Marilys Pradel

Julien Garcia

Mikko Samuli

Samuli Vaija

Crucial steps and good practices when considering abiotic mineral resources in LCA -Illustration with case studies

Keywords: Ressources minérales, Epuisement, Criticité, Analyse du Cycle de Vie, Bonnes pratiques

INTRODUCTION

Les ressources minérales sont utilisées par l'Homme pour la production de biens depuis l'Antiquité. La diversité des ressources minérales exploitées n'a cessé de croitre depuis le début de l'ère industrielle en corrélation étroite avec la quantité de produits contenant des éléments à haute technologie mis sur le marché.

Le développement de solutions technologiques, notamment pour satisfaire la transition énergétique et numérique, entraine également une exploitation accrue des ressources minérales nécessaires au fonctionnement de ces produits. Certaines de ces ressources ont été classifiés comme « critiques » par l'Union Européenne, c'est-à-dire qu'elles présentent un risque d'approvisionnement élevé par rapport à l'importance économique qu'elles revêtent. La prise de conscience de l'intérêt stratégique de certains métaux pour l'économie, associée au caractère fini des ressources, a conduit l'Union Européenne à mettre en place des méthodes pour évaluer la criticité des matériaux. Par ailleurs, la question de l'évaluation des ressources minérales comme indicateur d'impact en ACV a été abordée par la communauté scientifique au cours des vingt dernières années sans vraiment aboutir à un consensus scientifique.

Dans le cadre d'un projet de recherche collaboratif financé par le réseau EcoSD (Ecoconception de Systèmes Durables), un guide de bonnes pratiques a été produit avec pour objectif d'aider les praticiens ACV du réseau à mieux prendre en compte le critère « ressources » dans leurs ACV et à mieux appréhender la notion de criticité des ressources [1]. Sans revenir sur l'intégralité du contenu de ce guide, la présente contribution vise à montrer les principaux points de vigilances identifiés ainsi que les bonnes pratiques à mettre en place dans la réalisation d'ACV s'intéressant spécifiquement aux ressources minérales abiotiques. Elle est illustrée avec un cas d'études sur le germanium. D'autres cas d'études sont disponibles dans le guide sur les ressources phosphore, cobalt et indium.

QUELS SONT LES POINTS DE VIGILANCES AUXQUELS DOIVENT FAIRE FACE LES PRATICIENS ACV LORSQUE DES RESSOURCES MINERALES SONT MISES EN OEUVRES DANS LES ACV?

Différents points de vigilance ont été identifiés comme pouvant impacter la réalisation et les résultats des ACV. Le praticien qui réalise une ACV mettant en oeuvre des ressources minérales doit être vigilant sur le choix de la méthode de caractérisation, sur le choix du logiciel de modélisation et de l'implémentation des méthodes de caractérisation dans les logiciels ACV, vis-à-vis de la sensibilité des résultats et de l'incertitude associées à l'usage des méthodes de caractérisation.

Vigilance au regard de la méthode de caractérisation

La différence de modélisation inhérente à chaque méthode peut rendre difficile l'interprétation que l'on peut faire des résultats car les méthodes n'évaluent pas la même chose :

 Perte de propriété utile des ressources minérales par l'approche thermodynamique : CEENE, CExD.  Utilisation des ressources selon leur disponibilité (use-to-availability ratio 2000). Le praticien devra donc être vigilant à ce que le choix de la méthode d'évaluation soit en adéquation avec les ressources répertoriées dans l'inventaire du cycle de vie. La méthode choisie devra en effet disposer de facteurs de caractérisation suffisamment exhaustifs pour permettre une évaluation du plus grand nombre possible de ressources présentes dans l'inventaire.

Le type de réserves utilisées (économiques, base de réserve ou ultimes) et la source utilisée pour le taux d'extraction (USGS ou autre) peuvent également impacter fortement le calcul des facteurs de caractérisation, y compris au sein d'un même type de modélisation (use-to-stock/use-to-availability ratio par exemple). Un cas illustratif présentant les différences constatées dans le calcul des facteurs de caractérisation du germanium est présenté ci-après.

La temporalité des données utilisées pour le calcul des facteurs de caractérisation peut également être un point portant atteinte à la robustesse des méthodes. Les données actuelles pour les méthodes de type use-to-stock/use-to-availability ratio sont relativement anciennes. Les réserves ultimes sont issues de la thèse de Guinée (1995) et n'ont pas été recalculées depuis. Les bases de réserves ont été collectées par l'USGS jusqu'en 2007 et ne sont plus mises à jour. Les réserves économiques sont actualisées tous les ans par l'USGS, or cas particulier où les ressources sont des coproduits de l'exploitation minière et pour lesquelles l'USGS n'est pas en mesure de calculer les quantités produites (cas de l'indium).

Illustration avec le cas du germanium dans les câbles de télécommunication optique sous-marine

En 2017, une Analyse du Cycle de Vie de service sur la maintenance d'un câble de télécommunications optique sous-marin était lancée par Orange Labs Networks avec le câblier Orange Marine. Afin d'effectuer l'opération de réparation, la production de plusieurs kilomètres de câble de rechange était nécessaire et a donc amené à sa modélisation. La Figure 1 présente un exemple de section de câble avec ces matériaux constitutifs et les impacts environnementaux associés. Le facteur de caractérisation très élevé du germanium dans CML-IA ARD en version RB s'explique par la source de la donnée. Depuis 2008, l'USGS ne met plus à jour les estimations de réserves de base pour ce métal et entre 1995 et 2007 la valeur communiquée correspond uniquement à la quantité disponible aux Etats-Unis. En reprenant cette valeur (500 000 kg), la production annuelle de germanium (58 000 kg /an), les données pour l'antimoine et en appliquant la formule de calcul de l'indicateur CML-IA, il est possible de recalculer le facteur de caractérisation noté dans le paragraphe avec l'équation 1.

(1) La valeur utilisée pour les réserves (500 000 kg) pose deux problèmes. Tout d'abord, elle est calculée uniquement sur le périmètre des Etats-Unis. En 1999, ce raisonnement pouvait se justifier par le fait que la majorité de la production provenait de ce pays. Mais, en 2018, le fait de ne pas considérer les réserves de pays comme la Chine, qui fournit plus de 65 % de la production, est plus difficile à justifier. Le rapport de l'EU sur les profils des matériaux critiques indique par exemple que les réserves prouvées dans ce pays se chiffrent à 3 500 tonnes [3]. De plus, comme pour l'indium, seule une partie des sources d'approvisionnement sont considérées, à savoir ici l'extraction à partir de minerai de zinc. A titre d'exemple, en incluant le charbon et ses cendres comme sources de germanium, les ressources disponibles passent au niveau mondial de 11 000 à 24 600 tonnes [3]. Afin de vérifier l'évolution du facteur de caractérisation, les valeurs 2008 de l'USGS pour les réserves de base de l'antimoine (R'sb), sa production annuelle (DR'sb) et la production annuelle de germanium (DR'ge) ont été combinées avec les valeurs de réserves de base de germanium (R'ge) pour la Chine en 2008 d'après [4]. L'équation 2 donne le résultat de ce calcul.

(2) En considérant le périmètre monde pour les réserves de base de germanium (R''ge), toujours d'après [4], le facteur de caractérisation se calcule selon l'équation 3.

(3) Comme le montrent les équations 1, 2 et 3, le facteur de caractérisation du germanium dans la version RB de CML-IA ARD est très fortement lié à l'estimation des réserves. Entre l'équation 1 et l'équation 2, l'actualisation de 1999 vers 2008 en considérant uniquement dans les deux cas les réserves du plus grand pays producteur (respectivement Etats-Unis et Chine) a fait divisé la valeur du facteur de caractérisation par 15. Entre l'équation 1 et l'équation 3, en plus de l'actualisation des données, les réserves sont aussi considérées au niveau monde. Ceci divise la valeur du facteur de caractérisation du germanium par plus de 2 000, le ramenant sur une valeur comparable à celle de l'argent (8,42).

