Conserving Biodiversity and Plant Genetic Resources: The Hellenic Legal Framework

  • Paraskevi G. AlizotiEmail author
  • Filippos A. Aravanopoulos
Part of the Advances in Global Change Research book series (AGLO, volume 65)


The Mediterranean Basin is among the top biodiversity hotspots globally due to the high endemism and the vast number of flora and fauna species harbored in its ecosystems. Hellenic ecosystems, being also Mediterranean ecosystems, are biodiversity hotspots that harbor 22% of the species found across the Mediterranean basin, while 10% of the plants occurring in them are endemic. The value of conserving biodiversity in natural ecosystems was recognized at the national level as early as 1937 and ever since a great part of the Hellenic ecosystems is conserved in situ under national and European legislation, as well under International Conventions. A solid, but also large and complicated legal framework is in effect in the country for the protection of the biodiversity and the genetic resources. The legal framework includes Laws that have incorporated Regional (EU) and International legislation into the national legal framework, as well as the national legislation on the conservation of nature, biodiversity and genetic resources. In the current chapter the above legal framework, under which a notable part of the surface of the country is currently protected, will be presented in short.


Forest ecosystems Protected areas National laws Regional laws International conventions for biodiversity 


  1. Alizoti, P. G. (2014). Securing equal sharing of benefits coming from utilization of native genetic resources in European Union – The role of genetic improvement. In Proceeding of the 15th conference of Hellenic Scientific Society for Plant Genetics and Breeding, Larisa (pp. 24–30).Google Scholar
  2. Biodiversity Information System for Europe. (2015). Mid- term report. Member states contribution to the mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 – Country. Greece.
  3. Gaston, K., & Spicer, J. (2004). Biodiversity: An introduction. Blackwell Publ.Google Scholar
  4. Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., Synge, H., McNeely, J. A., & Gündling, L. (1994). A guide to the convention on biological diversity. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  5. Koutoupa-Regkakou, E. (2005). Environmental law (p. 211). Thessaloniki: Sakkoula Publ.Google Scholar
  6. Legakis, A., & Maragkou, P. (2009). The red book of endangered fauna species (p. 521). Athens: Hellenic Zoological Society.Google Scholar
  7. Myers, N. (2001). Hotspots. In S. A. Levin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of biodiversity (Vol. 3, pp. 371–381). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. National Research Council (US). (1999). Perspectives on biodiversity (p. 153). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2005). Handbook of the convention on biological. Diversity including its cartagena protocol on biosafety (3rd ed., pp. 5–6), (Montreal, Canada).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paraskevi G. Alizoti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Filippos A. Aravanopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forestry and Natural EnvironmentAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations