The authors reconstructed a country-level energy-related GHG emission inventory in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector from 1970 to 2019. The work is worthy of recognition. However, there are still many aspects that need to be improved. The following are my comments. A substantial revision is needed.

1. In the Introduction section, it is recommended that the description of previous research on energy-related GHG emissions in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector (on Page 2, Line 25-39) be placed before what this research has done (Page 2, Line 18-24). At the same time, the narrative logic of this part needs to be improved accordingly.
2. On page 2, Line 32-36, the description of the two literature (Smil (2008) and FAO (2011)) seems too detailed, resulting in messy data and not easy to understand. It is recommended to summarize and show only the most important content.
3. In the Materials and methods section, the first paragraph (on Page 3, Line 2-9) mentioned that the basic data sources of this study are UNSD and IEA. But the authors used a lot of space to describe UNSD dataset, and did not mention anything in terms of IEA.
4. In the Materials and methods section, the subtitles are disorderly, the paragraphs are chaotically divided, and the text descriptions are repeated. It is recommended to make in-depth revisions.
5. On Page 4, Line 5-6, “The associated emissions of CH4 and N2O were not considered, as our calculations (not shown) indicated the latter would be five to six orders of magnitude smaller compared to CO2, on a per ton basis.” This sentence needs some evidence to support it.
6. As a data article, the uncertainty and technical verification part (Page 4, Line 16-24) seems too thin and needs to be improved drastically.
7. The content of the results section is generally too simple, just briefly talk about the trend and a few simple indexes. needs improvement.
8. There are too many Figures (up to 13), and a lot of information is repeated, which needs to be improved.
9. There are some typos and simple grammatical errors in the manuscript, please check carefully.

The manuscript presents a database of country-specific energy-related GHGs emission inventory for the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors from 1970 to 2019. It provides the country-specific information on the GHGs data and could potentially improve the understanding of long-term temporal trend of GHG emissions for the three sectors. To satisfy the needs of readers and potential users from multiple research background, the description of the data should be improved. In particular, I feel the data organization is not clearly explained and the details of the datasets should be better described. Moreover, the figures and tables should be improved as well. A substantial revision on the format of manuscript (including figures and tables) are needed.

1. The figures and tables in the manuscript are not in good format. Should be carefully edited. Some figures actually provided very limited information and thus should be merged or reorganized (for example, Figures 6, 8 and 13).
2. The text needs improvement as well. Section 2.1 is missing and there are two Sections of Gap filling. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 repeated twice. Please be careful on the text.
3. I feel the description on the datasets (provided as .csv files) is insufficient. The datasets are valuable thus need better introduction. Why were those data fields selected and how were the data organized? What kinds of information could the dataset provide and how can the information be obtained? I encourage the authors to provide more examples.
4. In Introduction, the structure of the source categories should be given clearly. The emissions of subcategories for the three sectors are important.
5. The explanations of the results are too simple. Some specific issues should be included or improved, for example, the long-term temporal trend and its driving factors; the spatial pattern of GHG emissions and its reason; and the species characteristics of emissions. Better explanation would improve the significance of the work.
6. Could the authors indicate the fractions of emissions for the sectors concerned in this work to the total GHGs emissions by country?
7. How are the data obtained in this work for the three sectors compared with other available studies including the IPCC estimates? A more comprehensive comparison should be conducted, if possible, at the country level.