En utilisant le facteur de caractérisation de l'équation 3, l'impact CML-IA ARD pour la fabrication du câble a été recalculé. Les résultats sont visibles dans la Figure 2. Le cas illustratif sur le germanium démontre la problématique posée par l'évaluation des bases de réserves, d'autant plus lorsqu'il s'agit d'un matériau comme le germanium qui dans la méthode initiale possède la valeur de facteur de caractérisation la plus élevée. La valeur proposée dans l'équation 3 n'est cependant pas exploitable toute seule. Il faudrait en effet recalculer les valeurs pour l'ensemble des matériaux afin de conserver l'homogénéité de la méthode.

Vigilance au regard du logiciel de modélisation et de l'implémentation des méthodes de caractérisation dans ces logiciels

Lors de la phase d'inventaire, les flux élémentaires qui seront utilisés ensuite pour calculer les impacts « épuisement des ressources » sont modélisés de manière différente et de façon plus ou moins exhaustive. C'est le cas des principaux logiciels ACV GaBi® et Simapro®. En effet, le logiciel Simapro® propose des flux « éléments » qui sont issus du tableau de classification périodique pour lesquels un facteur de caractérisation spécifique est proposé selon la méthode de caractérisation choisie. Le logiciel GaBi® propose à la fois des flux « élements » et des flux « ressources », ces derniers ayant des facteurs de caractérisation dérivés des facteurs de caractérisation des éléments qui les composent.

Si on regarde de plus près les facteurs de caractérisation associés aux flux « éléments » implémentés dans les logiciels ACV GaBi® (version 8.7. Aluminium G

Antimony G Arsenic G Barium G G G Beryllium G Bismuth G Boron G Bromine G Cadmium G Cerium G G G G G G Cesium G Chlorine G Chromium G Cobalt G Copper G Dysprosium G G G G G G G Erbium G G G G G G G Europium G G G G G G G Gadolinium G G G G G G G Gallium G Germanium G Gold G Hafnium G Helium G Holmium G G G G G G G Indium G Iodine G Iridium G G G G G G G Iron G Lanthanum G G G G G G G Lead G Lithium G Lutetium G G G G G G G Magnesium G Manganese G
G Molybdenum G Neodymium G G G G G G G Nickel G Niobium G Osmium G G G G G G G Palladium G Phosphorus G Platinum G Potassium G Praseodymium G G G G G G G Rare-earth metals G G G G G G G Rhenium G Rhodium ? ? ? G Ruthenium G G G G G G G Samarium G G G G G G G Scandium G G G G G G G Selenium G Silicon G Silver G Sodium G Strontium G Sulfur G Tantalum G Tellurium G Terbium G G G G G G G Thallium G Tin G Titanium G Tungsten G G Uranium S S S S S S Vanadium G Ytterbium G G G G G G G Yttrium G G G Zinc G Zirconium G G G
La légende est la suivante :

 les cases en vert indiquent que les facteurs de caractérisation sont présents et identiques entre les deux logiciels GaBi® et Simapro®. Les cases vertes présentant un G indiquent que les facteurs de caractérisation ne sont présents que dans GaBi®.

 les cases en orange indiquent que les flux existent dans les logiciels Gabi® et Simapro® mais que la méthode de caractérisation ne présente pas de facteurs de caractérisation correspondant. Les cases oranges présentant un G ou un S indiquent respectivement que les flux existent soit dans le logiciel Gabi®, soit dans le logiciel Simapro® mais que la méthode de caractérisation ne présente pas de facteurs de caractérisation correspondant.

 Les cases en bleu présentant un G indiquent que les flux existent dans les logiciels Gabi® et Simapro® mais que la méthode de caractérisation ne présente de facteurs de caractérisation que dans le logiciel GaBi®.

 Les cases en rouge indiquent que les facteurs de caractérisation sont différents entre GaBi et Simapro pour une même méthode de caractérisation.

Ainsi, la méthode AADP (dans sa version de 2011) est uniquement implémentée dans le logiciel GaBi®. De même, des éléments tels que Cerium, Dysprosium, Erbium, Europium, Gadolinium, Holmium, Iridium, Lanthanum, Lutetium, Neodymium, Osmium, Praseodymium, Rare-earth metals, Ruthenium, Samarium, Scandium, Terbium, Ytterbium ne sont implémentés que dans GaBi® alors que l'Uranium n'est implémenté comme ressource minérale que dans Simapro®. La méthode Impact2002+ présente des facteurs de caractérisation différents pour le Nickel et le Zinc entre les deux logiciels. Le choix du logiciel présente donc également une importance dans le choix de la méthode de caractérisation.

Vigilance au regard de la sensibilité des résultats et de l'incertitude associées à l'usage des méthodes de caractérisation

La réalisation d'une analyse de sensibilité est fortement recommandée en ACV car elle permet d'identifier les modifications apportées aux résultats d'impact en fonction de la variabilité des données mobilisées dans l'étude. Elle permet ainsi d'identifier les données critiques pour lesquelles une analyse plus poussée est nécessaire (ex : distance de transport, quantité de réactif utilisé dans un procédé…) et d'orienter les recommandations ou préconisations qui découleront de l'étude.

En ce qui concerne les ressources minérales, les incertitudes associées aux facteurs de caractérisation des méthodes sont généralement qualifiées par les concepteurs des méthodes comme étant très fortes, mais ne sont que très peu quantifiées ou bien explicitées. Ces incertitudes proviennent entre autres de la difficulté d'estimer la taille des réserves minérales disponibles, des méthodes de calcul propres aux facteurs de caractérisation et des sources de données utilisées.

Les fortes incertitudes dans les méthodes de caractérisation ont contraint certains concepteurs de méthode à proposer un jeu varié de facteurs de caractérisation afin de pouvoir conduire des analyses de sensibilité, c'est le cas de la méthode CML-IA qui propose trois types de facteurs de caractérisation basés sur des types de réserves différentes (ultimes, bases de réserve et économiques) et de la méthode ReCiPe2016 qui propose trois classifications des impacts selon une perspective hiérarchique, égalitaire ou individualiste.

Ces fortes incertitudes questionnent la robustesse des méthodes et l'utilisation de l'ACV dans un but d'aide à la décision. Elles ne permettent pas à l'heure actuelle de fournir des éléments suffisamment robustes pour savoir si les choix technologiques mis en oeuvre ont vraiment un impact sur la réduction de l'épuisement des ressources. Afin d'améliorer la robustesse de ces méthodes, il est donc nécessaire de connaître l'incertitude associée à chaque facteur de caractérisation. En attendant, de fortes précautions doivent être prises dans l'interprétation des résultats ACV.

QUELS SONT LES BONNES PRATIQUES A ADOPTER POUR UNE MEILLEURE PRISE EN COMPTE DU CRITERE RESSOURCES DANS LES ACV ?

Afin d'aider les praticiens ACV vers une meilleure prise en compte du critère « ressources minérales » dans les ACV qu'ils sont amenés à réaliser, la démarche méthodologique proposée dans le guide est présentée sous la forme d'un arbre de décision. L'arbre de décision est basé sur deux questions que doivent se poser les praticiens au moment de la réalisation de leur ACV :

• le praticien a-t'il une bonne connaissance de la problématique associée aux ressources minérales et à leur criticité en ACV ? • le praticien dispose-t-il d'une méthodologie propre pour la prise en compte des ressources et de leur criticité en ACV ?

Si le praticien n'a pas une bonne connaissance de la problématique associée aux ressources minérales, une première recommandation consiste à lui faire prendre connaissance du contenu du guide. Si le praticien dispose d'une connaissance suffisante de la problématique associée aux ressources minérales, il lui est ensuite demandé s'il dispose ou non de sa propre démarche méthodologique. S'il n'a pas de démarche propre, il lui est proposé de suivre la démarche proposée en Figure 3. Par contre, s'il a sa propre démarche, la bonne pratique consistera à comparer sa démarche avec celle proposée par le guide afin d'identifier et discuter les points de divergence et de convergence entre les deux méthodes.

La méthode proposée dans le guide nécessite trois prérequis qui sont implémentés dans une étape 0 :

• Prérequis 1 : le praticien doit nécessairement vérifier que l'ensemble des procédés ayant potentiellement un impact sur les ressources soit pris en compte, • Prérequis 2 : le praticien doit choisir les méthodes de caractérisation qu'il va utiliser par rapport aux objectifs de l'étude, à la durée de vie du système et au regard de l'inventaire des ressources minérales en fonction des méthodes de caractérisation et des objectifs de l'étude, • Prérequis 3 : le praticien ne doit pas mettre en place de règles de cut-off.

