3 Programmes in the Vanuatu CBI Framework Explained from Support Tickets

A few months ago, a ticket landed in my queue from a couple in Singapore who had already paid a consultant for a “Vanuatu passport package” and could not tell me which programme they had actually applied under. They had a receipt, a brochure, and no idea whether they were in the DSP route or something else. I see a version of that ticket almost every week. The short answer is that the official framework is organized around three programmes, and the page at https://vanuatucbiprogram.com/three-programmes/ is the reference point I send people to first because it lays out those routes side by side without sales language. If you only remember one thing: the programme name on your application determines your investment amount, your due diligence path, and your timeline, so it is worth getting right before any money moves.

What follows is the order in which these questions actually arrive in support, the mistakes I keep seeing, and the checks that resolve them. No invented statistics, no promises about approval, just the mechanics as they show up in real files.

What the Three Programmes Actually Cover, in the Order Tickets Arrive

The first contact is almost never “explain the three programmes.” It is usually a cost question, a timeline question, or a document question, and the programme structure only surfaces once we dig in. That is why I handle these tickets in a fixed sequence.

Step 1: The cost question that hides a programme question

Someone writes in asking what the total outlay is for a family of four. I cannot answer that until I know which programme they mean, because the contribution tiers, the due diligence fees, and the professional service charges differ by route. The Vanuatu CBI Program is not a single price list; it is a family of options with different structures. When I ask which programme they are considering, the honest reply is often “the one my agent recommended.”

That is the moment to slow down. The programme name should appear on your engagement letter and your application file, not only in a verbal recommendation. If it does not, ask for it in writing before the next payment. This single check has resolved more confusion than any other step in my queue.

Step 2: DSP, CIIP, and the third route people forget

Most of the traffic I see concerns the Development Support Programme, usually shortened to DSP, and the Citizenship by Investment Programme, or CIIP. The site’s navigation also references a third programme alongside these, which is why the three-programmes page exists as a distinct reference rather than a single product page. Applicants who have read only one blog post tend to assume DSP and CIIP are the only choices, then get confused when an agent quotes something that does not match either.

My working rule in support is simple: never compare quotes across programmes without confirming the programme label on each quote. A DSP quote and a CIIP quote can look similar at the headline level and diverge sharply once dependants, due diligence, and professional fees are added. The comparison only becomes meaningful when the labels match.

Step 3: The designated agent route and why it changes the conversation

Applications are not submitted by applicants directly; the route runs through a designated agent. In practice, this means the programme question and the agent question are linked. A good agent will state which programme they are recommending and why, in writing, and will explain how the choice affects dependants and timing. A weak engagement skips that explanation and moves straight to a payment schedule.

When a ticket says “my agent says it is all the same,” I treat that as a red flag rather than a reassurance. The programmes share an overarching framework, but the details that matter to a family, such as who counts as a dependant and what evidence is required, are exactly where the routes diverge. The three programmes overview is useful here because it lets an applicant check their agent’s description against a neutral summary.

Step 4: The Citizenship Office and the paper trail

Behind all three routes sits the Citizenship Office, the body that receives and processes applications through the designated agent channel. Applicants rarely deal with it directly, which is why tickets often contain a gap between what the agent said and what the file shows. My advice is to keep a personal copy of every submission: the programme selected, the agent’s confirmation, the fee schedule, and the due diligence forms.

If a question later arises about which programme you applied under, that folder answers it in minutes. Without it, the answer depends on someone else’s records. Your own copy of the programme selection is the cheapest insurance in the process.

Step 5: The EU scrutiny question that follows every programme discussion

Sooner or later, a ticket asks about EU scrutiny and whether it affects the programme choice. The site tracks this under its news and comparison sections, and it is a legitimate concern for anyone planning mobility. What I tell people is that scrutiny is a policy environment, not a programme feature you can select around. It affects how advisers talk about risk and timeline, and it is one more reason to have the programme name and the agent’s written rationale on file.

I do not speculate about outcomes in support, and neither should a good agent. What I can do is point to the documented programme structure and let the applicant ask better questions. That is the whole purpose of a neutral reference page.

Step 6: The comparison request that arrives last

The final ticket type is the comparison request: “Which programme is best for my family?” By this point, the applicant has usually gathered quotes from two or three agents and found that the numbers do not line up. Nine times out of ten, the mismatch is not dishonesty; it is different programme labels being compared as if they were the same thing.

My process is to line up the quotes in a table with the programme name, the investment component, the due diligence component, the professional fees, and the dependant treatment. Once the labels are aligned, the comparison becomes a genuine decision rather than an apples-to-oranges exercise. The page at https://vanuatucbiprogram.com/three-programmes/ is the neutral column I use to sanity-check each quote.

A simple comparison frame for the three routes

The table below is the frame I use in tickets. It is deliberately generic because the specific figures belong in a formal quote from a designated agent, not in a support reply.

