he new global climate agreement due in Paris, late 2015, will most likely be the sum of envisioned, nationally determined, actions. The concept of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) was agreed in 2007 to incentivise developing countries to enhance the implementation of the Climate Convention. A strategic choice for the international policy makers is whether NAMAs should emphasize mitigation or if emission reductions can be a supplementary benefit of pursuing sustainable development objectives. The International Negotiations Survey at the UN Climate Change Conferences shows critical differences among developing and developed countries’ governmental representatives on the primary goal of NAMAs. Yet substantial overlaps exist, which allows for probing common ground to build agreement. There seems to be support for making mitigation a co-benefit of NAMAs. Doing so would take the negotiations toward a very explicit low-emission development trajectory focus for developing countries, which may result in a more effective treaty. It is imperative to stress that mitigation prospects alone will not sell NAMAs to decision makers in most developing countries; the possibility of attracting international financial support to nationally defined development opportunities, with ancillary mitigation benefits, on the contrary, can be sold politically. Greater adherence to a wider development focus of NAMAs, with sustainable development as primary objective and mitigation as co-benefit, may well stimulate broader participation and spur enhanced national ambitions for Paris.