Ces prérequis en tête, le praticien peut ensuite suivre la méthode en 5 étapes proposée dans le guide en Figure 3, chaque étape pouvant être approfondie avec des éléments de connaissances présents dans le guide. Enfin, ce guide a identifié certains manques notamment sur le couplage entre les méthodes d'évaluation de la criticité et les méthodes ACV bien que des développements méthodologiques ait permis d'amorcer ce couplage (méthode GRI par exemple). De nouveaux développements sont également nécessaires pour mieux prendre en compte la substitution et le recyclage des matériaux afin de réduire la criticité des ressources dans un indicateur utilisable en ACV. Enfin, l'épuisement des ressources est pour l'instant abordé uniquement selon une approche statique. Or, la détermination même du fait qu'une ressource s'épuise ou non dépend de nombreux facteurs tels que la découverte de nouveaux gisements, le marché des matières premières, la volatilité des prix qui va conditionner l'offre et la demande en ressources, la disponibilité de ressources issues de la technosphère (via le recyclage) ou les potentialités de substitution. Cette question de l'épuisement des ressources se doit donc maintenant de franchir une étape supplémentaire en proposant des méthodes d'évaluation basées sur des approches dynamiques.

REMERCIEMENTS

Les auteurs remercient les membres du réseau EcoSD qui ont participé à la relecture de ce guide et au réseau EcoSD pour avoir financé cette étude.

INTRODUCTION

Mineral resources have been used by humans for the production of goods since antiquity. The diversity of mineral resources extracted has grown steadily since the beginning of the industrial era, closely correlated with the quantity of products containing high-tech elements on the market.

The development of technological solutions, especially to satisfy the energy and digital transition, also leads to increased exploitation of the mineral resources necessary for the manufacturing of these products. Some of these resources have been classified as "critical" by the European Union, i.e. they present a high supply risk in relation to their economic importance. The awareness of the strategic interest of certain metals for the economy, combined with finite resources, led the European Union to put in place methods to evaluate the criticality of materials. In addition, the question of the evaluation of mineral resources as an impact category in LCA has been addressed by the scientific community over the last twenty years without really reaching a scientific consensus.

As part of a collaborative research project funded by the EcoSD network (Ecodesign of Sustainable Systems), a guide of good practices has been produced which aims at helping LCA practitioners to better take into account the criterion "resources" in their LCAs and to better understand the notion of resource criticality [1]. Without going back on the entirety of the contents of this guide, the present contribution aims at presenting the main points of vigilance identified as well as the good practices to be put in place when LCAs specifically focused on abiotic mineral resources. It will be illustrated with a case study focused on germanium. Other case studies can be found in the guide of good practices for phosphorus, cobalt and indium.

WHAT ARE THE CRUCIAL POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN RESOURCES ARE USED IN LCAs?

Several crucial points have been identified that can affect the achievement and results of LCAs. The practitioner who performs a LCA implementing mineral resources must be vigilant about the choice of the characterization method, the choice of LCA software and the implementation of characterization methods in LCA software, the sensitivity of results and uncertainty associated with the use of characterization methods.

Vigilance needed considering the characterization method

The difference in modeling within each method can make it difficult to interpret the results, as the methods do not evaluate the same thing:

• Loss of useful property of the mineral resources by the thermodynamic approach: CEENE, CExD. Moreover, there is a great variability in the number of mineral resources covered by the characterization factors of the different methods. Some methods such as IMPACT2002 + or Eco Indicator 99 estimate a dozen resources while others can evaluate more than fifty (ReCiPe2016, CEENE, CExD, EPS 2000). The practitioner must therefore be vigilant so that the choice of the evaluation method is in adequacy with the resources listed in the life cycle inventory. The chosen method should have sufficiently comprehensive characterization factors to allow an evaluation of as many resources as possible in the inventory.

The type of reserves used (economic, reserve base or ultimate) and the source used for the extraction rate (USGS or other) can also strongly impact the calculation of characterization factors, including within the same type of modeling (use-to-stock / use-toavailability ratio for example). A case study presenting the differences found in the calculation of the germanium characterization factors in CML-IA method is presented hereunder.

The temporality of the data used to calculate the characterization factors might also be a point that undermines the robustness of the methods. The current data for use-to-stock / useto-availability ratio methods are relatively old. The ultimate reserve data come from Guinée's thesis and have not been recalculated since 1995. The reserve bases were collected by the USGS until 2007 and are no longer updated. The economic reserves are updated every year by the USGS, except when the resources are recovered from ore processing and for which the USGS is not able to calculate the quantities produced (case of indium).

Case study of germanium used in underwater optical telecommunication cables

In 2017, a Life Cycle Analysis was conducted by Orange Labs Networks with the cable company Orange Marine to assess the environmental impact of the maintenance of an underwater optical telecommunications cable. In order to carry out the repair operation, the production of several kilometers of spare cable was necessary and therefore led to its modeling. Figure 1 shows an example of a section of cable with these constituent materials and associated environmental impacts. While germanium represents only a few ppm of cable composition, it is the almost exclusive contributor to the CML-IA ARD impact category. In the reserve base (RB) version of CML-IA ARD, germanium is the element with the highest characterization factor (19,472.8 versus 555.4 for indium or 35.9 for gold). In the materials analysis, germanium is well noted Using the characterization factor of equation 3, the CML-IA ARD environmental impact for cable manufacturing was recalculated. The results are shown in Figure 2. impact category for the cable manufacturing (from Orange Group) after revision of the germanium characterization factor to 8.15

The germanium case study demonstrates the problem raised by the evaluation of reserve base in CML-IA method, especially when a resource has a high characterization factor value. The value proposed in equation 3 is not exploitable by itself. It would indeed be necessary to recalculate the values for all the resources in order to maintain the homogeneity of the method.

Vigilance needed considering the LCA software and the implementation of characterization methods in LCA software

During the life cycle inventory, the elementary flows that will be used to calculate the "resource depletion" impact categories are modeled differently and more or less exhaustively. This is the case for the main LCA software GaBi® and Simapro®. Indeed, the Simapro® software proposes "element" flows that come from the periodic table for which a specific characterization factor is proposed according to the chosen characterization method. The GaBi® software offers both "element" and "resource" flows, the latter having characterization factors derived from the characterization factors of the elements that compose them.

If we look more closely at the characterization factors associated with the "element" flows implemented in GaBi® (version 8.7.1.30) and Simapro® (version 9.0.0.31) for four characterization methods, we observe a number of differences listed in Table 1

G Arsenic G Barium G G G Beryllium G Bismuth G Boron G Bromine G Cadmium G Cerium G G G G G G Cesium G Chlorine G Chromium G Cobalt G Copper G Dysprosium G G G G G G G Erbium G G G G G G G Europium G G G G G G G Gadolinium G G G G G G G Gallium G Germanium G Gold G Hafnium G Helium G Holmium G G G G G G G Indium G Iodine G Iridium G G G G G G G Iron G Lanthanum G G G G G G G Lead G Lithium G Lutetium G G G G G G G Magnesium G Manganese G
G Molybdenum G Neodymium G G G G G G G Nickel G Niobium G Osmium G G G G G G G Palladium G Phosphorus G Platinum G Potassium G Praseodymium G G G G G G G Rare-earth metals G G G G G G G Rhenium G Rhodium ? ? ? G Ruthenium G G G G G G G Samarium G G G G G G G Scandium G G G G G G G Selenium G Silicon G Silver G Sodium G Strontium G Sulfur G Tantalum G Tellurium G Terbium G G G G G G G Thallium G Tin G Titanium G Tungsten G G Uranium S S S S S S Vanadium G
The decision tree is based on two questions that practitioners must ask themselves when performing their LCA:

• Does the practitioner have a good knowledge of the problem associated with mineral resources and their criticality in LCA? • Does the practitioner have a specific methodology for taking resources and their criticality into account in LCA? If the practitioner does not have a good knowledge of the problem associated with mineral resources, a first recommendation is to make him aware of the content of the guide. If the practitioner has sufficient knowledge of the problem associated with mineral resources, he is then asked if he has his own methodological approach or not. If not, it is proposed to follow the approach proposed in Figure 3. On the other hand, if it has its own approach, a good practice will be to compare its approach with that proposed by the guide in order to identify and discuss the area of divergence and convergence between the two methods.

