Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: In Kenya the County Governments’ allocation of 6.7% of their total budgets to the agriculture sector is just 3% less than the 10% recommended allocation for agriculture as per the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) Malabo declaration.

Q1: is the County Governments’ allocation of 6.7% of their total budgets to the agriculture sector just 3% less than the 10% recommended allocation for agriculture as per the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program ?
A1: In 2018/19, agriculture’s share rose to KSh29.1 billion (6.3%) out of a total of KSh462.1 billion. A 10% allocation would have been KSh46.2 billion.

This works out to a difference of just over three percentage points. 

But the difference between the 2018/19 allocation of KSh29.1 billion and the Malabo aspiration of at least 10% of the total county budget (KSh46.2 billion) works out to a gap of 37%, not 3%.
user
justification: Both figures are incorrect. Even though one is only out by a few percentage points, the other one is hugely different. So it cant be said to be correct. 

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant