Dear Authors:

Thank you for giving your reply to referee’s comments. Both referees gave overall positive evaluations to your manuscript, such that this kind of study is helpful for readers to discern the pros and cons of existing AFOLU datasets. On the other hand, both referees indicated concerns mainly about the clarity of the manuscript, particularly in terms of definition and presentation of forest degradation. I agree that there remain technical uncertainties in the present land use datasets, but still I encourage you to improve clarity of your manuscript. Also, please correct your manuscript on the basis of minor and technical comments as your replies. I’m waiting for receiving your revised manuscript to decide whether it is finally acceptable for publication or not.

Dear Authors:

Thank you for uploading the revised manuscript.
I confirmed the manuscript was improved adequately, for example in terms of the clarity of national and continental scale emissions. I conclude that the manuscript is acceptable for publication. Nonetheless, I found several forgotten subscripts (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O in the caption of Figure 5) and recommend you to correct them by proof reading.