The method proposed in the guide requires three prerequisites that are implemented in a zero step:

• Prerequisite 1: the practitioner must necessarily verify that all the processes potentially having an impact on the resources are taken into account, • Prerequisite 2: the practitioner must choose the characterization methods he will use in relation to the objectives of the study, the lifetime of the system and the mineral resources inventory according to the methods of characterization and objectives of the study, • Prerequisite 3: the practitioner must not put in place cut-off rules.

These prerequisites in mind, the practitioner can then follow the 5-step method proposed in the guide in Figure 3, each step can be deepened with knowledge elements present in the guide.

CONCLUSION

The ambition of the guide of good practices is to provide both a structured methodological approach and a synthesis of the knowledge available to date to better take into account the mineral resources in LCA.

The guide puts forward a structured methodology approach represented in the form of a six-step decision tree in relation to the crucial points in this contribution. Each step is based on a classic LCA, focusing on the "resource" criterion. It also provides practitioners with current knowledge on the depletion of mineral resources in LCA methods and the assessment of their criticality. This knowledge is summarized in Table 2 Finally, this guide has identified some gaps in coupling criticality evaluation methods and LCA methods, although methodological developments have made it possible to initiate this coupling (GRI method for example). New developments are also needed to better take into account the substitution and recycling of materials in order to reduce the criticality of resources in an indicator that can be used in LCA. Resource depletion is approached for the moment only according to a static approach. However, the very determination of whether or not a resource is depleted depends on many factors, regardless of the discovery of new deposits, the commodity market, and the price volatility that will condition supply and demand for resources, the availability of resources from the technosphere (via recycling) or the potential for substitution. This issue of resource depletion must now take a step further by proposing evaluation methods based on dynamic approaches.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Exemple de section de câble de télécommunication optique sous-marin et principales ressources contribuant à l'impact Abiotic Resources Depletion (ARD) pour la fabrication du câble (source : Orange) Alors que le germanium ne représente que quelques ppm de la composition du câble, il est le contributeur quasi-exclusif à l'indicateur CML-IA ARD. Dans la version reserve base (RB) de CML-IA ARD, le germanium est l'élément avec le facteur de caractérisation le plus élevé (19472,8 contre 555,4 pour l'indium ou 35,9 pour l'or). Dans l'analyse sur les matériaux critiques pour l'industrie Européenne de 2018, le germanium est bien noté comme un métal critique [2]. Cependant, ceci est surtout lié à sa non-substituabilité avec des indices « Economic Importance » et « Supply Risk » à 1.0 soit le pire score possible, mais également au fait que 64 % soit importé hors d'Europe et que seul 2 % soit recyclé en fin de vie.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Principales ressources contribuant à l'impact ARD pour la fabrication du câble après révision de la valeur du facteur de caractérisation du germanium à 8,15 (source : Orange)

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Démarche méthodologique proposée pour la prise en compte du critère « ressources minérales » dans les ACV

  • Resource use according to their availability (Use-to-availability ratio): CML-IA (reserve base, economic reserve), AADP (2011 version), EDIP 2003, Eco-scarcity. • Resource use according to their reserve (Use-to-stock ratio): CML-IA (ultimate reserves), AADP (2015 version). • Future impacts associated with mineral resource extraction: Eco Indicator 99, EPS 2000, IMPACT2002 +, LIME (1 and 2), TRACI (1 and 2), ReCiPe (2008, 2016).

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Example of materials used in an underwater optical telecommunication cable and environmental contribution of resources to Abiotic Resources Depletion (ARD) impact category for the cable manufacturing (from Orange Group)

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Environmental contribution of resources to Abiotic Resources Depletion (ARD)impact category for the cable manufacturing (from Orange Group) after revision of the germanium characterization factor to 8.15

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Methodological approach used to better take into account mineral resources in LCA

  Par ailleurs, on observe une grande variabilité dans le nombre de ressources minérales couvertes par les facteurs de caractérisation des différentes méthodes. Certaines méthodes comme IMPACT2002+ ou Eco Indicator 99 n'évaluent qu'une dizaine de ressources alors que d'autres peuvent en évaluer plus d'une cinquantaine (ReCiPe2016, CEENE, CExD, EPS

	 Conséquences futures associées à l'extraction des ressources minérales : Eco
	Indicator 99, EPS 2000, IMPACT2002+, LIME (1 et 2), TRACI (1 et 2), ReCiPe (2008,
	2016).
	) : CML-IA
	(reserve base, economic reserve), AADP (version 2011), EDIP 2003, Eco-scarcity.
	 Utilisation des ressources selon leur stock (use-to-stock ratio) : CML-IA (ultimate
	reserves), AADP (version 2015).

  1.30) et Simapro® (version 9.0.0.31) pour quatre méthodes de caractérisation, on observe un certain nombre de différences répertoriées dans le Tableau 1.

	Méthode	CML-IA -UR	CML-IA RB	CML-IA -ER	AADP (2011)	Impact2002+	ReCiPe 2016 H/E	ReCiPe 2016 I
	Unité kg Sb eq	kg Sb eq kg Sb eq	kg Sb eq	MJ surplus	kg Cu eq	kg Cu eq

Tableau 1. Facteurs de caractérisation des principales méthodes de caractérisation pour les flux « éléments » tels qu'implémentés dans les logiciels Gabi® et Simapro®

Table 1 .

 1 . The blue boxes with a G indicate that the flows exist in Gabi® and Simapro® but that the characterization method only has characterization factors in GaBi®.•The red boxes indicate that the characterization factors are different between GaBi and Simapro for the same characterization method. Characterization factors for four methods for « elements » flows in Gabi® and Simapro® LCA software

	The legend is:
	•	the green boxes indicate that the characterization factors are implemented with
		identical values between the two software. Green boxes with G indicate that
		characterization factors are only present in GaBi®.
	•	the orange boxes indicate that the flows exist in GaBi® and Simapro® but that the
		characterization method does not have corresponding characterization factors. The
		orange boxes with G or S respectively indicate that either the flows exist in GaBi® or
		in Simapro® but that the characterization method does not have corresponding
		characterization factors.

•

Table 1 (

 1 next)

	Method	CML-IA -UR	CML-IA RB	CML-IA -ER	AADP (2011)	Impact2002+	ReCiPe 2016 H/E	ReCiPe 2016 I
	Unit kg Sb eq	kg Sb eq kg Sb eq	kg Sb eq	MJ surplus	kg Cu eq	kg Cu eq
	Mercury

Table 2 .

 2 . Synthesis of available knowledge on resource depletion in LCA and resource criticality within the guide of good practices LCA Criticality  Difficulties associated with terminology either used by LCA practitioners and geologists  Classification of available methods  Last available methodological developments  Recommendations provided by researchers and manufacturers

	 Definition of criticality
	 Synthesis of criticality
	assessment methods
	 Link between LCA and
	criticality
	 Last available methodological
	developments

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the members of the EcoSD network who participated in the review of this guide and the EcoSD network for funding this study.

CRUCIAL STEPS AND GOOD PRACTICES WHEN CONSIDERING ABIOTIC MINERAL RESOURCES IN LCA -ILLUSTRATIONS WITH CASE STUDIES

Marilys Pradel is a research engineer at Irstea within the "Technologies of Information Systems for Agrosystems" research unit. She is specialized in environmental assessment of agricultural technology solutions and new waste-based fertilizers using the Life Cycle Analysis method. She defended a thesis in 2017 on the proposal of an allocation method to evaluate the environmental impacts of waste-based products with an application to sludgebased phosphate fertilizers. Since 2018, she works on mineral resource criticality, especially phosphorus used in agriculture.

as a critical metal according to the European Union [2]. However, this is mainly due to its non-substitutability with "Economic Importance" and "Supply Risk" indices at 1.0 being the worst possible score, but also that 64% is imported outside Europe and that only 2% is recycled at the end of life.

The very high characterization factor of germanium in CML-IA ARD in RB version is explained by data origin. Since 2008, the USGS has no longer updated reserve base estimates for this metal, and between 1995 and 2007, the reported value only corresponds to the quantity available in the United States. By taking this value (500,000 kg), the annual production of germanium (58,000 kg / year), the data for antimony and by applying the calculation formula of the CML-IA impact category, it is possible to recalculate the characterization factor noted in the paragraph with equation 1.

