7. The Committee adopted the agenda for the meeting.
8. Mr. Jorge Gazaneo (Argentina) was elected Chairman of the Committee by acclamation. Mr. Lucien Chabason (France) was elected Rapporteur and the representatives of the following States Parties were also elected by acclamation as Vice-Chairmen: Algeria, Australia, Norway, Pakistan and Senegal.
12. Mr. da Silva Telles (Brazil), Rapporteur of the previous Bureau, presented the report of the eighth session of the Bureau held on 4-7 June 1984. He furthermore presented a report of the complementary meeting of the Bureau which had taken place on 29 October prior to the eighth session of the Committee itself. This complementary Bureau meeting aimed first of all at considering the conclusions of a group of experts brought together by ICOMOS to study the criteria applicable to historic towns and secondly examining the nominations of the historic centres of Quebec, Canada (N° 300) ...
15. Noting that ICOMOS had been unable, between 7 September and 28 October 1984, to process the nominations of Quebec (N° 300) and Salvador (N° 309) in accordance with its normal procedure, the Committee decided to defer the consideration of those nominations until the 1985 session of the Bureau.
16. [...] Jordan and Libya have sent their tentative lists to the Secretariat, supplementing those already received from Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, Lebanon, Pakistan, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United States of America.
[...]
20. [...] In this connection, the Committee noted that Bulgaria and France had just submitted tentative lists of natural properties, which supplement those received from Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, USA and Turkey.
21. The Rapporteur, Mr. Chabason, brought up the question of mixed cultural/natural properties and particularly of rural landscapes, which meet criterion (iii) for natural sites as "exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements". Mr. Chabason described three types of problems connected with such properties. The first was the question of identification of exceptionally harmonious, beautiful, man-made landscapes as epitomised by the terraced rice-fields of S.E. Asia, the terraced fields of the Mediterranean Basin or by certain vineyard areas in Europe. In this respect, criterion ...
25. The Committee examined the nominations to the World Heritage List, taking account of the Bureau's recommendations and of the evaluations of ICOMOS and IUCN for each property. The Committee decided to enter 23 cultural and natural properties on the World Heritage List which are presented in List A below. The Committee decided to defer a decision on four nominations presented in List B below. Finally, the Committee decided not to inscribe the eight properties presented in List C below.
Yosemite National Park
308
United States of America
N(i)(ii)(iii)
In response to the Bureau's request on clarification of the status of the proposed dam constructions in proximity of this property, the Committee noted that the authorities had assured that the implementation of such proposals was highly unlikely. The Committee nevertheless requested to be informed by the American authorities of any developments in this respect which could affect the Park. It also noted with interest that the relevant authorities had the intention to implement a programme to reduce the impact of ...
Sites: Yosemite National Park
Salonga National Park
280
Zaire
N(ii)(iii)
The Committee requested the Zaire authorities to proceed as soon as possible to prepare and implement a management plan for the Park with due regard to creating an appropriate corridor linking the two sectors of the National Park.
Sites: Salonga National Park
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
304
Canada
N(i)(ii)(iii)
The Committee requested the Canadian authorities to consider adding the adjacent Provincial Parks of Mount Robson, Hamber, Mount Assiniboine and Kananskis to this property. Furthermore, the Committee agreed to incorporate the Burgess Shale site in this property, which henceforth would not be separately indicated on the World Heritage List. Finally, the Committee decided that the site be designated as the "Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks" to specify the precise boundary of the property within the entire chain of the Rocky ...
Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis
291
Argentina
C(iv)
Under this name, the Committee decided to include jointly in the World Heritage List, along with Sao Miguel das Missoes, in Brazil (which is already included), the four missions nominated by Argentina, i.e. San Ignacio Mini, Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de Loreto and Santa Maria la Mayor. It considered it would be desirable that certain missions located in Paraguay and Uruguay also be included in the World Heritage List, so that the whole group of monuments might provide a representative illustration of the Jesuit missions of the ...
Iguazu National Park
303
Argentina
N(iii)(iv)
The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Argentine authorities firmly intend to expand the area of the Park and to complete the management plan in conformity with IUCN's recommendations. The Committee was furthermore glad to be informed by the representative of Brazil that the contiguous Iguacu National Park, on the Brazilian side of the river, would be nominated by the end of 1984 so that both parks could constitute next year a transfrontier World Heritage ...
Sites: Iguazu National Park
Mana Pools National Park, Sapi and Chewore Safari Areas
302
Zimbabwe
N(ii)(iii)(iv)
The Committee requested to be kept informed by the Zimbabwian authorities of the possible construction of a new dam on the Zambezi at Mapata Gorge. The Committee also requested the Zambian authorities to consider nominating the adjacent Lower Zambezi National Park in order to eventually constitute a joint inscription on the World Heritage List.
Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena
285
Colombia
C(iv)(vi)
Noting that the monuments and architectural ensembles included in the List were located within the unique natural setting of the bay of Cartagena, the Committee also recommended that the bay be given the best protection possible.
8 COM IX.A
Inscription: The Castles of Augustusburg and Falkenlust at Brühl (Germany (Fed. Rep. of))
The Castles of Augustusburg and Falkenlust at Brühl
288
Germany (Fed. Rep. of)
C(ii)(iv)
Vatican City
286
Holy See
C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
Sites: Vatican City
The Sun Temple, Konarak
246
India
C(i)(iii)(vi)
Sites: Sun Temple, Konârak
Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram
249
India
C(i)(ii)(iii)(vi)
Anjar
293
Lebanon
C(iii)(iv)
The Committee wished that strict protection be given not only to the intra-muros vestiges but also to the building with a central courtyard extra-muros in the east which had been brought to light. It also suggested that the surroundings of the site, where a modern village was being developed, be strictly protected.
Sites: Anjar
Baalbek
294
Lebanon
C(i)(iv)
The Committee, when inscribing this property, expressed the wish that the protected area include the entire town within the Arab walls as well as the south-western quarter extra-muros between Bastan-al-Khan, the Roman works and the Mameluk mosque of Ras-al-Ain. During the discussion, the representative of Lebanon assured the Committee that the authorities of this country would follow these ...
Sites: Baalbek