Thanks! I have limited it to AB evaluation
A slight problem with the definition is that Aquaculture can be cited in the AB review (as well presumably as in the Nom File) as a PROBLEM rather than as an "attribute"!!
e.g Palau Rock Islands.
IUCN review "Expansion of aquaculture activities poses a potential threat to the property. A farm culturing milkfish for commercial purposes is located near the boundary within the nominated property It is recommended that existing aquaculture will be managed and monitored under strict control, and that additional aquaculture installations aren't allowed within the nominated property and highly restricted in the vicinity of the property.
So - does this "qualify" Rock Islands for the Connection or not?
You have the choice
a, Include any site containing an Aquaculture mention in its AB review - whether this is positive to the site or not (but of course providing also that it refers to a location inside the core boundaries)
b. Limit the Connection to those sites where the Aquaculture is an aspect of the reasons FOR inscription (traditional practices/structures etc). This is clearly the case for Budj Bim and Nan Madol - in the case of Hortobagy I guess the "artificial fish ponds
" developed from 1914 onwards could be taken as another example of the "its traditional use over more than two millennia (which).. represents the harmonious interaction between human beings and nature.
" - there certainly wasn't any criticism of it or suggestion that it needed to be curtailed. In a few years or so we can expect Trebon to appear on the list - and in its case they are clearly an aspect of its value!
Either could be valid - we have many connections on matters which are not positive for the site ("endangered by...." etc)- this would just be a bit unusual in containing both positive and negative. reasons but it would tell us something about the site and its place within the entire List - which is a reason for identifying "Connections" of course!