(1)

The value used for reserve (500,000 kg) poses two problems. First, it is calculated only on the perimeter of the United States. In 1999, this reasoning could be justified by the fact that the majority of the production came from this country. In 2018, however, not considering the reserves of countries like China, which provides more than 65% of production, is harder to justify. For example, the EU report on critical material profiles indicates that proven reserves in this country are 3,500 tons [3]. Moreover, as for indium, only part of supply sources are considered, namely here extraction from zinc ore. For example, by including coal and its ashes as sources of germanium, available resources are increasing globally from 11,000 to 24,600 tons [3].

In order to verify the evolution of the characterization factor, the 2008 USGS values for the antimony reserve base (R'sb), its annual production (DRsb) and the annual production of germanium (DR ' ge) were combined with germanium reserve base (Rge) values for China in 2008 according to [4]. Equation 2 gives the result of this calculation.

(2)

Considering the world perimeter for germanium reserve base (R''ge), again according to [4], the characterization factor is calculated according to equation 3.

(3) As shown in equations 1, 2 and 3, the characterization factor of germanium in the RB version of CML-IA ARD is very strongly related to the estimation of reserves. Between equation 1 and equation 2, the 1999 update to 2008, considering in both cases only the reserves of the largest producing country (respectively United States and China), divided the value of the characterization factor by 15. Between equation 1 and equation 3, in addition to updating the data, reserves are also considered at the world level. This divides the value of the germanium characterization factor by more than 2,000, bringing it back to a value comparable to that of silver (8.42).

Thus, the AADP method (in its version of 2011) is only implemented in GaBi®. Likewise, elements such as Cerium, Dysprosium, Erbium, Europium, Gadolinium, Holmium, Iridium, Lanthanum, Lutetium, Neodymium, Osmium, Praseodymium, Rare-earth metals, Ruthenium, Samarium, Scandium, Terbium, Ytterbium are only implemented in GaBi® whereas Uranium is only implemented as a mineral resource in Simapro®. The Impact2002+ method has different characterization factors for Nickel and Zinc between the two software. The choice of the software therefore also has an importance in the choice of the characterization method.

Vigilance considering result sensitivity and uncertainties

Performing a sensitivity analysis is strongly recommended in LCA as it makes it possible to identify the modifications made to the impact results as a function of the variability of the data used in the study. It thus makes it possible to identify the critical data for which further analysis is necessary (transport distance, quantity of reagent used in a process, etc.) and to guide the recommendations that will result from the study.

As far as mineral resources are concerned, the uncertainties associated with the characterization factors of the methods are generally described by their authors as very strong, but are only very little quantified or explained. These uncertainties originate from the difficulty of estimating the size of the available mineral reserves, the specific calculation methods used to obtain the characterization factors and the origin of data used.

The strong uncertainties associated with characterization methods have forced some authors to propose a set of characterization factors in order to be able to conduct sensitivity analyzes. This is the case of the CML-IA method, which proposes three types of characterization based on different types of reserves (ultimate, reserve and economic bases) and the ReCiPe2016 method, which proposes three classifications of impacts from a hierarchical, egalitarian or individualistic perspective. These strong uncertainties question the robustness of methods and the use of LCA for the purpose of decision support. At present, they do not provide enough robust evidence to know whether the technological choices made have a real impact on reducing resource depletion. In order to improve the robustness of these methods, it is therefore necessary to know the uncertainty associated with each characterization factor. In the meantime, strong precautions must be taken in interpreting LCA results.

WHAT ARE THE GOOD PRATICES TO ADOPT TO BETTER ACCOUNT FOR RESSOURCES IN LCAs?

In order to help LCA practitioners better considering mineral resources in the LCAs, the methodological approach proposed in the guide is presented in the form of a decision tree.


Morgan Meyer
email: morgan.meyer@mines-paristech.fr

Cornelius Heimstädt
email: cornelius.heimstaedt@mines-paristech.fr

The divergent governance of gene editing in agriculture A COMPARISON OF INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS FROM SEVEN EU MEMBER STATES

Keywords: gene editing, agriculture, governance, European Union, regulation

In 2018, the EU Court of Justice ruled that gene edited organisms "are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO directive [EU Directive 2001/18/EC]". While the EU Court of Justice has established an equivalence between gene edited organisms and GMOs, how have national institutions and committees from EU member states positioned themselves regarding the use of gene editing in agriculture? In order to answer this question, this article examines and compares 11 official reports and position statements from 7 European countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Sweden. The various kinds of issues that are addressed and arguments that are made in the reports are coded into large categories (innovation, risk, ethics, legislation, etc.) and are analysed. The paper discusses the main similarities and differences in terms of how the governance of gene editing is problematized. For instance, while some reports consider gene editing in terms of technology, risk and regulation, others situate gene editing within larger debates about agriculture, intellectual property, ethics, public participation, and the responsibility of scientists. The paper aims to provide a useful resource to broaden debates on the future regulation of gene editing within and beyond Europe. It also calls for an analysis of the objectification of gene editing: how are gene edited organisms rendered tangible, discussable and public via policy processes? How are they tied to national territories, identities, histories or products and how does this (re)nationalizing of gene edited organisms matter within and beyond EU member states?

L'institut interdisciplinaire de l'innovation L'institut développe une recherche de haut niveau conciliant excellence académique et pertinence pour les utilisateurs de recherche. Par ses activités de recherche et de formation, i3 participe à relever les grands défis de l'heure : la diffusion des technologies de l'information, la santé, l'innovation, l'énergie et le développement durable. Ces activités s'organisent autour de quatre axes :

• Transformations de l'entreprise innovante • Théories et modèles de la conception • Régulations de l'innovation • Usages, participation et démocratisation de l'innovation

Pour plus d'information : http://www.i-3.fr/

Ce document de travail est destiné à stimuler la discussion au sein de la communauté scientifique et avec les utilisateurs de la recherche. Son contenu est susceptible d'avoir été soumis pour publication dans une revue académique. Il a été examiné par au moins un referee interne avant d'être publié. Les considérations exprimées dans ce document sont celles de leurs auteurs et ne sont pas forcément partagées par leurs institutions de rattachement ou les organismes qui ont financé la recherche.

The Interdisciplinary Institute of Innovation i3 develops a high-level research, combining academic excellence and relevance for the end users of research. Through its teaching and research activities, i3 takes an active part in addressing the main current challenges: the diffusion of communication technologies, health, innovation, energy and sustainable development. These activities are organized around four main topics: In order to answer these questions this article examines official reports and position statements from seven European countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Sweden. We have decided to focus on these seven countries for they are the only European countries in which at least one official statement regarding the use and regulation of gene editing in agriculture has been published.1

Today the most prominent gene editing technique is CRISPR/Cas9. CRISPR (for Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) sequences have first been described in 1987 and in the 2000s their capacity to "edit" genes has been recognized. The CRISPR/Cas9 technology -often called "gene scissors" -makes it possible to change genetic sequences easier, quicker and cheaper than traditional biotechnology methods and has thus been celebrated as "the iPhone of biotechnology" (Galanopoulo 2016) and the greatest advance in biotechnology since the PCR machine.

2015 is the year that CRISPR/Cas9 made it to the headlines of many academic journals as well as media outlets. The publication in April 2015 of an article on the modification of human embryos in the journal Protein & Cell [START_REF] Liang | CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes[END_REF] raised international concern and calls for a moratorium were published in journals such as Nature [START_REF] Lanphier | Don't edit the human germ line[END_REF] and Science [START_REF] Andriukaitis | A Prudent Path Forward for Genomic Engineering and Germline Gene Modification[END_REF]. From 2015 onwards, CRISPR/Cas9 became the object of wide and rich debates. Concerns have been raised about ethical issues, about economic issues related to patenting, about environmental and health risks, and about the possibility to produce new kinds of weapons. The issues raised resemble the types of issues that can be observed in debates around GMOs and synthetic biology, which generally revolve around ELSI issues, that is the ethical, legal, and social implications of science [START_REF] Baumann | CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing-new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology[END_REF].

