Furthermore, we believe that it is crucial for the Red List to address systemic barriers to participation and decision-making \citep{Soaresetal.2023OrnithologicalApplications}. The assessment process requires wider consultations and should improve its alignment with local realities \citep{Tomasini_2018}. This will require the support of regional initiatives for assessments \citep{Bachman_2019}, increasing equal collaboration with experts \citep{Armenteras2021NatEcolEvol}, strengthening national and regional capacities for conservation \citep{ZhangEtAl2023OneEarth}, and communicating with researchers and partner networks \citep{BohmEtAl2022Diversity,CazalisEtAl2023Conserv.Biol.} to enhance the integration and coordination among conservation stakeholders \citep{EcheverriEtAl2023NatEcolEvol}.  This likely involves diversifying how information is incorporated using a broader user base, more inclusive modes of review, and at a faster pace.  A successful example of this approach is the recently implemented Brazilian biodiversity extinction risk assessment system (SALVE; https://salve.icmbio.gov.br), which periodically opens public consultation with Brazilian citizens and non-assessor scientists to contribute to the assessment of extinction risk of national species, resulting in a steady stream of online curated evaluation data in which each contributor is credited.
Fortunately, for some species assessments, the Red List has successfully used improved assessment processes with broad participation, which should be adopted more widely. For instance, the leopard (Panthera pardus) and the Persian leopard (P. p. tulliana) have been assessed with range-wide cooperation of scientists and experts under the umbrella of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group \citep{BreitenmoserEtAl2022}. We also commend the Species Conservation Cycle (Assess-Plan-Act-Network-Communicate) initiated by the IUCN \citep{RodriguezEtAl2022Diversity}, the Reverse the Red program to mobilize national networks and empower communities, and the Centers for Species Survival (CSS) to allow investments in conservation to reach teams of local experts and professionals.

Extinction risk beyond the IUCN Red List

Even if the Red List is substantially improved, we posit that a single standard of extinction risk assessment cannot be effectively implemented for all taxa, especially those with complex life cycles, such as various groups of plants and invertebrates \citep{CardosoEtAl2011BiologicalConservation,Knapp2011PLOSBiology,BergaminiEtAl2019lnbg}. Instead, we believe that it is paramount to consider specific approaches to analyze the extinction risk of different groups of organisms at appropriate ecological, spatial, and taxonomic scales \citep{AndersonMaldonado-Ocampo2011Conserv.Biol.,EnnenEtAl2020BiologicalConservation,Rodriguez-CaroEtAl2023NatCommun}. For instance, reconciling fisheries status with extinction risk remains a challenge in the oceans. While previous studies have shown alignment between the IUCN Red List and fisheries status indicators of commercially exploited species \citep*{DaviesBaum2012SciRep}, inconsistencies remain prevalent across commercially targeted marine species, and diminish the importance of using other available resources (e.g., the FishBase Vulnerability Index; \citealt{MiqueleizEtAl2022Fishes}).
Extinction risk assessments should be conducted using a combination of variables and integrative approaches of multiple factors \citep*{ButtonBorzee2021Glob.ChangeBiol.}, preferably with statistical modeling frameworks \citep{PollockEtAl2020TrendsinEcologyampEvolution}. For instance, spatially explicit assessments based on the exposure and sensitivity to local threats have effectively assessed the conservation status of tree species \citep{FremoutEtAl2020Glob.ChangeBiol.,CeccarelliEtAl2022BiologicalConservation,GaisbergerEtAl2022Conserv.Biol.}, and can be modified for wider use. We recommend that extinction risk assessments should include multiple dimensions of biodiversity \citep{BrumEtAl2017Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.},  such as functional traits \citep{GriffithEtAl2023Funct.Ecol.}, regional habitat threats \citep{Tanalgo_2022}, evolutionary distinctiveness  \citep{IsaacEtAl2007PLOSONE,GumbsEtAl2023PLOSBiology}and current genetic diversity \citep{SchmidtEtAl2023Conserv.Biol.}. Furthermore, it is imperative to explicitly account for climate change impacts that have thus far been proven difficult to incorporate into the Red List \citep{AkcakayaEtAl2006Glob.ChangeBiol.,PengEtAl2023CurrentBiology,TrullEtAl2017ConservationBiology}.
Nevertheless, for most species, the paucity of data may not allow a thorough assessment of their risk of extinction. In this case, it is critical to acknowledge data gaps and limitations, as inaccurate assurance of confidence can also hamper conservation efforts and decision-making. Thus, we suggest that it is critical that assessments make their reasoning more transparent and express levels of confidence in a way similar to IPBES assessments. Critically, extinction risk alone should not be used to guide conservation efforts, as it does not account for species’ ecological functions \citep{BrodieEtAl2018TrendsinEcologyampEvolution} or their relative ecological importance \citep*{Natsukawa_2022}. Rather, conservation efforts should be a part of a comprehensive priority-setting process \citep{CollenEtAl2016Biol.Lett.,MillerEtAl2006Science}. Hence, biological and social considerations need to be considered for conservation practice whenever possible \citep{ShiEtAl2005Conserv.Biol.}, such as culturally important species \citep{Reyes-GarciaEtAl2023Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.}, resource allocation, logistical and financial trade-offs, and the potential for success \citep{JosephEtAl2009Conserv.Biol.}.

Broadening species conservation efforts

Biodiversity conservation is governed by a plurality of values \cite{IPBES2022}. These values, as well as the power-laden processes that legitimize them, should be openly addressed for effective conservation efforts \citep{ShackletonEtAl2023ConservationScienceandPractice,BeckEtAl2021BiologicalConservation}. Thus, the influence of the Red List on the global agenda precludes alternative viewpoints, cultures, regional intricacies, and human communities that will ultimately achieve on-the-ground species protection. Moreover, even if the Red List can be applied at national and regional scales \citep{BritoEtAlBiol.Conserv.2010}, it risks limiting conservation effectiveness if adopted uncritically,  for example, by overlooking nationally endemic species \citep{KrausEtAl2023Conserv.Sci.Pract.} categorized as Least Concern (LC). 
Thus, instead of top-down approaches, we suggest broadening species conservation efforts, where planning and decision-making are rooted in local contexts and integrated across spatial scales \citep{Chaplin-KramerEtAl2022NatEcolEvol}. Furthermore, it is imperative to incorporate and center the expertise, voices, and perspectives of diverse conservationists, indigenous peoples, and local communities across geographies, including the Global South, in decision-making \citep{Ocampo-ArizaEtAl2023PerspectivesinEcologyandConservation}. Recognizing local knowledge, both traditional and scientific \citep{Braga-PereiraEtAl2022MethodsEcol.Evol.}, is also key to developing meaningful indicators of conservation priorities adapted to local and regional realities. For example, a land–sea–people management plan for the Haida Gwaii archipelago in Canada was developed by a multicultural working group consisting of indigenous leaders of the Haida Nation, government agencies, and academics, responding to technically rigorous indicators consistent with the political and cultural values of the Haida Nation and the socio-ecological complexity of the local context \citep{Muhl_2022}