The institute, which had been consulted by the Finnish government, said this week that the use of the forest was sustainable and protestors had incorrectly defined the area as being natural forest.
Greenpeace said the forest was more than 140 years old and had been damaged by fallen or broken trees, deciduous trees or multiple damages.
However, the institute said: “This definition does not make any difference between commercial and natural forest, especially in northern Lapland where forest grows so slowly that an age of 140 years does not mean that forest is particularly old.”
Greenpeace activists last week launched a dawn protest at the Botnia pulp mill of Stora Enso, which has been a target for protestors, to force claims that the company was destroying “ancient forest” to make magazine paper.
Stora Enso has disputed it was receiving deliveries from protected forest through the Finnish state owned enterprise, Metsähallitus, but conceded this week it would not accept any more timber from the area until after Metsähallitus conducted a full ecological study.
The status of the area is to be resolved by a working group established by the forestry ministry, which is not expected to report before the summer.
