SITE SCREENING REPORT · 1 OF 1 SITES · ENGINE a22a65e

Jalisco agave sourcing region, Mexico

20.6600°N, 103.3500°W · 50 km radius · Screened 2026-09-01 04:22 UTC
Sources queried: GBIF occurrence records · Not queried on this run: IUCN Red List threat status, WDPA protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas (see §0)

SCREENING INDICATION · HIGH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One page, before anything else

What we found

We screened a 50 km area around Jalisco agave sourcing region, Mexico (20.66, -103.35).

The screening indication for this location is HIGH. The rule that set it: critically endangered species with occurrence records.

69 species with occurrence records in the screening area carry an unverified threatened status and have recent records; 86 more have only older records.

One of the recent-record species, Leptonycteris nivalis, is a pollination species your agave supply depends on — a potential dependency as well as a potential impact pathway.

How confident are we

We queried the GBIF species occurrence records. We did not query the IUCN Red List of threat statuses, the protected-area database (Protected Planet), the Key Biodiversity Area dataset.

Threat statuses are GBIF's annotation and were not checked against the IUCN Red List on this run, so no species count is a verified figure.

Where a source was not queried, the report shows clearly labelled demonstration values that do not count toward anything.

The main limitation is location: the position is known to about ±25 km, so the screening area is wide and the species list is correspondingly long.

This is a screening indication, not a materiality determination; that decision is yours to make through your own double materiality assessment.

What you need to do

Confirm which mills or municipalities the material actually comes from, so the screen can be re-run at a 10 km radius on a real site — your team, week 1.
Ask the supplier for any environmental studies, certifications or pollinator-protection practices it already holds — your supplier, weeks 2–4.
Commission a targeted field survey for Leptonycteris nivalis in the sourcing area during the flowering season, to turn 2 occurrence record(s) into evidence or retire the flag — a specialist consultant, this quarter.
Request a verified full re-run — threat statuses checked against the IUCN Red List and protected-area and Key Biodiversity Area distances measured — before any figure is disclosed — your team, before report drafting.
Take the screening indications into your double materiality assessment, set the threshold you apply, and record the decision — your team, before the next assessment refresh.
Re-screen this location quarterly against the same coordinates, radius and rule so change is measured rather than narrated — your team, ongoing.

§0

Data sources — status this run

What the pipeline actually did on the run this report is built from. The engine produces this table from the run record; a source that was not queried says so here, before any finding is shown.

Data source	Status this run	Query date	Licence
GBIF occurrence records	Queried	2026-09-01	CC0 / CC BY 4.0
IUCN Red List threat status	Not queried — no API key configured	—	—
WDPA protected areas (Protected Planet)	Not queried — no API key configured; demonstration values shown	—	—
Key Biodiversity Areas	Not queried — out of scope for this build; demonstration values shown	—	—

§1

Site details

Every screen starts by pinning down where, and how sure we are about it. A region-level location is screened at a wider radius than a street address, and the report says which one you are looking at.

Site name: Jalisco agave sourcing region, Mexico
Operational status: Sourcing region (value chain) — not an owned or leased site
Location source: named in the client's report; geocoded to the region centroid
Location precision: region-level · uncertainty ±25 km · screened at 50 km radius
Screening radius: 50 km (region default; owned sites use 10 km)
Reporting basis: ESRS E4 (the European Sustainability Reporting Standard on biodiversity and ecosystems) value-chain scope; TNFD LEAP (the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures' four-step method — Locate, Evaluate, Assess, Prepare) — Locate

§2

Headline and summary of findings

Threat status was not verified against the IUCN Red List on this run, so no species counts toward a verified headline. 69 species with occurrence records in the screening area carry GBIF's unverified Red List annotation as threatened and have recent records (≤10 years); a further 86 have historical or stale records (>10 years). All are listed with the unverified field noted.

HIGH — the screening indication is set by a fixed rule: critically endangered species with occurrence records → HIGH. Record age does not change the indication — it changes the caveat. In total 155 threatened species with occurrence records in the screening area: 18 Critically Endangered, 63 Endangered, 74 Vulnerable. Of the 18 CR records, 8 are recent, 2 historical, 8 stale and 0 undated; the older ones are caveated in §5. A pollination species your agave supply depends on, Leptonycteris nivalis (EN, 2 records, last 2017 — recent tier), has occurrence records in the screening area — a potential dependency as well as a potential impact pathway. A second pollination species, Leptonycteris curasoae (VU, 3 records, last 1949 — stale tier), is in the record set too, but its latest record is old enough that it is treated as historical context, not current evidence.

