European Cultural Heritage Strategy for the 21 st century „ Page 46 — The horizontal interface between D and K takes into consideration the maintenance and transmission of heritage knowledge, methods and skills in order to further develop these topics. The bridges between the two are the new information technology tools that connect users to heritage, new skills and new heritage products and services. — The horizontal interface between K and S relates to the sharing of promotion and awareness-raising practices, along with the regulatory considerations pertaining to heritage management. This interface is driven by education and awareness raising regarding heritage rights and responsibilities for stakeholders and heritage values for the young generations. — Lastly, the horizontal interface between K, D and S has the potential to fully implement cross-sectoral and multifunctional concepts of heritage and to contribute to efforts to strengthen European values and identity. — When heritage management achieves excellent results for the three components, separately assessed sectoral measures are very effective. Where heritage management is very effective in one or two compo- nents, but not in all three, the sectoral (vertical) achievements are poorly balanced. The integration objective requires sound evaluation of this sectoral or primary balancing aspect between the three components. — When heritage management obtains excellent results from the different interfaces of the three com- ponents, it can be considered to be very cohesive. This means that the secondary effects of sectoral policies are very positive in their interrelationship. If two components overlap asymmetrically, the effect of one com- ponent on the other is very positive, whereas the effects of the other component are very negative. This is the case of the interface between certain economic projects and cultural heritage, where the interface can be relatively large but not on an equal footing for both sides. Consequently, benefits are not reciprocal. They do not empower both sides, so they cannot produce trust and induce shared efforts, despite their narrowly observed effectiveness. — Where the interfaces are cohesive in a mutually satisfying way, heritage management can produce syn- ergies. Where heritage policy achieves a true balance and high levels of synergy, we can talk about integrated heritage management. — This interface approach implies three directions for integrated programming and an evaluation of cohesion in heritage management. 1. What does the heritage policy directly pursue? This is its vertical direction: it relates to a conventional, linear intervention logic (as represented in a chain: definition of the problem - strategy - goal - action - impact) and results-based evaluation (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance). 2. The horizontal direction comprises two aspects: a. how each heritage sector impacts the others; 
 b. how non-heritage sectors (industry, agriculture, tourism, education policy, etc.) impact the heritage sector and its objectives. 
 3. This approach may be called an overlapping concept of heritage management. This new concept has been adopted in drafting the strategy and can be used at national, local and project level, as well. In the imple- mentation phase, it also gives sound support in evaluating the impact of heritage management in terms of both the vertical and horizontal policy interventions. 
 — The integrated approach to heritage strategy serves two basic purposes: programming and evaluation. — It has an innovative and connective intervention logic that helps in designing heritage policies with more synergetic results (programming) and the draft strategy follows this intervention logic. — It is an evaluation tool with efficient synthesis of assessment results which ensures that evaluation be- comes relevant for medium and strategic levels of decision making. For the time being, the draft strategy does not fully integrate this synthetic concept of evaluation. — The synergetic intervention logic is useful at the strategic level, but is generally relevant as it can be applied at other levels as well. The proposed tool is relevant for managing public affairs where challenges arise predominantly horizontally and solutions depend on synergies with measures in a number of other