue comes from oil production. This revenue is dristibuted to all the states, but the nine oil states in the delta receive 13% of the total oil revenue on top of that (I think this is divided proportionately to the states based on the number of oil wells in each state). The money is redistributed through diffuse channels by the 185 Local Government Areas. State and local governments, which are expected to carry out public services, are not funded by tax payers, so as a result they are not accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. Instead, the incentive for the people in power is to distribute revenues to the supporters that they owe their positions to - 'neo-patrimonial' system that emphasizes patronage over providing services.
The disconnect between the vast wealth derived from oil in the delta and the lack of services and employment breeds feelings of distrust, injustice, and resentment. And it also leads people to perceive themselves as even poorer and more disadvanted than measures of economic well-being make them out to be (i think there's lots of lit on poverty as a relative construct).
Finally, the intensive oil and gas production can create environmental damage and distort exchange rates to the detriment of the few other viable industries and occupations, traditional or otherwise, in the region (to say nothing of the health concerns, lack of clean water, etc.).
They don't own ther rights to the oil underneath their feet and they don't even own the land they live on. And yet, they have to suffer all the negative sideeffects while others reap the benefits.
Meanwhile, there are strong economic incentives for bad actors.
Bottom line, there are very serious and persistant factors at work (what the Wilson Paper calls "Structural" and "Driving Factors") befor you even get to the "Provocating Factors" that bring all these underlying factors to a violent head.
Problem: Short of rearranging the country's social and government structures, how do you engage the community to empower them/give them hope/make them believe that they can improve their circumstances.
Challenges: The lack of a voice, appropriate/timely institutional/judicial processes, and political accountability leaves people feeling either apathetic or it drives them to violence.
Solutions: I still think efforts to improve outcomes across the five pillars would be a good way to focus our efforts. We aren't capable of fixing all these deep problems, but a narrow focus on one area could produce positive ripple effects.
Places to Start Looking: The brite spots (positive deviance). Chapter 3 of the Wilson thing talks about some positive results that oil companies started to see in their investment dollars by switching from top-down programs to bottom-up, community-driven approaches to development (GMOUs on page 86-90). We should look at any examples of success by oil companies, NGOs, etc. Successes might give us good ideas. I'm going to continue to mine the rest of the study for more ideas.