At the end of 2015, the first international summit on human gene editing was held in Washington [START_REF] Jasanoff | CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation[END_REF]. After this summit, numerous countries have issued reports or statements about human gene editing, including the UK, the US, Germany, France, the Netherlands, India, Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Various other conferences such as CRISPRcon have been organised (since 2017) in order to address scientific, ethical, legal and policy issues. Gene editing then broke again the headlines in November 2018 when scientist He Jiankui announced that he had modified the embryos of twins via gene editing; an announcement made just a few days before the second international summit on human genome editing in Hong Kong [START_REF] Meyer | Irresponsible research? Dis/qualifying the gene editing of human embryos[END_REF]. As in 2015, the organizing committee released a statement about the use of gene editing in human embryos and many countries and scientific institutions issued position statements thereafter.

While human gene editing has been much discussed and written about, much less has been written on the use of gene editing in agriculture and its implications in terms of governance, regulation, economics, social and ethical issues. There have been, on the one hand, several reports on the topic -for example the report New Techniques in Agricultural Biotechnology published by the European Commission in 2017 -as well as international conferences on the topic, such as Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture -Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation held at the OECD in 2018. On the other hand, only a few academic articles have discussed and examined the wider implications of gene editing. [START_REF] Gutzmann | CRISPRbased gene drive in agriculture will face technical and governance challenges[END_REF] discuss the need for interdisciplinarity and public engagement when reflecting upon the ethics and governance of CRISPR-based gene drives in agriculture. They conclude: "Scientists, social scientists, regulators, advocacy groups, and public audiences have been and must continue to engage clearly and candidly with one another to shape the future of this technology". [START_REF] Helliwell | NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing[END_REF] analyse how non-governmental organisations contest and challenge the wider politics, framings, and power issues in the debate. [START_REF] Holman | A Fractured International Response to CRISPR-Enabled Gene Editing of Agricultural Products[END_REF] has compared regulatory frameworks, in particular between the US, who are moving towards less regulation, and the EU, who intents to regulate gene editing via the "same burdensome regime" than for GMOs. A wide scope is provided by Erikkson et al. (2019), who look into regulations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Canada, the United States and Australia in comparison to the EU approach. They also discuss some of the concerns raised in the aftermath of the ruling of the EU Court of Justice: concerns with trade disruptions, agricultural innovation, and the difficulty to detect and label gene edited products. The present article aims to contribute to this recent and emerging academic literature on the social, ethical, legal and political aspects of the use of gene editing in agriculture. Its originality consists in examining and comparing how different councils, commissions and/or institutions within the EU have addressed gene editing. Such an approach is useful, we hope, because governance and public debates on gene editing occur both on national and transnational levels and since comparisons can reveal the specificities of a given position, and point to commonalities and potential divergences between countries and institutions.

We have selected and analysed altogether 11 texts published in 7 countries (see table 1).

The reports have all been published from 2015 onwards, which doesn't come as a surprise since gene editing rose to prominence in 2015 both within and beyond academic circles.

There is a notable heterogeneity regarding the institutions that have published them: independent councils (i.e. the French Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies, the Danish Council on Ethics); ministerial commissions (i.e. the Spanish Comisión Nacional de Bioseguridad) and intra-ministerial commissions (i.e. the Italian Comitato Nazionale per la Biosicurezza, le Biotecnologie e le Scienze della Vita); as well as scientific institutions (i.e. the common ethics committee of INRA, CIRAD, and IFREMER, the Max Planck Society). While the provenances and forms of these texts are heterogeneous, they were all written in response to regulatory concerns associated with the future governance of -and debates on -gene editing and all include recommendations.

In order to examine the content of these texts in more detail, we have used what social scientists call a "grounded method": we have scrutinized the texts to seek for the various kinds of issues that are addressed and arguments that are mobilised, and we then coded these into eight large groups (innovation, risk, ethics, etc.). To these eight categories we added a ninth rubric: the reports' recommendations (see table 2).

In a second round of analysis, we have examined if and how, in each of these 11 reports, the eight themes have been addressed and what kinds of recommendations they draw. Table 2 provides a summary of the results of our analysis. Some texts take a strong stance in favour of the exclusion of gene editing from current regulation making claims about the negative consequences for science and economy should the EU regulation (i.e. EU Directive 2001/18/EC) not be renewed. This is the case, for instance, in the two reports from Italy. The 2016 SIGA/SIBV report says that it would be a "serious mistake" to qualify as GMOs gene edited organisms with mutations that are indistinguishable from spontaneous ones, and that the "remake of European GMO history" will lead to "a nonsense of logic, a scientific absurdity, a legal mess and an economic damage altogether". The 2017 CNBBSV report, albeit a bit softer in tone, is also clearly in favour of not regulating gene editing, arguing that there are only "minor risks", and that the 2001 EU directive is "inadequate" and that regulation should be "purely product-oriented" (and not process-oriented). In a section devoted to market issues, concerns are raised about "grave repercussions on strategic sectors [...] with an inevitable loss of international market".

The position of the Swedish Board of Agriculture -an assessment of the (mostly negative) consequences of the EU Court of Justice ruling -is also in favour of deregulating gene editing. It stresses that for "many researchers, the ruling is perceived as very problematic." According to the report, many things will be "lost" due to the ruling: "Made investments in patent, staff, research, product development and knowledge", "competence", "competitiveness", "control of plant breeding". Both the positive assessment of gene editing, as well as the negative assessment of the ruling are exemplified by the following quote:

"The ruling will have negative effects on the national economy when it comes to both plant and animal production. It is counter-productive to make it more difficult to use a technique with high precision and with several benefits compared to "older" techniques. Genome editing is a brilliant example of technical development being the most important factor to be able to deal with challenges regarding food supply, resource management, climate adaptation and the environment."

In the same vein, the report of the Danish Council on Ethics holds a position which is largely in favour of a renewal of EU regulations while putting a stronger emphasis on the solution of current planetary crises. A general bottom-line of the Danish Council on Ethics is that CRISPR does not carry more or less risk than traditional gene modification, and that, given this "fact", humanity can no longer "afford" not to use CRISPR. In order to strengthen this utilitarian position, the authors repeatedly refer to the potential role that genome editing could play "in achieving several of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals from 2015". Beyond that, the authors accuse the existing EU regulatory framework of being "paradoxical" while underlining that:

[this paradoxicality] "raises the question of whether it is ethically problematic if the legislation obstructs the development and marketing of GMOs, e.g. those with positive effects, if they are not deemed more risky than similar conventional varieties."

Despite this vigorous argumentation in favour of CRISPR, the report closes with somewhat fragmented recommendations on how to govern gene editing in the future. In these recommendations "some members" (the large majority) of the Danish Council on Ethics provide practical suggestions on how to adapt current EU regulation, while "one member" is granted the space to express that he "cannot support measures to ease the authorisation system for GMOs."

At the other end of the spectrum is the 2018 report by the Comité consultatif commun d'éthique INRA-CIRAD-IFREMER. This report is the most critical, reflexive and analytical in our corpus of texts. The report argues, for instance, that "it is important not to be blinded by short-term benefits but to take the time to evaluate long-term risks" and that an "upstream inclusive and collective reflexion" is needed. It situates gene editing within larger debates about the models and politics of agriculture; it discusses controversies and contestations; and it reflects about issues that are not present in any other report, such as recent developments in the field of agroecology as well as matters of public participation, social justice, and open source. The ten recommendations of the report can be roughly summarized as a call for reflexivity, openness and vigilance (for example: consider the forms of agriculture, economy and society in relation to CRISPR/Cas9; foster interdisciplinary research; discuss about regulation and intellectual property issues). The report by the Danish Council on Ethics is somewhat similar to the INRA-CIRAD-IFREMER report in terms of its scope: both reports are interdisciplinary (and their authors include philosophers, ethicists, plant scientists, environmental scientists, etc.) and they provide a much more systemic analysis than the other reports.

To put it bluntly, we can identify three kinds of reports in our corpus: interdisciplinary/systematic ones (France, Denmark); reports that talk in the name of science and offer rather cautions assessments regarding technological advantages (Netherlands, Germany, Spain); and those with a strong normative and affirmative view (Italy, Sweden).