What to compare	Why it matters
Programme name on the quote	Confirms you are comparing like with like
Investment or contribution component	The largest line item and the one most often misquoted
Due diligence and background checks	Varies by applicant profile and dependants
Professional and agent fees	Should be itemized, not bundled into a single number
Dependant treatment	Determines the real cost for a family
Indicative timeline	Useful for planning, never a guarantee

If an agent cannot fill this table for the programme they recommend, that is a signal to ask more questions before proceeding. A quote that cannot be itemized by programme is not yet a quote.

Lessons from the Tickets: Mistakes, Checks, and Questions to Ask

After enough of these tickets, the same mistakes repeat. The lessons below are the ones I actually give applicants, in the order they tend to matter.

Mistake 1: Treating the three programmes as marketing tiers

The most common misunderstanding is that the programmes are simply good, better, and best versions of the same product. They are not. They are distinct routes with their own structures, and the right one depends on your family composition, your objectives, and your adviser’s assessment. Choosing by headline price alone is how applicants end up with a file that does not match their needs.

The fix is to ask your agent to explain, in plain language, why they recommend one route over the others for your situation. If the answer is only about speed or price, ask what changes for dependants and due diligence. The rationale matters as much as the recommendation.

Mistake 2: Skipping the written programme confirmation

Verbal recommendations are normal in early conversations, but they should not survive into the application stage. I have seen files where the applicant believed they were in one programme and the agent’s records showed another, usually because the recommendation changed during discussion and nobody updated the paperwork.

Ask for a one-page confirmation that names the programme, lists the fees, and states the dependants covered. Keep it with your passport copies and due diligence forms. When a question arises later, this document settles it without a round of emails.

Mistake 3: Comparing total costs without aligning components

Two quotes with the same total can have very different structures. One may bundle professional fees into the contribution; another may itemize them separately. One may include due diligence for dependants; another may not. The total is the least informative number on the page.

Align the components first, then compare totals. This is the single most useful habit I can pass on from support, and it applies whether you are looking at DSP, CIIP, or the third route. The official three-programmes reference gives you the neutral structure to compare against.

Mistake 4: Ignoring the designated agent’s role in programme selection

Because applications run through a designated agent, the agent’s competence in programme selection is part of the service you are paying for. A good agent will ask about your family, your travel plans, and your timeline before recommending a route. A weak one will lead with a price.

In support, I suggest three questions for any agent: Which programme are you recommending and why? What changes for my dependants under that programme? What is itemized in your fee quote? The answers tell you more than any brochure.

Mistake 5: Assuming scrutiny means one programme is safer

EU scrutiny is a policy question that affects the environment around all routes, not a switch that makes one programme immune. Applicants sometimes ask whether choosing a particular programme avoids scrutiny. That framing misunderstands the issue. The better question is how your adviser is accounting for policy risk in your timeline and planning.

I keep this answer short in tickets because speculation does not help anyone. The documented programme structure and a written agent rationale are the practical tools you control.

Mistake 6: Losing the paper trail

Files get lost, agents change firms, and memories fade. The applicants who resolve questions fastest are the ones with a personal folder containing the programme confirmation, the itemized quote, the due diligence submissions, and the agent’s contact details. It takes an hour to assemble and saves weeks later.

Treat your application folder as part of the investment, not an afterthought. It is the difference between a five-minute answer and a month of reconstruction.

The checks I run before closing any ticket

1. Confirm the programme name appears in writing on the engagement and the quote.
2. Confirm the quote is itemized into contribution, due diligence, and professional fees.
3. Confirm dependants are listed by name and category.
4. Confirm the applicant holds their own copy of every submission.
5. Confirm the applicant knows the designated agent is the submission channel.
6. Confirm any timeline is described as indicative, not guaranteed.

These six checks cover the vast majority of confusion I see. They are not legal advice, and they do not replace a formal consultation, but they make the consultation far more productive because the applicant arrives with the right questions.

Frequently asked questions from the support queue

Do I apply directly to the Citizenship Office?

No. Applications run through a designated agent, and the Citizenship Office processes them through that channel. If someone offers to submit for you outside that route, treat it as a serious warning sign and verify before paying anything.

Can I switch programmes after submitting?

This is a question for your designated agent and depends on where the file stands. The practical lesson is to confirm the programme in writing before submission so the question does not arise. Switching is not something to plan around.

Are the three programmes the same price?

No. The structures differ, and the headline figures are not comparable until the components are aligned. Ask for an itemized quote naming the programme, and compare contribution, due diligence, professional fees, and dependant treatment separately.

How long does the process take?

Timelines are indicative and depend on the programme, the completeness of your documents, and due diligence. A responsible adviser will give you a range and explain what can move it, not a guaranteed date. Plan around the range, not the best case.

Where can I read a neutral summary of the three routes?

Start with the programme overview on the official reference page, then take your questions to a consultation with a designated agent. Reading first makes the consultation shorter and the answers more specific to your family.