What this means for disclosure: the client's current report does not mention this region in its biodiversity section. §7 drafts the language ESRS E4 and TNFD expect; §8 says what to do next.

§3

Protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas

Distance from the site to the boundary of each designated area within the radius, with its IUCN management category.

⚠ DEMONSTRATION DATA — NOT QUERIED ON THIS RUN —
EXCLUDED FROM RISK DETERMINATION AND MATERIALITY ASSESSMENT

Protected Planet (WDPA) and the KBA dataset were not queried on this run (§0). The 3 rows below are demonstration values kept so the report's shape is complete. The scoring engine set them aside before any rule ran (3 demonstration findings excluded); they appear nowhere else on this page.

Designated areas — demonstration rows, not measured on this run
Distance	Name	IUCN cat.	Designation	Source
Inside	Jalisco Highlands	—	Key Biodiversity Area	BirdLife International via GBIF
8.4 km	Bosque La Primavera	II	Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna	Protected Planet / WDPA
34.1 km	Sierra de Quila	VI	Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna	Protected Planet / WDPA

On a run where these sources are queried, a site inside a KBA, or within 10 km of an IUCN category I–II area, triggers the ESRS E4 SBM-3 datapoint on “sites in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas” regardless of species findings. On this run neither source was queried, so that datapoint is withheld in §7 rather than drafted from demonstration values.

§4

Threatened species with occurrence records in the screening area

GBIF occurrence records, ordered by recency tier — recent records first. Obs is the number of occurrence records; Last seen is the most recent record's year; Recency is graded so an old record is never presented with the confidence of a fresh one; Verified is the date the threat status was checked against the IUCN Red List. Verified is empty for every row because the Red List check did not run; each row's threat status is therefore an unverified field. Showing 12 of 155 — the full list ships with the report.

Status	Species	Common name	Obs	Last seen	Recency	Verified
CR	Hibiscus rosa-sinensis	—	30	2023	recent	not verified
CR	Oxalis corniculata	—	22	2024	recent	not verified
CR	Cedrela odorata	—	8	2025	recent	not verified
CR	Acer binzayedii	—	5	2026	recent	not verified
CR	Agave valenciana	—	2	2023	recent	not verified
CR	Bletia revoluta	—	1	2024	recent	not verified
CR	Beaucarnea recurvata	—	1	2022	recent	not verified
CR	Arachnothryx jaliscensis	—	1	2020	recent	not verified
EN	Amazona finschi	—	276	2026	recent	not verified
EN	Agave guadalajarana	—	183	2026	recent	not verified
EN	Thamnophis melanogaster	—	57	2026	recent	not verified
EN	Xenotoca melanosoma	—	27	2025	recent	not verified

§5

Why HIGH — and what to be careful about

The indication comes from a documented rule, not a judgement call, so the rule that fired is printed. So are the caveats: they are generated from the record's age, using fixed wording, so an auditor sees the same grading on every site.

Rule that fired

Critically Endangered species with occurrence records → HIGH — satisfied 18 times over, including by recent records of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (2023), Oxalis corniculata (2024), Cedrela odorata (2025). A HIGH is never softened by missing or old data: a stale record earns a stronger caveat, not a lower indication, because an unverified absence is not evidence of absence. The other way round does apply — a LOW or MEDIUM that rests on a source that failed is reported as INDETERMINATE rather than as a clean pass.

Recency caveats (as printed in the report — including any species used in a dependency claim)

Leptonycteris curasoae (VU, as recorded in GBIF occurrence data) has no confirmed observation at this location in over 77 years, with the most recent record dating to 1949. This finding indicates historical rather than confirmed current presence and should be treated as a prompt for site-level ecological verification, not as evidence of an active population.
Campephilus imperialis (CR, as recorded in GBIF occurrence data) has no confirmed observation at this location in over 134 years, with the most recent record dating to 1892. This finding indicates historical rather than confirmed current presence and should be treated as a prompt for site-level ecological verification, not as evidence of an active population.
Jatropha andrieuxii (EN, as recorded in GBIF occurrence data) has no confirmed observation at this location in over 134 years, with the most recent record dating to 1892. This finding indicates historical rather than confirmed current presence and should be treated as a prompt for site-level ecological verification, not as evidence of an active population.
Bursera confusa (VU, as recorded in GBIF occurrence data) has no confirmed observation at this location in over 133 years, with the most recent record dating to 1893. This finding indicates historical rather than confirmed current presence and should be treated as a prompt for site-level ecological verification, not as evidence of an active population.