Similarities and differences within themes

The reports provide a more or less broad view of the use of gene editing in agriculture. They focus not only on the technical aspects of gene editing, but also on risks and legislation. Some issues are, however, present in only a few reports, such as ethics, intellectual property, and what we termed "epistemology" (arguments about the kind, importance and usefulness of knowledge produced). Let us look in more detail at how innovation, legislation, recommendations and the economy have been addressed in the texts. 2:

-The qualifications of gene editing (the theme "innovation") show remarkable similarity, with terms like "simple", "rapid", "efficient", "precise" being used in most reports. 3 -The legal implications of gene editing are also treated in a similar fashion: most reports argue for the need of a "revision" and/or "updating" of current legislation, because there are "uncertainties". Most reports also recommend that legislation 2 We focus on these four themes for they are the ones to which most space is dedicated in the reports. 3 The 2018 French report is reflective about these terms, and even critical about the use of military metaphors.

should be based on products, and not the processes of genetic modification anymore.

-There are notable differences regarding the specific recommendations that are given. On the one hand, there are reports that have a moderate view: they recommend to "amend" and "clarify" legislation because it is "unclear" (i.e. the Netherlands, Germany, France). While these reports argue that legislation needs modification and further reflection, they refrain from saying what kinds of modifications should be done. On the other hand, there are reports that take a more normative stance and argue, for example, that gene edited organisms "should be excluded" from legislation (Italy).

-Economic issues are also treated differently in the reports. First, in the German statements economic aspects are virtually absent. 4 Second, in the reports from Spain and the Netherlands, they are mentioned very briefly, usually in a couple of sentences. Quite frequently these brief considerations of the economic issues underline the importance of using gene editing in order to maintain or improve a particular branch of agricultural production that is historically intertwined with the national territory. For example, the position of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences is that a renewal of the regulation in the EU is needed in the name of horticulture. Third, there are reports, like the Italian, Swedish and French ones, that treat economic issues in great depth on several pages. The French INRA-CIRAD-IFREMER report discusses for instance economic risks and the tensions between the industrial paradigm (concerned with performance and control) and the agroecological paradigm (concerned with protection and cooperation), and the HCB report reflects upon commercialisation, competitiveness, traceability, and consumer choices. In the report by the Swedish Board of Agriculture, the negative consequences of the EU Court of Justice ruling on the economy are evaluated and potatoes, rapeseed and barley are discussed as examples of crops that are important for Swedish agriculture. The 2017 CNBBSV report contains discussions of specific sectors in agriculture (rice, grapes, wheat, etc.) and the strategic interest thereof for Italy. It is interesting to note here that the examples given are always plants but very rarely animals.

Argumentative patterns in relation to GMOs

In addition to the themes that we identified and analysed, we observed that GMOs often serve as a reference frame to make arguments about gene editing. On the one hand, this doesn't come as a surprise since Directive 2001/18/EC is the key legal reference point and since the key question can be summarised as "Should gene edited organisms (GEOs) be considered as GMOs or not?". On the other hand, however, references to GMOs are not limited to legal aspects only. In fact, several argumentative patterns in relation to GMOs can be noted:

1. GEOs are better and different than GMOs: they are safer, more precise, and quicker and cheaper to produce. The argument here is that with regards to the history of GMOs there has been a differentiation and revolution.

2. GEOs are comparable to GMOs: there is no scientific evidence that GMOs pose a risk, they can thus be considered as safe. Therefore GEOs are also safe. This argument relies on the comparability between GMOs and GEOs and -unlike the argument above -upon the historical and technical continuity between them.

3a. GEOs are not GMOs in terms of legislation. GEOs should not be regulated as GMOs. The problem with pace and asynchronicity is put forward here: legislation is seen as "out of date" with regards to new knowledge and new techniques.

3b. GEOs are not GMOs in terms of nature. Since it will not be possible to distinguish most GEOs from natural mutations, GEOs should be excluded from any legal framework. In other words, GEOs' indistinguishability from nature should lead to their unaccountability in law.

An illustrative example for this modular use of references to GMOs is provided by the report of the Danish Council on Ethics. On the one hand, the authors frequently draw comparisons between "20 years of GMO risk assessments" and the "absence of particular risks" of GEOs.

On the other hand, they repeatedly refer to the technical difference of "CRISPR-induced mutations" and "traditional mutagenesis", in order to argue that GMOs and GEOs should not be legislated in the same way. In other words, from the Danish Council on Ethics' point of view it seems possible to separate GEOs as objects of risk/non-risk from GEOs as objects of legislation.

Gene organisms have become, over the past four years, the topic of a wide array of texts: reports, statements, rulings, etc. While some of these texts have been published by scientific institutions, others have been published by ministerial commissions and advisory councils that are involved in concrete acts of doing politics. It is thus fruitful to ask a wider question here: What kind of objects are gene edited organisms and how can we grasp their political dimensions? In order to answer this question, let us consider the following quote by Vytenis Andriukaitis, the current EU commissioner for Health and Food Safety:

"new breeding techniques can help us tackle some profound challenges such as food security, food intolerances, or climate change. Examples include low-gluten, non-transgenic wheat [...] Or potatoes with a non-browning trait and producing less asparagine have been developed through gene editing. These potatoes provide the potential for the formation of acrylamide to be reduced by 60-70% when potatoes are baked, fried or roasted at high temperatures. (This could completely 'save' Belgium fries)" (Andriukaitis 2019).

Gene edited organisms are very specific objects. They bring together not only technological and scientific considerations but also issues to do with consumers and health. They are socio-technical objects. The pun regarding the "saving" of Belgian fries reveals another important facet of gene edited organisms: they are also geopolitical objects. In the reports we have analysed, Dutch horticulture, Italian grapes, and Swedish potatoes have been put forward as relevant issues. Even the call for the "advancement of European science" made in the 2019 report by the Comisión Nacional de is not only an argument about knowledge, but also about politics. In a similar way, the report by the Danish Council on Ethics interweaves its specific argument for a renewal of the EU legislation regarding GEOs with more general references to UN Sustainable Development Goals that might be attained by means of new gene editing tools. In other words, the report translates complex and planetary problems such as climate change and hunger into the less complex (and easier-toimagine) problems of finding the right tools and indicators.

These kinds of entanglements between the technical, the social and the political are particularly interesting to examine and compare. While we have analysed these entanglements across national and institutional positions, there is scope for further analysing national policies in more detail. This could be done, for instance, by looking more specifically at the history and the making of policies in a given country/institution and how different kinds of expertise and scientific disciplines are mobilised in this process. If one moves beyond the neatly crafted world of policy reports and position statements, the picture gets more complex (and would require further analyses).5 This could also entail an analysis of the objectification of gene editing: how are gene edited organisms rendered tangible, discussable and public via policy processes? How are they tied to national territories, identities, histories or products and how, if at all, does this "(re)nationalizing" of gene edited organisms matter within and beyond EU member states?

Given that gene edited organisms raise technical, social, ethical, legal and political issues, how are they to be governed? Our paper has shown that there are a number of similarities, but also a great number of differences in terms of how their governance is problematized. Some reports are the result of a framing that mainly focused on technology, risk and regulation, whereas other reports considered ethics, intellectual property, and societal issues as well. And while some reports considered gene editing in itself, others chose to situate gene editing within larger debates about agriculture, gene drives, medicine, public participation, and the responsibility of scientists. Given that the governance of gene editing can hardly be confined to national boundaries, expertise and policy about gene editing is also very likely to cross national borders. However, this is not necessarily an easy and smooth process: the divergences across positions within EU member states make a synthesis and common view difficult to achieve. Can diverse European policy options for GEOs co-exist and what consequences would this coexistence have? Asked differently: could gene editing become a "European object" [START_REF] Laurent | European Objects. The troubled dreams of harmonization[END_REF], and if so, how? The ruling of the EU Court of

(

  UMR 9217) a été créé en 2012. Il rassemble : • les équipes de recherche de MINES ParisTech en économie (CERNA), gestion (CGS) et sociologie (CSI), • celles du Département Sciences Economiques et Sociales (DSES) de Télécom ParisTech, • ainsi que le Centre de recherche en gestion (CRG) de l'École polytechnique, soit plus de 200 personnes dont une soixantaine d'enseignants chercheurs permanents.

(

  UMR 9217) was founded in 2012. It brings together: • the MINES ParisTech economics, management and sociology research teams (from the CERNA, CGS and CSI), • those of the Department of Economics and Social Science (DSES) at Télécom ParisTech, • and the Management Research Centre (CRG) at Ecole Polytechnique, meaning more than 200 people, including 60 permanent academic researchers.

