The main objective of this paper was assessing the status of food security in the face of climaternchange and variability in Choke moumain watershed. 100 sample households from five AESs werernincluded in the sampling frame. Household survey, focus group discussion, key informant interviewrnand direct observation were held for collecting data. Basic descriptive statistics were used forrnassessing quantitative data. HFBM and HFIAS were used to determine food availability andrnaccessibility of sample households respectively. The result of the study indicates 56.0% ofrnhouseholds are food insecure and the remaining 44.0% are food secured. The prevale/7ce of food inrnsecurity is more persistent in lowland and valley (AES1) and hilly and mountainous (AES5)rnrespectively. Food insecure households have large number of family, small number of livestock, lowrnlevel of land size ownership, low fertility status and low productivity of cultivated land with sloppyrnand hilly mountainous slope. Agricultural productivity varies from one agroecosystem to the otherrndue to its climatic condition. Both temperature and rainfall vmy across all AESsfrom 1981- 2008rnand the result shows average temperature increase in all sample AESs except AES1 while in thernremaining AESs increase. Whereas, annual rainfall increase in all AESs except AES2. In line withrnthis, the study examined climatic and related factors of food production. Farmers reported that:rnErratic rain fall, dependency on single harvest, drought, land degradation, pest and weedrninfestation, lack of non-farm activity and lack of access farm credit are the more severelyrnconstraints in self sufficiency in food production. However the severity of all the factors was notrnequal in all AESs. The study also shows that, there is a statistical systematic difference betweenrnfood secured and insecured households and utilization of modern farm inputs (chemical fertilizer,rnpesticides, improved seed and irrigation) except the use of improved seed. Decline in water quantityrnand quality and prevalence of disease are also the effect of climate change and variability in thernstudy area. AES1 is most vulnerable by malaria and AES1 and AES5 are food insecured. Thus, foodrnsecurity interventions need to support livelihoods in ways that protect and buffer the naturalrnresilience of households, and providing direct assistance to ensure that households remain resilientrnto the fragile and variable situations in which they exist.rnKey words: Food security, climate change, agriculture, agroecosystem.