Threat categories on this run are GBIF's annotation and were not re-verified against the IUCN Red List API; a client run does that verification and stamps the date it was checked. 2 widely cultivated species (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Oxalis corniculata) carry a CR annotation in GBIF that the Red List check would resolve — this is exactly why the verification step exists.

§6

Materiality — screening indication

ESRS asks a company to document the process by which it decided what is material, not only the findings that fed it. This section states what the screen indicates, on what evidence, and where the company's own DMA (double materiality assessment — the undertaking's own process for deciding what is material) takes over.

Dimension	Evidence from this screen	Screening indication	What remains the company's work
Impact inside-out	18 Critically Endangered species with occurrence records in the screening area (8 with recent records); value-chain sourcing, not an owned site. Threat statuses are unverified on this run (§0). Protected-area proximity and KBA overlap are not evidence here: WDPA and KBA were not queried on this run (§0); demonstration rows in §3 are excluded from this indication by rule.	Screening indication: POTENTIALLY MATERIAL. Occurrence records of CR species within the radius are consistent with the scale and irremediability tests that ESRS 2 IRO-1 (the general requirement to describe the process for identifying material impacts, risks and opportunities) applies to potential negative impacts; the rule that fires HIGH is the same rule. Without protected-area sources this is a narrower case than a full run would make, and it is stated as narrower rather than filled in.	Attribute the potential impact pathway: how much of the region's output does the company buy, from which sites, on what land? Severity depends on that share, which the screen cannot see from a public dataset.
Financial outside-in	Occurrence records of a threatened pollination species, Leptonycteris nivalis (EN, 2 records, last 2017 — recent tier), on which the agave supply depends; transition exposure through ESRS E4 scope.	Screening indication: POTENTIALLY MATERIAL. A dependency on a threatened pollinator for the crop's wild genetic base is a potential supply-continuity effect over the medium term. Magnitude and likelihood are not assessed here.	Size it: share of revenue exposed to this region, substitutability of supply, time horizon. Set the threshold your DMA uses and record whether this crosses it. §10 structures that question without answering it.

This is a screening indication, not a materiality determination. Under ESRS, the materiality determination is made by the undertaking through its own double materiality assessment. This output is an input to that assessment. What this section is not: stakeholder engagement, threshold-setting, board approval — the parts of a DMA that belong to the company. The screen records what it contributed and leaves the rest visibly blank, so an auditor can see the boundary rather than infer it.

§7

Draft disclosure language

Mapped to the datapoints and steps the findings speak to; each code is glossed on first use. This is a starting draft for your own sustainability and legal teams to adapt — not legal or assurance advice.

ESRS E4 SBM-3 the disclosure requirement on how material biodiversity impacts, risks and opportunities interact with your strategy and business model, including sites in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas: Not drafted from this run. This datapoint rests on protected-area proximity and KBA overlap, and neither source was queried (§0). Demonstration rows in §3 may not be used to write it. On a client run, WDPA and KBA are queried live and this block reads, for example:
“Our sourcing region lies within [KBA name] and within [n] km of [protected area] (IUCN category [x]). We do not own or operate sites in this region; our exposure is through purchased inputs.” — placeholders remain until measured
ESRS E4 IRO-1 the disclosure requirement covering how you identified biodiversity impacts, risks, dependencies and opportunities: State the dependency explicitly — it is what distinguishes a biodiversity indication from a generic one.
“Screening of publicly available occurrence data returned 155 threatened species with occurrence records in the screening area around this region, including Leptonycteris nivalis (EN), a pollination species on which wild agave depends, recorded most recently in 2017. A second pollination species, Leptonycteris curasoae (VU), appears in the record set but has no record at this location since 1949, and we do not rely on it as evidence of current presence. On this basis we treat wild-agave pollination as a potential ecosystem-service dependency of our supply, noting that the supporting record for Leptonycteris nivalis is limited to 2 observations and that its threat status is unverified on this run.”
ESRS E4-5 the disclosure requirement for impact metrics on biodiversity and ecosystem change: Report the counts, with their basis and their limits.
“Number of sourcing regions screened: 1. Threatened species with occurrence records within the screening radius: 155 (18 CR, 63 EN, 74 VU), of which 8 CR records are from the last 10 years. Data: GBIF occurrence records, screened 2026-09-01; threat categories per GBIF's annotation of the IUCN Red List, unverified on this run. Records older than 25 years are treated as prompts for verification, not evidence of current presence.”
TNFD LEAP Locate, Evaluate, Assess, Prepare — TNFD's four-step method: This screen is the Locate step done with a named data source, and the first pass at Evaluate (dependencies). Assess and Prepare — materiality and response — remain the company's work; the report says so rather than implying it has done them.