  Recent responses from policy makers concerning the regulation of gene editing in the field of agriculture have shown remarkable divergences. Consider, on the one hand, the position of the US Department of Agriculture (2018): crops modified via gene editing "do not require regulatory oversight." The US Department of Agriculture considers gene edited crops as innovative, safe, and healthy. Consider, on the other hand, the ruling of the EU Court of Justice (2018): gene edited organisms "are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO directive [EU Directive 2001/18/EC]". While establishing an equivalence between gene edited organisms and GMOs, the EU Court of Justice argues that gene edited organisms can potentially be risky, and stresses the need to respect the precautionary principle.

	•	Transformations of innovating firms
	•	Theories and models of design
	•	Regulations of innovation
	•	Uses, participation and democratization of innovation
	For more information: http://www.i-3.fr/

This working paper is intended to stimulate discussion within the research community and among research users. Its content may have been submitted for publication in academic journals. It has been reviewed by at least one internal referee before publication. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the host institutions or funders.

While the position at the EU level is clear-cut, what about positionings within individual European member states? How have national institutions and committees positioned themselves regarding the use of gene editing in agriculture? Do they have similar views on the issue or are there significant differences?

Table 1 :

 1 Reports and position statements on gene editing according to their country of origin, the institution(s) that published them, the title and year of publication

	Country	Institution(s)	Title	Year; number of pages
	Germany	Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften	The opportunities and limits of genome	2015; 16 pages
		Leopoldina, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,	editing
		Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften,
		Union der deutschen Akademien der
		Wissenschaften
	Germany	Max Planck Gesellschaft	Statement on the scientific and translational impact of genome editing and arising	2019; 4 pages and discussion paper of 29 pages
			ethical, legal and societal issues
	France	Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies (HCB)	Avis sur les nouvelles techniques d'obtention de plantes (New Plant Breeding	2017; 1 report of 60 pages + 12 pages of appendix and 1 report of
			Techniques -NPBT)	69 pages + 21 pages of appendix
	France	Comité consultatif commun d'éthique INRA-	Avis 11 sur les nouvelles techniques	2018; 36 pages
		CIRAD-IFREMER	d'amélioration génétique des plantes
	Denmark	The Danish Council on Ethics	Statement on GMO and ethics in a new era	2019; 28 pages
	Italy	Società Italiana di Genetica Agraria, Società̀	Position document on genome editing	2016; 13 pages
		Italiana di Biologia Vegetale (SIGA/SIBV)	techniques applied to agriculture
	Italy	Comitato Nazionale per la Biosicurezza, le	Le New Breeding Techniques (NBT): 1 -La	2017; 15 pages + 11 pages of
		Biotecnologie e le Scienze della Vita (CNBBSV)	posizione dei principali portatori di interesse	appendix
			Italiani
	Spain	Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y	Comentarios de la Comisión nacional de	2015; 5 pages
		Medio Ambiente (Comisión Nacional de	bioseguridad. Sobre las nuevas técnicas de
		Bioseguridad)	mejora vegetal (NTMV)
	Spain	Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica (Comisión Nacional de Bioseguridad)	Informe de la Comisión Nacional de Bioseguridad sobre la mutagénesis dirigida	2019; 6 pages
			("edición genética")
	The Netherlands	Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences	Genome Editing -Position Paper of the	2016; 6 pages
			Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
			Sciences
	Sweden	Swedish Board of Agriculture	Consequences of the EC-ruling according to	2018; 18 pages
			Swedish companies and research groups

Table 2 :

 2 Arguments made in official textsAll words are direct quotes unless marked otherwise (italics and brackets)

		Innovation	Risk	Legislation	Food Quality	Economy	Epistemology	Ethics	Intellectual property	Recommendations
	Denmark (2019)	simpler; more accurate	gene modification [is not risky] per se; [no] greater risk than conventional plant breeding technologies	[legislation is] paradox[ical] because required risk assessments are too expensive, thus favouring research carried out by large [...]corporations	develop plants that are more resistant to disease, that are healthier to eat, that can keep for longer	problematic if development and marketing is obstructed; [only] multinational seed companies can afford risk assessing their GMOs	new genome editing techniques give rise to new research, however, new research is crucially inhibited by current EU legislation	morally, we ought to use the types of GMOs that could be beneficial; genetic modification is wrong because it is unnatural	[Patents on GMO varieties] led to widespread criticism; farmers [...] are forced to buy the company seeds from the seed	not put obstacles in the way of GMOs based on the technology used to produce them
	France (2017) efficiency; rapid	different kinds of risks assessed; uncertainty; the main risk would be related to the presence [...] of the effectors	different interpretations of EU directive possible; legal uncertainty; grey zone	nutritional quality can be cited	the nature of the products put on the market, the perceptions and reactions of consumers and actors in the sectors are difficult to anticipate to date	in terms of research needs, [there is a] need to reduce some of the existing uncertainties about NPBTs	discussed at length	research on intellectual property in the field of plant biotechnology may be necessary	framework [...] based on both the precautionary principle and a principle of proportionality; in-depth juridical study should be done; case by case
	France (2018) precious tool; possibilities; limits; perceived as more precise, more rapid, easier, [...] and less expensive	environmental, sanitary, agricultural, economic, social and political [risks need consideration]; uncertainties	be active in discussions [...] on regulatory questions; two types of regulatory systems envisaged; legal uncertainty	improve [...] nutriments	render explicit contradiction between [...] competition and [...] the agroecological transition	interdisciplinary; transdisciplinary; common good; public research; co-construction [need consideration]; pertinent tool for knowing life/genes	defence of the ethical values associated to the COV system [which guarantees just intellectual recognition and availability of genetic resources]	be active in open source litigation; benefits of [...] is not subject to CRISPR-Cas9 system patentability of intellectual property; discussions [...] on	10 recommendations
	Germany (2015)	simple; time-saving; cost-effective; more efficient; more controllable	risk is primarily associated with gene drive technologies	legally acceptable in many areas; regulatory consequences for the classification, assessment and approval of the plant varieties obtained by new molecular breeding methods [should be taken]	indistinguishability between GEOs and animals or plants bred by natural processes require new processes for the product-based assessment and regulation of GMOs	only indirectly mentioned in statements about the potentials of possible applications	[detailed discussion regarding] new dimensions for all molecular biological basic research and for potential applications in plant breeding, industrial biotechnology and biomedicine	ethically […] acceptable in many areas	/	applications and ethical or legal problems should not be mixed up or condemned; there should be public debate on the scientific, ethical and legal possibilities of genome editing and on its limits
	Germany (2019)	much simpler; versatile platform for precise alterations	research drawing on new gene editing techniques should be carried out, in order to understand the risks	Directive 2001/18 requires revision and updating	interest to the consumer, such as reduced gluten content	/	enormous potential both for understanding biological principles and for improving human, animal and plant health	it is necessary to develop universal ethical [...] standards with regard to gene drives	ensure license practices coherent applications access to resulting research and equal with freedom of	pursue new and amended legislation

We have searched for reports and statements from all

EU member states, with the exception of the UK as its future membership of the EU is uncertain. According to our search, in only 7 countries reports on gene editing have been published. This does not mean, however, that other EU member states have not reflected upon the issue:[START_REF] Eriksson | The Swedish policy approach to directed mutagenesis in a European context[END_REF] has provided a detailed list with statements and opinions by EU actors that, beyond the countries we identified, also includes Finland; and[START_REF] Svingen | Bringing the Public to the Editing Table: Governance of New Genome Editing Tools in Norway. 4S conference[END_REF] has analyzed the positions of the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board.

In the 2019 German statement terms like economy/economic, market, industry/industrial, commercial do not appear. In the discussion paper from 2015, there is some discussion, but rather abstract, and in relation to GMOs.

If one takes a look, for example, at Germany's agricultural policy arena, one can observe a proliferation of positions that are far from convergent: the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation "welcomes" the European Court of Justice ruling with reference to the precautionary principle, whereas the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety takes the opposite view; at the level of farmers' associations, the conventionally oriented "Deutscher Bauernverband" argues that "CRISPR/CAS-9 cannot be meaningfully regulated with the existing genetic engineering law", whereas an umbrella organization of the German organic sector (BÖLW) supports the ruling.