Make room for respect.

Civic commitment · Clear rules, meaningful protection

On the animals’ side.
Even when the answers are difficult.

People who find a tortoise in difficulty, can no longer care for one, or are trying to clarify a complex documentation issue need to know whom to contact and what steps are possible. Yet this is not only about a person’s difficulty: at its heart is an animal, with real needs and a life that deserves continuity, protection and appropriate care.

This is where our commitment begins. We want to help simplify rules and procedures and, where necessary, propose changes so that protection is understandable and workable. We are not asking for shortcuts to keeping animals, indiscriminate amnesties or fewer checks: we are asking for pathways that can protect animals even in the most complex situations, while maintaining safeguards against trafficking and removal from the wild.

Good intentions alone are not enough. Where clear guidance or suitable places of care are lacking, an animal’s needs may go unmet. Entrusting it to a person, a school or another organisation is not a solution simply because someone volunteers: appropriate space, expertise and ongoing responsibility are essential. Educational initiatives, too, must begin with the animal’s welfare, not its availability to be observed.

Identification for protection.
Welfare comes first.

A young tortoise can fit in the palm of a hand. When a life is so small, even an identification procedure deserves careful thought: not only about the document to be completed, but about the animal in front of us. This concern underpins our work on microchipping, with particular attention to young Testudo hermanni.

Size matters. So does evidence.

Implantation is a veterinary medical procedure, as clarified by FNOVI. Our concern for small animals does not amount to a claim that every implantation causes injury: a study of young Testudo hermanni, involving 30 microchipped animals and 30 controls, found no adverse effects on the parameters observed during ten months of monitoring. This result should be considered within the conditions studied, without treating it as a universal guarantee or dismissing it because it differs from our concerns.

A code identifies. Protection needs a system.

An identification microchip is not a GPS device: it allows a code to be read, not the animal’s movements to be tracked. That code has a documentary role: European regulations require it to appear on the relevant permits and certificates. We therefore do not describe it as “useless”. Instead, we ask how effectively the system as a whole connects an animal to its history and prevents fraud and trafficking, without reducing protection to the presence of a device alone.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, Articles 66–68, governs marking for the procedures to which it applies and provides for cases where microchipping is inappropriate or marking cannot be carried out without harm. Such assessments are for the competent authorities; the animal’s welfare must be respected. Our commitment does not suspend existing obligations: for an individual animal, contact the relevant CITES service and a veterinarian. Do not independently disregard requirements or attempt to remove a microchip.

Listen to experience. Build sound proposals.

People’s experiences can help us understand where they encounter obstacles and where animals risk being left without protection. We want to use these difficulties to identify recurring issues and prepare them for discussion with qualified professionals and competent institutions. An account is an opportunity to listen, not automatic proof of a general problem or a legal assessment of an individual case.

Our goal is practical: clearer points of contact for help, appropriate pathways for entrusting animals to care, and continuity of care. Abandonment is not an answer to difficulty. This initiative does not authorise collecting, keeping or transferring animals, and does not provide legal advice or procedures for regularising their status.

If an animal is in difficulty, promptly contact the competent authorities and, for health concerns, a veterinarian: do not wait for a response through this initiative.

The Sanctuary cannot yet accept tortoises from outside. We have begun the process of obtaining the necessary authorisations to make this possible. Once the authorisation process is complete and suitable care arrangements are in place, we will be glad to open this possibility, assessing each placement according to the animal’s needs and the space available. We will announce the start of admissions and how to contact us on this website.

Discussion of the rules begins with official references: European Commission — wildlife protection and trade and the Carabinieri CITES Unit.

Your experience can help us understand.

Sharing an experience and offering support are two different ways to participate. You can share an experience without endorsing the proposal, or express support without telling a personal story. In both cases, the starting point is the same: animal welfare.

Back to the Foundation’s projects →

Civic commitment

Listen to needs. Build dialogue.

The Foundation seeks to contribute to informed, respectful public discussion among institutions, professionals, associations and citizens.

We care about the practical consequences of decisions: how to foster a culture of care, make knowledge accessible and encourage shared responsibility towards animals.

Any public proposals will be presented with their aims, sources and context once they have been developed.

The approach matters as much as the goal.

Sensitive issues require a measured approach. Our commitment is to contribute clear, verifiable proposals, avoiding hasty judgements and promises we cannot uphold.

A step together

A conversation can begin with a message.

If you represent an institution, association or professional organisation, tell us what you would like to discuss.

Contact the Foundation ↗

Inform clearly. Propose responsibly.

Explaining the rules and proposing improvements serve different purposes. Our editorial projects should help readers understand facts and sources; here, we present the Foundation’s commitment and the listening process from which evidence-based proposals can develop.

On sensitive issues, an experience may raise a question but does not, on its own, establish cause and effect. We distinguish verified information, observation, hypothesis and interpretation. Discussion should neither assign collective blame nor simplify information merely to make it more persuasive.

From listening to a verifiable proposal.

A future public initiative will need to clarify the issue addressed, its sources, the parties involved, the concrete proposal and the stage of discussions. The participation process gathers experiences and expressions of support: it is not a formal petition or a collection of authenticated signatures, and it does not anticipate the outcome of discussions with institutions. Making contact does not imply institutional endorsement or approval of a position.

Approach and sources · Dialogue with institutions and communities · Telling the project’s story