§8

Recommended next steps

§7 is what to say. This is what to do — in the order that turns the weakest parts of this screen into evidence, with an owner and a timeframe for each. Timeframes are relative to receiving the report; a client version pins them to the reporting calendar.

week 1 · your team
Confirm which mills or municipalities the material actually comes from
Confirm which mills or municipalities the material actually comes from, so the screen can be re-run at a 10 km radius on a real site.
weeks 2–4 · your supplier
Ask the supplier for any environmental studies
Ask the supplier for any environmental studies, certifications or pollinator-protection practices it already holds.
this quarter · a specialist consultant
Commission a targeted field survey for Leptonycteris nivalis in the so
Commission a targeted field survey for Leptonycteris nivalis in the sourcing area during the flowering season, to turn 2 occurrence record(s) into evidence or retire the flag.
before report drafting · your team
Request a verified full re-run
Request a verified full re-run — threat statuses checked against the IUCN Red List and protected-area and Key Biodiversity Area distances measured — before any figure is disclosed.
before the next assessment refresh · your team
Take the screening indications into your double materiality assessment
Take the screening indications into your double materiality assessment, set the threshold you apply, and record the decision.
ongoing · your team
Re-screen this location quarterly against the same coordinates
Re-screen this location quarterly against the same coordinates, radius and rule so change is measured rather than narrated.

§9

Data sources, licences and limits

Every report ends with this block, because a finding that cannot be traced to its source is not a finding.

Queried on this run: GBIF occurrence records (155 species with occurrence records, 50 km, threatened categories only)
Not queried on this run: IUCN Red List threat status, WDPA protected areas (Protected Planet), Key Biodiversity Areas; their findings are neither confirmed nor excluded. 3 demonstration finding(s) shown in §3 and excluded from everything else.
Citation: Not citable: this run used the interactive GBIF search, which mints no snapshot. A client run uses a GBIF download with a DOI so the exact dataset can be re-opened.
Licences: Commercial reports use only CC0 and CC BY 4.0 records; records under non-commercial licences are excluded and the exclusion is counted. Record mix on this run: not recorded on this run.
Verification: Threat statuses not checked against the IUCN Red List on this run; every species row is unverified.
Queried at: 2026-09-01T04:22:06+00:00
Engine: TraqBio screening engine a22a65e
Comparability: Fixed coordinates, fixed radius, fixed rule, dated data. A re-run against the same inputs is directly comparable with this one, so year-on-year change is measurable rather than narrated.

Protected Planet (2026). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. www.protectedplanet.net
Occurrence data downloaded from GBIF.org on 2026-09-01.
Threat assessments sourced from IUCN Red List. iucnredlist.org
Key Biodiversity Areas data sourced from BirdLife International via GBIF.

Screening-level analysis, not legal or assurance advice. This sample is illustrative. It is not a client deliverable, names no client, and should not be relied on for any disclosure.

§10

Financial exposure — a structured question set

Your annual report lets us say which of TNFD (the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures)'s five financial-effect channels a verified biodiversity finding could plausibly run through. It does not let anyone size the effect, and this section never tries to. Each populated channel ends in the same sentence; the list of data required to size it is the deliverable — it is what you take to your CFO.

No verified biodiversity finding is available on this run, so no channel can be seeded. Verified findings require threat statuses checked against the IUCN Red List (and, for site findings, measured protected-area distances).